2020 Presidential Election

[JasonEvans]

It is with great sadness that I find myself on January 1st of 2019 opening the 2020 Presidential Election thread. Sigh... the process of running for the highest office in the land is a long one.

For those of you who have not read the previous political threads on the DBR, I feel some explanation is necessary. Under most circumstances, political talk is illegal on the DBR and will result in infractions. However, we do allow it here with one very, very important caveat.

You posts cannot be partisan in nature. This is a thread for dispassionate analysis and discussion. Ideally, no one should be able to tell from your posts if you are a D or an R; if you are Red or Blue or Green; if you are liberal or conservative.

If that sounds like a challenge for you, my advice is simple... stay away!! Infractions are handed out swiftly in this thread and they are typically much harsher than in other threads. I often bypass the "Warning" stage and get right to putting people in time out if they cross the partisan line.

With that out of the way, I welcome all of you to the conversation. Have at it and enjoy!

-Jason "Lizzie Warren is in... and that is a bad sign for her chances. Typically, the strongest candidates wait as long as they can to get in the race. I expect Biden, Beto, Booker, Bloomberg, Harris, and Gillibrand to wait until at least February to join the fray" Evans

[CameronBornAndBred]

-Jason "Lizzie Warren is in... and that is a bad sign for her chances. Typically, the strongest candidates wait as long as they can to get in the race. I expect Biden, Beto, Booker, Bloomberg, Harris, and Gillibrand to wait until at least February to join the fray" Evans

I could have counted at least 10 other candidates that I would have predicted to announce before Warren, especially with all of her talk about how she wasn't interested in running. I think you are correct that the stronger candidates wait; they don't need to jump in so early and introduce themselves.

[weezie]

God help us and save us.

What a dreadful thread to see...:(

[Troublemaker]

It is with great sadness that I find myself on January 1st of 2019 opening the 2020 Presidential Election thread. Sigh... the process of running for the highest office in the land is a long one.

You make it sound like your hands are bound here.

You COULD, if you wanted to, wait until the 10th candidate has announced.

OR, instead of doing it by candidate, you could just set a date like June 1, 2019 for when the thread will be started.

OR, I could just ignore this thread if I don't like it. Which I'll do for several months. Catch up with y'all on June 1, 2019. Maybe. If the midterm thread is still open by then, I might just laugh and call if off.

[PackMan97]

Only Shakespeare (translated from it's original Klingon) could do the first page of this thread justice.


O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of times.
Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!
Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,--
Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips,
To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue--
A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;
Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
Shall cumber all the parts of DBR;
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Jason's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

[Troublemaker]

Only Shakespeare (translated from it's original Klingon) could do the first page of this thread justice.

In Jason's thread-starter post, he also "doth protest too much, methinks." :-)

[dudog84]

In Jason's thread-starter post, he also "doth protest too much, methinks." :-)

I thought you were going to ignore this thread for 6 months. Didn't even last 2 hours. So much for resolutions.

[gus]

Anyone want to handicap whether there's a primary challenge on the republican side? Romney's op-ed seems to indicate it's not impossible.

[mattman91]

Anyone want to handicap whether there's a primary challenge on the republican side? Romney's op-ed seems to indicate it's not impossible.

It could happen, but it would be political suicide.

[cato]

It could happen, but it would be political suicide.

Perhaps. I could see someone who has rock solid support in their own state challenging Trump and then surviving to retain their senate seat 4 years later.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

It could happen, but it would be political suicide.

I could see an R throwing their name in the ring before eventually picking up a third party bid. That would make for fascinating drama over the next, uh, 22 months.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I think some Republicans will try to build out the infrastructure of a campaign organization very quietly in case Trump does not run in 2020.

It is really sad for our country that much as a number of Republicans spent a large amount of time away from their jobs as public servants to spend many months campaigning in 2016, we will now have a number of Democrats spending almost two years campaigning and raising money rather than doing their day jobs. Though I guess some might argue that this is a good thing.

[OldPhiKap]

It could happen, but it would be political suicide.

Maybe, maybe not.

Part of the argument around Bernie staying in during the 2016 campaign, as all will recall, is that the Dems needed a Plan B candidate "in case" something happened to Hillary on the email investigation front. If I was a Republican, I would have to consider -- what are the odds that come the Republican Convention in the summer of 2020, Trump's legal problems look insurmountable? "Individual 1," whoever that is, has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in federal court. Without getting into the various investigations or their propriety, it is not beyond reason to surmise that Trump could be a severely hampered candidate eighteen months from now.

The base is clearly with Trump, and if they aren't shaken off by now there is little that could do it I suspect. But one arguable lesson from the mid-terms is that playing to the base does not equate to electoral success in the general. It's a real pickle for the GOP. (And one the Dems will have to wrestle with too, between "progressives" and "moderates" if I can use those labels loosely).

[CameronBornAndBred]

Anyone want to handicap whether there's a primary challenge on the republican side? Romney's op-ed seems to indicate it's not impossible.

Flake has said that it is a possibility for him.

[Rich]

Anyone want to handicap whether there's a primary challenge on the republican side? Romney's op-ed seems to indicate it's not impossible.


Flake has said that it is a possibility for him.

John Kasich has been a vocal critic of Trump from the right and could probably gather a strong showing of both Dems and Republicans who are more in the middle since it seems both parties are heading in opposite directions further to the extremes. Plus, he's already shown a propensity to run for the office and, presumably, he has the support of Ohio, an important swing state. I could see him making a challenge.

[Troublemaker]

I thought you were going to ignore this thread for 6 months. Didn't even last 2 hours. So much for resolutions.

Oh, I'll be checking out soon (today) but people always read the follow up posts. Get serious :-)

Then you guys are free to grind away in this thread for 23-24 months. Hahahaha, that's absurd.

[PackMan97]

Anyone want to handicap whether there's a primary challenge on the republican side? Romney's op-ed seems to indicate it's not impossible.

I had posted this in an earlier, but it's interesting enough to post again.

An ELECTED President has only ever been "primaried" (that is lost in their party's primary) once. That was Franklin Pierce (#14) who lose the 1856 Democratic primary to James Buchanan. Pierce's appeasement of the south led many northern abolitionists to seek another candidate.

Four other Presidents did not win their primary, but none of them were elected.
* John Tyler who lost the 1844 Whig primary after assuming the Presidency after the death of William Henry Harrison.
* Millard Fillmore who lost the 1852 Whig primary after assuming the Presidency after the death of Zachary Taylor.
* Andrew Johnson who lost the 1868 Democratic primary after assuming the Presidency after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. We was also impeached and *barely* avoided being convicted by a Republican congress.
* Chester Arthur who lost the 1884 Republican primary after assuming the Presidency after the assassination of James Garfield.

A number of Presidents have had strong challenges that caused them to drop out before the nomination was decided. Namely Presidents Johnson and Truman.

In recent history, it looks like Presidents who have a strong primary challenge usually end up losing the General election. I imagine party division is a factor here, hence the strong challenge.

Ford (challenged by Reagan in 1976), Carter (challenged by Kennedy) in 1980, George H Bush (challenged by Buchanan) in 1992 all left the sitting Presidents vulnerable and a party somewhat divided, enough for them all to lose the election.

Nixon (challenged by McCloskey) in 1972 appears to be the exception...and upon further review, I question if he were really challenged in the primary.

[edit] to correct info on Nixon.

[Bob Green]

Nixon (challenged by McCloskey) in 1972, Ford (challenged by Reagan in 1976), Carter (challenged by Kennedy) in 1980, George H Bush (challenged by Buchanan) in 1992 all left the sitting Presidents vulnerable and a party somewhat divided, enough for them all to lose the election.

Nixon won the 1972 election. He defeated McGovern.

[PackMan97]

Nixon won the 1972 election. He defeated McGovern.

updated the post. I need to do my own research instead of relying on the interwebs. /facepalm

[OldPhiKap]

updated the post. I need to do my own research instead of relying on the interwebs. /facepalm

You might be thinking Eugene McCarthy in 1968 against Nixon, although Nixon was not a sitting president.

Turns out, there is a movement amongst some Republicans to basically cancel the primary and declare Trump the candidate. Will likely come to some sort of vote next month when the GOP meets in New Mexico. The Chairperson? Mitt's niece, who slapped Mitt this morning on Twitter for his op-ed against Trump.

So, there's all that. Fun times.

[duke79]

Oh, I'll be checking out soon (today) but people always read the follow up posts. Get serious :-)

Then you guys are free to grind away in this thread for 23-24 months. Hahahaha, that's absurd.



Heck, I'm sick of this thread already! LOL

[golfinesquire]

I have read, in more than one place, that the suspicion is that Pence will take a stab at running against Trump.

[Wander]

Maybe, maybe not.

Part of the argument around Bernie staying in during the 2016 campaign, as all will recall, is that the Dems needed a Plan B candidate "in case" something happened to Hillary on the email investigation front. If I was a Republican, I would have to consider -- what are the odds that come the Republican Convention in the summer of 2020, Trump's legal problems look insurmountable? "Individual 1," whoever that is, has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in federal court. Without getting into the various investigations or their propriety, it is not beyond reason to surmise that Trump could be a severely hampered candidate eighteen months from now.

The base is clearly with Trump, and if they aren't shaken off by now there is little that could do it I suspect. But one arguable lesson from the mid-terms is that playing to the base does not equate to electoral success in the general. It's a real pickle for the GOP. (And one the Dems will have to wrestle with too, between "progressives" and "moderates" if I can use those labels loosely).

That's a great point. It's like drafting a handcuff runningback in fantasy football. They'd never beat out the starter under normal circumstances (and no one will come remotely close to beating Trump in a primary if things stay the same), but if they get injured you're in great position.

[lotusland]

I think Kasich might run. I also think the GOP establishment will forget their Marriage of convenience with Trump in a heartbeat if the going gets tough. Kasich would be the best bet for the GOP to hold the rust belt if Trump drops out. None of Kasich, Romney or Pence will inspire the masses though. Haley is the strongest candidate now imo but I think she has her eye on 2024 and won’t oppose Trump. But if he drops out, she’s the best bet to hold the establishment and the hard core Trumpers together.

The strongest Dem candidate is not running - Michelle Obama.

[JasonEvans]

Just so we are all clear, Donald Trump's approval rating within the Republican Party is supposedly higher than any GOP president in history. Something like 85-90% of Republicans love him. The talk that they will cancel the entire primary schedule and just declare him the nominee is not some idle chit-chat, it could really happen and I doubt many GOPers would complain. All of us speculating about Romney, Flake, Kasich, and the such are likely really off base...

...unless something significant happens (like if some random 74 year old former FBI director were to publish a report with some interesting findings perhaps) that causes Trump's support to crumble. Until that day, I think we are guessing at something that has only a small chance of having any impact on the race.

-Jason "the notion that Pence would run against Trump is laughable... not gonna happen. Pence has been so vocal in his support of Trump, how would he even begin to make that turn?" Evans

[camion]

That's a great point. It's like drafting a handcuff running back in fantasy football. They'd never beat out the starter under normal circumstances (and no one will come remotely close to beating Trump in a primary if things stay the same), but if they get injured you're in great position.

It seems to me that the handcuff running back you propose is already drafted and his name is Mike Pence. He wouldn't need to run against Trump to run on the field if something happens.

[Bob Green]

Just so we are all clear, Donald Trump's approval rating within the Republican Party is supposedly higher than any GOP president in history. Something like 85-90% of Republicans love him.

Can you cite a source for the "85-90% of Republicans love him" numbers? That seems like an over-the-top statement but perhaps I am mistaken.

[-jk]

Can you cite a source for the "85-90% of Republicans love him" numbers? That seems like an over-the-top statement but perhaps I am mistaken.

Check Gallup's polls (https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx) (and scroll down to "Donald Trump Job Approval by Party Identification").

-jk

[golfinesquire]

Check Gallup's polls (https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx) (and scroll down to "Donald Trump Job Approval by Party Identification").

-jk

That may be but my understanding of what skews these numbers is that the percentage of voters who identify themselves as Republicans has been shrinking. Not sure how that plays out in the primaries but someone might think he has a better chance of bringing independents back into the fold and give it a try.

[Bob Green]

Check Gallup's polls (https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx) (and scroll down to "Donald Trump Job Approval by Party Identification").

-jk

Thanks! Those numbers amaze me and I'm a guy who identifies as a Republican and works with a ton of Republicans.

[OldPhiKap]

Thanks! Those numbers amaze me and I'm a guy who identifies as a Republican and works with a ton of Republicans.

Just because they approve doesn’t necessarily mean they want him re-elected:

https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/president-donald-trump-approval-rating-re-election-support-poll-20181203

Although presumably, a very liberal Democratic nominee might not give them a real choice.

[Bob Green]

Just because they approve doesn’t necessarily mean they want him re-elected:

That article aligns with what I'm hearing around the workplace water cooler.

[Philadukie]

Just because they approve doesn’t necessarily mean they want him re-elected:

https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/president-donald-trump-approval-rating-re-election-support-poll-20181203

Although presumably, a very liberal Democratic nominee might not give them a real choice.

The converse is also true. Just because they disapprove doesn’t mean they don’t want him re-elected, given the options. Can’t discount that dynamic. Trump’s base was very motivated in 2016 and likely will be again. But there was another piece: a large group of voters that disapproved of him personally but still voted for him anyway.

The question then is what happens to those voters that disapprove of him personally in 2020? Will the alternative drive them to do the same in Wisconsin, Pa, and Michigan as it did in 2016?

Because policy-wise, Trump has largely delivered on the mainstream conservative agenda: tax cuts, Supreme Court nominees, roll backs on regulations. It seems there’s plenty to be happy with for R’s, even if they strongly dislike the man himself.

Point being: I’m with Jason. I just don’t see a challenge from the right happening (notwithstanding something extraordinary from the Mueller investigation), and I’m not sure approval/disapproval ratings are a reliable gauge of revealed voter preferences anyway.

[gus]

I have read, in more than one place, that the suspicion is that Pence will take a stab at running against Trump.

That makes no sense. He has better odds of assuming the presidency after an impeachment than defeating Trump in a primary and then winning an election against a democrat.

[gus]

That's a great point. It's like drafting a handcuff runningback in fantasy football. They'd never beat out the starter under normal circumstances (and no one will come remotely close to beating Trump in a primary if things stay the same), but if they get injured you're in great position.

I think maybe you mean "you're in a less terrible position"?

[PackMan97]

Point being: I’m with Jason. I just don’t see a challenge from the right happening (notwithstanding something extraordinary from the Mueller investigation), and I’m not sure approval/disapproval ratings are a reliable gauge of revealed voter preferences anyway.

The biggest question is not how much a voter dislikes Trump, it's how much they dislike Trump compared to how much they dislike the Democratic alternative. We answered this question in 2016 with regards to Hillary.

The Democrats would be well served to find a moderate Democrat in the mold of Liebermann or Nelson that will appeal to those who dislike Trump but will see him as the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, moderates don't do well in primaries. Maybe with more "open" primaries and an electorate trending more and more independent, a moderate candidate could make a push?

[camion]

The biggest question is not how much a voter dislikes Trump, it's how much they dislike Trump compared to how much they dislike the Democratic alternative. We answered this question in 2016 with regards to Hillary.

The Democrats would be well served to find a moderate Democrat in the mold of Liebermann or Nelson that will appeal to those who dislike Trump but will see him as the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, moderates don't do well in primaries. Maybe with more "open" primaries and an electorate trending more and more independent, a moderate candidate could make a push?

I would like to point to the new girlfriend/boyfriend effect. In basketball we might know this as freshman potential. Yes, I know I'm mixing metaphors and genders here, but bear with me.

In 2016 Hillary was the old known interest and Trump was the new interest with unlimited potential. In 2020 Trump will be the old, known one. That romantic longing for the new can be significant.

Countering that would be the "my team" effect where a voter would stick with the team regardless of specific candidate. We all know this is significant and decreases the number of "swingers."

How will the swingers swing this next time? At this point I don't have answers, but I expect it won't be at all like a Hallmark movie.

[gus]

The biggest question is not how much a voter dislikes Trump, it's how much they dislike Trump compared to how much they dislike the Democratic alternative. We answered this question in 2016 with regards to Hillary.

The Democrats would be well served to find a moderate Democrat in the mold of Liebermann or Nelson that will appeal to those who dislike Trump but will see him as the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, moderates don't do well in primaries. Maybe with more "open" primaries and an electorate trending more and more independent, a moderate candidate could make a push?

Lieberman? Hahahaha. Democrats would get absolutely trounced at all levels with someone like that at the top of the ticket. They'd lose dog-catcher elections.

Democrats nominated a moderate last time. She lost. I don't think it's about where a candidate falls on the left/right spectrum, but whether the candidate can capture peoples' imagination. Look at the candidates that have actually generated excitement and brought people to the polls - I think that's the likelier model going forward: overcoming the systemic biases against voting by generating significant excitement to actually vote. Nelson and Liberman ain't that. Someone like Beto is.

[PackMan97]

Lieberman? Hahahaha. Democrats would get absolutely trounced at all levels with someone like that at the top of the ticket. They'd lose dog-catcher elections.

Democrats nominated a moderate last time. She lost. I don't think it's about where a candidate falls on the left/right spectrum, but whether the candidate can capture peoples' imagination. Look at the candidates that have actually generated excitement and brought people to the polls - I think that's the likelier model going forward: overcoming the systemic biases against voting by generating significant excitement to actually vote. Nelson and Liberman ain't that. Someone like Beto is.

I apologize, I wasn't suggesting they run or that their personalities were a good fit to running.

On second thought, the Republicans did try it with McCain and that didn't end well...though in his defense, as you said he was up against a candidate that generated excitement and brought people to the polls.

[El_Diablo]

Unfortunately for his dozens of national supporters, Joe Lieberman probably killed his chances in 2020 yesterday, when he formally registered as a foreign lobbyist (for a Chinese telecom).

[Duke79UNLV77]

Lieberman? Hahahaha. Democrats would get absolutely trounced at all levels with someone like that at the top of the ticket. They'd lose dog-catcher elections.

Democrats nominated a moderate last time. She lost. I don't think it's about where a candidate falls on the left/right spectrum, but whether the candidate can capture peoples' imagination. Look at the candidates that have actually generated excitement and brought people to the polls - I think that's the likelier model going forward: overcoming the systemic biases against voting by generating significant excitement to actually vote. Nelson and Liberman ain't that. Someone like Beto is.

Agree that Democrats have elected relative moderates, who have run as moderates, since probably Dukakis. That may or may not change this time, but candidates seem to be more showing off their progressive credentials than hiding them now.

My memory of presidential elections goes back to Reagan-Carter. For better or worse, I think at least since then the candidate with more charisma (by default with H.W. vs. Dukakis) has won each time, whether conservative, moderate, or liberal. That may also change this time in a Trump vs. a Democrat to be named later election.

I think it would be interesting to do periodic polls (starting bi-monthly) of people's picks of the Republican nominee, Democrat nominee, and if there will be a significant 3rd party nominee and, if so, who.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Agree that Democrats have elected relative moderates, who have run as moderates, since probably Dukakis. That may or may not change this time, but candidates seem to be more showing off their progressive credentials than hiding them now.

My memory of presidential elections goes back to Reagan-Carter. For better or worse, I think at least since then the candidate with more charisma (by default with H.W. vs. Dukakis) has won each time, whether conservative, moderate, or liberal. That may also change this time in a Trump vs. a Democrat to be named later election.

I think it would be interesting to do periodic polls (starting bi-monthly) of people's picks of the Republican nominee, Democrat nominee, and if there will be a significant 3rd party nominee and, if so, who.

The charisma test is an interesting one. I suppose it is akin to "which candidate would you rather have a beer with?" Though if someone offered me the chance to pound a quaff with Hillary or Donald, I would have stayed home and sipped some hot tea.

[CDu]

The biggest question is not how much a voter dislikes Trump, it's how much they dislike Trump compared to how much they dislike the Democratic alternative. We answered this question in 2016 with regards to Hillary.

The Democrats would be well served to find a moderate Democrat in the mold of Liebermann or Nelson that will appeal to those who dislike Trump but will see him as the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, moderates don't do well in primaries. Maybe with more "open" primaries and an electorate trending more and more independent, a moderate candidate could make a push?

Well, MAYBE. The 2016 election was essentially won by less than 100,000 votes (the combined vote difference in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, the 3 states that swung the election), despite running a very vanilla and pretty moderate (and fairly controversial and unpopular) candidate. With changing demographics, I'm not sure that they (the Dems) necessarily need to lean even more centrist to win. Put another way, Trump won only 46.1% of the popular vote in 2016, compared with 47.2% of the popular vote won by Romney in 2012 and 45.7% of the popular vote won by McCain in 2008. Clinton got 48.1% of the popular vote in 2016 compared with 51.1% for Obama in 2012 and 52.9% for Obama in 2008.

But if they (the Dems) are going to go with a more progressive candidate than Clinton was (and she wasn't at all progressive), it's going to have to be someone who can draw out some of the support that Obama got. Because they'll need to inspire the progressives in those Midwest states to come out and vote in 2016.

Now, maybe an argument could be made for a Biden/O'Rourke ticket being a safer bet, sort of splitting the difference between getting a Midwest tough guy to battle with Trump in the swing states and an inspiring progressive as running mate to draw out the progressive vote. Though I'm not sure how much that would do for drawing out the progressive support, in which case you're really hoping that Biden can upgrade the Midwest vote (he'd very likely win Pennsylvania at least) without costing any support elsewhere due to being boring (politically at least, he's entertaining outside of politics) and old.

[JasonEvans]

Now, maybe an argument could be made for a Biden/O'Rourke ticket being a safer bet, sort of splitting the difference between getting a Midwest tough guy to battle with Trump in the swing states and an inspiring progressive as running mate to draw out the progressive vote. Though I'm not sure how much that would do for drawing out the progressive support, in which case you're really hoping that Biden can upgrade the Midwest vote (he'd very likely win Pennsylvania at least) without costing any support elsewhere due to being boring (politically at least, he's entertaining outside of politics) and old.

I can certainly see how a Biden/Beto ticket would be attractive, but I think the odds are against the Dems putting two white males on the ticket. The Democratic party is increasingly dominated by women and minorities and the Dems cannot win the presidency without strong turnout in those two arenas. Unless Trump looks dead in the water thanks to a withering Mueller report, the Dems will likely say there needs to be some kind of representation of minorities or women on the ticket.

-Jason "that's why, if she does not get the nomination, I really like Kamala Harris as VP... she checks both boxes" Evans

[cato]

I can certainly see how a Biden/Beto ticket would be attractive, but I think the odds are against the Dems putting two white males on the ticket. The Democratic party is increasingly dominated by women and minorities and the Dems cannot win the presidency without strong turnout in those two arenas. Unless Trump looks dead in the water thanks to a withering Mueller report, the Dems will likely say there needs to be some kind of representation of minorities or women on the ticket.

-Jason "that's why, if she does not get the nomination, I really like Kamala Harris as VP... she checks both boxes" Evans

I wonder if the VP slot would do much to move the dial — either for Democratic voters or Kamala Harris herself? Say Biden were at the top of the ticket, would adding Harris strike core Democratic voters as tokenism?

[OldPhiKap]

I can certainly see how a Biden/Beto ticket would be attractive, but I think the odds are against the Dems putting two white males on the ticket. The Democratic party is increasingly dominated by women and minorities and the Dems cannot win the presidency without strong turnout in those two arenas. Unless Trump looks dead in the water thanks to a withering Mueller report, the Dems will likely say there needs to be some kind of representation of minorities or women on the ticket.

-Jason "that's why, if she does not get the nomination, I really like Kamala Harris as VP... she checks both boxes" Evans

Flip side argument is that if the Dems happen to have white male candidates, it takes away Trump's argument that the election is really a cultural war thing.

Personally, I think the Dems would be best-served by focusing on core competencies instead of what box a candidate checks. A competent, moderate candidate with some charisma and return to normalcy (whoever that is) should be heavily favored against Trump absent some big upswing for him. The further the Democrats stray from that, the greater degree of difficulty they add IMO.

Oh, and economic/trade plans that work for the middle class would be a big plus given the looming bumpy road for 2019.

[JasonEvans]

I wonder if the VP slot would do much to move the dial — either for Democratic voters or Kamala Harris herself? Say Biden were at the top of the ticket, would adding Harris strike core Democratic voters as tokenism?

The VP pick is almost always about finding balance.


Trump was seen as struggling with evangelicals and true conservatives so he picked a Christian conservative in Pense.
Hillary was a woman from the Northeast so she took a man from the South in Virginia's Tim Kaine.
Obama was a young and inexperienced minority so he picked an experienced white Senator in Biden.
McCain was an old, experienced guy with a moderate reputation so he took a woman that arch conservatives loved in Palin.
GWBush was seen as young and inexperienced so he took a steady hand who had been around for decades in Cheney.

Heck, other than Romney/Ryan, and Kerry/Edwards (in both cases, there was a 'pick the attractive young fella' thing going on there) we see nothing but balancing picks for VP in the past 20 years of elections. And while Beto is young to Biden's old, I think the sex/race thing is just too important to the Democratic party.

In the 2018 midterms, Dems took 59% of the female vote, 90% of the black vote, and 69% of the Latino vote. Meanwhile, Republicans won white males by 21 points (60-39). How can Dems ignore the folks voting for them to pick two white males? I get having one white dude to mute some of Trump's dog whistle kinda stuff, but two?!?! I just don't see it happening.

-Jason "I think Beto is more likely to be on the ticket than Biden... even if Beto does not get the nom, I think he will be a leading VP choice and he could put Texas really in play" Evans

[Rich]

-Jason "that's why, if she does not get the nomination, I really like Kamala Harris as VP... she checks both boxes" Evans


-Jason "I think Beto is more likely to be on the ticket than Biden... even if Beto does not get the nom, I think he will be a leading VP choice and he could put Texas really in play" Evans

- Jason "I can't seem to make up my mind" Evans :confused:

[OldPhiKap]

- Jason "I can't seem to make up my mind" Evans :confused:

The first rule about Jason "I can't seem to make up my mind" Evans is -- oh wait, wrong thread.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I can certainly see how a Biden/Beto ticket would be attractive, but I think the odds are against the Dems putting two white males on the ticket. The Democratic party is increasingly dominated by women and minorities and the Dems cannot win the presidency without strong turnout in those two arenas. Unless Trump looks dead in the water thanks to a withering Mueller report, the Dems will likely say there needs to be some kind of representation of minorities or women on the ticket.

-Jason "that's why, if she does not get the nomination, I really like Kamala Harris as VP... she checks both boxes" Evans

I think that the odds of the Mueller report having a major impact on Trump are very slim. Most people already have their opinion formed about him. I keep coming back to his comment about shooting someone on 5th Ave. - it holds very true.

If Biden were to run for President, the VP choice holds extra importance as due to Biden's age, there is a decent chance that if they win, the VP will be running at the top of the ticket in 2024. What box they are looking to check off could matter a lot. Though Harris helps with women and minorities, she does nothing geographically. Beto could help put Texas in play but does nothing for gender or race. VP doesn't have to be locked in until summer 2020 so others could emerge during that time.

I think that the relationship between the more progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic Party is going to be a huge issue. They have to avoid infighting and unify behind an Anyone But Trump/lesser of two evils plan. I think a more moderate candidate, particularly at the top of the ticket, will play better nationally, but the primary process might make that difficult.

[JasonEvans]

- Jason "I can't seem to make up my mind" Evans :confused:

No, this was my subtle way of saying I don't think Biden will get the nomination and I think the only white male who has a good shot at it is Beto. I was saying that when Harris or Booker or Gillibrand or whoever does get the nomination, Beto will look like a very attractive running mate.

[OldPhiKap]

No, this was my subtle way of saying I don't think Biden will get the nomination and I think the only white male who has a good shot at it is Beto. I was saying that when Harris or Booker or Gillibrand or whoever does get the nomination, Beto will look like a very attractive running mate.

And I would not discount the chance that it is Beto who is picking the running mate. I['m not sure how many of you watched his debates or have seen his speeches -- he is the real deal when it comes to old-time political stumping and speaking.

So maybe Uncle Joe will be VP again, who knows.

But I do think Joe is in the mix, as well as Harris and Klobuchar (if she can get some early traction). I just don't see Booker, Warren or Bernie getting far. Don't know enough about Castro, he was once hyped as the next big thing but Beto may have eclipsed him (and they're both from Texas). Have not seen enough of Gillibrand to judge, although her work in a NY law firm representing Phillip Morris in litigation and ties to Andrew Cuomo is gonna make it hard for her to please any wing of the party it seems to me.

[Rich]

And I would not discount the chance that it is Beto who is picking the running mate. I['m not sure how many of you watched his debates or have seen his speeches -- he is the real deal when it comes to old-time political stumping and speaking.

I'll take someone who's got a ton of experience in politics without too much baggage and is a middle of the road policy wonk who knows how to compromise in order to get things done. I'm sure I'm in the minority.

[OldPhiKap]

I'll take someone who's got a ton of experience in politics without too much baggage and is a middle of the road policy wonk who knows how to compromise in order to get things done. I'm sure I'm in the minority.

I'm with you in this cycle -- but my preferred candidates never win in either party. Still riding the Tsongas Tsunami here.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I'll take someone who's got a ton of experience in politics without too much baggage and is a middle of the road policy wonk who knows how to compromise in order to get things done. I'm sure I'm in the minority.

I completely agree with your ideal candidate description and I think many others do too but unfortunately I think that ship has sailed.

[OldPhiKap]

I'm tanned, rested and ready.

Just sayin'

[camion]

I'll take someone who's got a ton of experience in politics without too much baggage and is a middle of the road policy wonk who knows how to compromise in order to get things done. I'm sure I'm in the minority.

Sadly in this day and age experience is roughly equivalent to baggage. (Depends on who is counting; your baggage may vary.)

[JNort]

So are we of the mind to say Bernie won't run again? He was close last time and probably would have beaten Trump in 2016 if Hillary wouldn't have gotten the bid over him. I have a feeling there won't be many "fence sitters" this go around and that spells disaster for Trump. His followers will no doubt flock to the polls again but the biggest difference were the Hillary opposers who just wanted Trump over her but not necessarily Trump himself. Bernie is well loved but might be too old in 2020 but would make a fine VP for somebody.


Beto to me is the most interesting, I've only seen a small amount of him but he does seem to have an "it" factor that grabs more moderate people. With as close as he was to taking down Cruz in Texas of all places I think he stands a great chance at taking the presidency.

[lotusland]

I'm with you in this cycle -- but my preferred candidates never win in either party. Still riding the Tsongas Tsunami here.

HAHAHA I also voted for Paul Tsongas in the 92 Primary. Unfortunately he died in 1997 so, had he won election to a second term, he would have died in office. I remember a friend told me he couldn’t vote for Tsongas because he sounded like Elmer Fudd.

[JasonEvans]

So are we of the mind to say Bernie won't run again? He was close last time and probably would have beaten Trump in 2016 if Hillary wouldn't have gotten the bid over him. I have a feeling there won't be many "fence sitters" this go around and that spells disaster for Trump. His followers will no doubt flock to the polls again but the biggest difference were the Hillary opposers who just wanted Trump over her but not necessarily Trump himself. Bernie is well loved but might be too old in 2020 but would make a fine VP for somebody.

I expect Bernie to run again, but I don't think he has a great shot at it. There are younger, sexier, more electable standard bearers for the progressive wing of the party, starting with Beto.

If they miss out on the top of the ticket, Bernie and Biden (someone else mentioned him) will not be in the VP conversation. Biden doesn't want to do that again and Bernie has too much baggage.

I am far from convinced that Bernie would have beaten Trump. Yes, it is possible**, but I don't take it as some given the way many others do. Bernie would have been attacked pretty thoroughly for being a Socialist. There are Republicans who stayed home or who voted for someone else instead of Trump who would have been much more worried about Bernie than they were about Hillary.

-Jason "** - Trump won by such a small margin that any change could have tipped the election, heck, a different weather forecast in the midwest could have tipped it" Evans

[Wander]

Cory Booker will be the nominee. He meets every tactical requirement discussed so far in this thread, and (in contrast to say, Elizabeth Warren) has a good strategic mind for politics. I don't have a prediction for VP, although I generally agree with JE's point that most candidates take the philosophy of "balancing" the ticket somehow.

[gus]

HAHAHA I also voted for Paul Tsongas in the 92 Primary. Unfortunately he died in 1997 so, had he won election to a second term, he would have died in office. I remember a friend told me he couldn’t vote for Tsongas because he sounded like Elmer Fudd.

I momentarily confused Paul Tsongas and (senator) Paul Simon and thought abouth this SNL Sketch (https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/democratic-debate/2859797).

[Mike Corey]

At least two major questions we’ll get answers to in ‘19 that will make it very difficult to reliably handicap the presidential race in the interim:

1) What will a wavering economy be doing come December?
2) Will Donald Trump still occupy the White House?

[CameronBornAndBred]

Let's pretend at least one Republican does jump in to the race. When does that happen? Does that candidate wait til the summer, or even later to announce, or do they get their name in the ring at the same time as the majority of Dems?
Whoever does decide to take that plunge is going to face a daily barrage of name calling from Trump, so which is the better strategy?

If it were me, I'd wait as long as I possibly could. See how the economy goes, see if prognostications of an economic slowdown bear truth, and wait for the Mueller investigation draws to a close. More weapons then for the political armory.

[Wander]

If it were me, I'd wait as long as I possibly could. See how the economy goes, see if prognostications of an economic slowdown bear truth, and wait for the Mueller investigation draws to a close. More weapons then for the political armory.

IMO, there is literally nothing – yes, I mean actually literally – that the Mueller investigation could report that would cause Trump to not win a Republican primary in a huge landslide.

[OldPhiKap]

Let's pretend at least one Republican does jump in to the race. When does that happen? Does that candidate wait til the summer, or even later to announce, or do they get their name in the ring at the same time as the majority of Dems?
Whoever does decide to take that plunge is going to face a daily barrage of name calling from Trump, so which is the better strategy?

If it were me, I'd wait as long as I possibly could. See how the economy goes, see if prognostications of an economic slowdown bear truth, and wait for the Mueller investigation draws to a close. More weapons then for the political armory.

I don't know when they would announce, good question and you've raised a great strategy question too. As a practical matter, though, I assume one would at least need to form an exploratory committee, start raising money, and start laying a ground game in Iowa slash New Hampster in the next two months. So if there are rumblings of a challenge, that should be somewhat imminent.

(Dems, for example, are currently hiring and interviewing staff; planning trips to early primary states; and floating their names amongst the donor class).

[BandAlum83]

Anyone want to handicap whether there's a primary challenge on the republican side? Romney's op-ed seems to indicate it's not impossible.

Anyone want to handicap the possibility that Trump won't run for re-election? There are myriad reasons why this is a real possibility.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Anyone want to handicap the possibility that Trump won't run for re-election? There are myriad reasons why this is a real possibility.

I mentioned on another thread that if he can somehow spin it as a victory ("I have accomplished everything I said I would" or some such thing) I would not be surprised at all. I don't think he enjoys the job, to be honest. Though, I do not really know who would. It's a crap job for pretty much anyone.

[BandAlum83]

I mentioned on another thread that if he can somehow spin it as a victory ("I have accomplished everything I said I would" or some such thing) I would not be surprised at all. I don't think he enjoys the job, to be honest. Though, I do not really know who would. It's a crap job for pretty much anyone.

You have certainly identified one possible scenario for him to not run.

[El_Diablo]

I don't know when they would announce, good question and you've raised a great strategy question too. As a practical matter, though, I assume one would at least need to form an exploratory committee, start raising money, and start laying a ground game in Iowa slash New Hampster in the next two months. So if there are rumblings of a challenge, that should be somewhat imminent.

(Dems, for example, are currently hiring and interviewing staff; planning trips to early primary states; and floating their names amongst the donor class).

I think Romney could announce really late in the process and have no problem raising money or putting together a staff and viable ground game. Someone like Kasich or Flake would probably need a somewhat longer runway, but even then I think an early summer announcement would leave plenty of time for one of them to mount a decent challenge.

[BandAlum83]

What is the over/under for declared Democratic candidates?

I'm guessing 18.5, but that seems outlandishly and absurdly high. Republicans had 16 in 2016. Can the Democrats beat that? I think there is a real possibility it could go over 20. We live in different times, and with the moderate/progressive schism in the party, the aging party members whose place in line may have passed, and a wide open field, I think I would take the over at 18.5.

Is there an actual line in Vegas for this?

[howardlander]

IMO, there is literally nothing – yes, I mean actually literally – that the Mueller investigation could report that would cause Trump to not win a Republican primary in a huge landslide.

What if he is indicted as the result of Mueller's investigation? I do think that would change some minds.

[OldPhiKap]

Anyone want to handicap the possibility that Trump won't run for re-election? There are myriad reasons why this is a real possibility.


I mentioned on another thread that if he can somehow spin it as a victory ("I have accomplished everything I said I would" or some such thing) I would not be surprised at all. I don't think he enjoys the job, to be honest. Though, I do not really know who would. It's a crap job for pretty much anyone.

Counter-point: Per DOJ guidelines, they cannot indict a sitting president. Putting aside that it is un untested legal conclusion, it is the one generally guiding things now. The day he leaves office, though, "Individual 1"'s status as a mere unindicted co-conspirator could change. He may want to put off a return to civilian life for as long as he can. It is untested as to whether the statute of limitations would be extended by a second term, and arguably the statute of limitations for the matters for which Cohen pleaded guilty (I am told) runs in 2021 or so.

(Note: not arguing the merits of the potential charges obviously).

[BandAlum83]

What if he is indicted as the result of Mueller's investigation? I do think that would change some minds.

The justice department take the position, as a matter of policy, that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Some say it would be unconstitutional. A sealed indictment could be filed against Trump that could/would be unsealed once he leaves office, but we wouldn’t know about it. In essence, Trump is an unidicted co-conspirator with Michael Cohen right now. It is possible the justice department has a sealed count against Trump for that right now, but I doubt it.

The constitutionality of indicting a sting president is unsettled law as it has never been heard by the Supreme Court (or any court for that matter). The US Justice department will not test this. So the Mueller investigation won’t produce indictments that we know about. Indeed, the Atty General will have the authority and ability to bury the results of the investigation and keep the report from congress and the American people. We may never know what is in the report.

OTOH, the State of New York has a few investigations going right now that put the president at criminal risk. New York could, potentially, be the ones to test the indictment of a Sitting president if they find something. It is not out of the realm of possibility.

Interesting times, indeed.

[JasonEvans]

IMO, there is literally nothing – yes, I mean actually literally – that the Mueller investigation could report that would cause Trump to not win a Republican primary in a huge landslide.

Dissent.

We have no idea... I mean it, no clue... what evidence Mueller has at his disposal. It is entirely possible (and even likely) that Sergey Kislyak's phone was monitored at all times by US Intelligence during meetings with Jared Kushner, Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn and others. It is fairly likely that Flynn and/or Rick Gates were wearing a wire at various times when they spoke to Trump and others after they turned State's evidence (but before that was revealed in court). We don't know what business records/emails Mueller has or is getting (pending Supreme Court decision) from Russian companies, the Trump Organization, or foreign banks.

Look, I am not a conspiracy theorist and I strongly suspect the gleeful dreams of the liberal left when it comes to Trump's alleged crimes will never be proven (and are probably not real anyway), but I think it is at least possible Mueller will come out with some really damaging stuff .

So, the question is does it move the needle among Trump supporters. Something like 38-42% of the country supports him. If some damaging allegations are leveled (with strong supporting evidence) by Mueller I could see that dropping to the low 30s. At that point, even though most Republicans like him, he would begin to appear unelectable... and elect-ability really matters when it comes to picking the nominee (I think it may be the single most important factor). If Trump appears doomed in 2020, you can bet that there will at least be rumblings of picking someone who has a better chance. Even if GOP voters still love him, they won't pick him if a significantly more electable candidate emerges.

-Jason "to be clear, I am not saying I believe any of this will happen, I'm just saying the scenario is not impossible to imagine" Evans

[JasonEvans]

What is the over/under for declared Democratic candidates?

I'm guessing 18.5, but that seems outlandishly and absurdly high. Republicans had 16 in 2016. Can the Democrats beat that? I think there is a real possibility it could go over 20. We live in different times, and with the moderate/progressive schism in the party, the aging party members whose place in line may have passed, and a wide open field, I think I would take the over at 18.5.

Is there an actual line in Vegas for this?

I can't imagine there is a Vegas line. I don't think Vegas is actually allowed to take wagers on non-sporting events.

As for how many, lets do some quick figuring.


Declared or already have exploratory committee (I'm not counting crackpots and others who have no shot): Warren, Castro, Rep. John Delaney, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (4)
Major politicians who look really, really likely to run: Beto, Biden, Booker, Brown, Bloomberg (the five Bs), Harris, Sanders, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Casey (10)
Lesser known politicians who have expressed some interest in running: South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg; Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard; LA Mayor Eric Garcetti; Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper; fmr. Attorney Gen. Eric Holder; Va Gov. Terry McAuliffe; Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan; CA Rep. Eric Swalwell; losing FLA/GA governor candidates Stacy Abrams and Andrew Gillum; New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu (11)
Celebs/Businessmen who look likely to run: Billionaire Tom Steyer; Fmr. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz; Oprah; Angelina Jolie; George Clooney; the Rock; Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (7)

So, that is 32 folks and while some of them clearly won't get in (no way all those celebs get in the race) I strongly suspect we end up with something like 20 truly viable candidates. A lot of them will quickly realize they simply are not getting any traction (and any money) and drop out shortly after coming into the race, but it is going to be a very crowded field into at least the fall.

-Jason "I am sure I missed a couple... and I bet there will be a surprise or two as well" Evans

[BandAlum83]

I can't imagine there is a Vegas line. I don't think Vegas is actually allowed to take wagers on non-sporting events.

As for how many, lets do some quick figuring.


Declared or already have exploratory committee (I'm not counting crackpots and others who have no shot): Warren, Castro, Rep. John Delaney, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (4)
Major politicians who look really, really likely to run: Beto, Biden, Booker, Brown, Bloomberg (the five Bs), Harris, Sanders, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Casey (10)
Lesser known politicians who have expressed some interest in running: South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg; Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard; LA Mayor Eric Garcetti; Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper; fmr. Attorney Gen. Eric Holder; Va Gov. Terry McAuliffe; Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan; CA Rep. Eric Swalwell; losing FLA/GA governor candidates Stacy Abrams and Andrew Gillum; New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu (11)
Celebs/Businessmen who look likely to run: Billionaire Tom Steyer; Fmr. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz; Oprah; Angelina Jolie; George Clooney; the Rock; Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (7)

So, that is 32 folks and while some of them clearly won't get in (no way all those celebs get in the race) I strongly suspect we end up with something like 20 truly viable candidates. A lot of them will quickly realize they simply are not getting any traction (and any money) and drop out shortly after coming into the race, but it is going to be a very crowded field into at least the fall.

-Jason "I am sure I missed a couple... and I bet there will be a surprise or two as well" Evans

So you would take the over at 18.5?

It might be a fun poll question. We'd need to have some clarity on what constitutes a candidate.

[Udaman]

Let's make a couple of things perfectly clear:

* There is NO WAY Trump does not run for re-election. He loves the spotlight. He loves the limelight. Stepping down would be admitting defeat and a sign of weakness. Zero chance. It will not happen.

* There is NO WAY another GOP candidate runs against Trump for the nomination. Anyone who did would get smoked. And they know it. Trump is still wildly popular with the GOP base.

These two things are givens to me. What are not givens is a) will Trump be impeached, b) what the Mueller report will state, c) are there any major indictments coming down and d) who the Dems will nominate.

Personally, I hope it's not Bernie or Warren, mainly because I think they galvanize the other side too much. Would love to see Biden and Booker, or O'Rourke, or K Harris. Agree with J Evans that it will not be two white men.

Can't believe this thing is 22 months away.....

[JasonEvans]

* There is NO WAY another GOP candidate runs against Trump for the nomination.

Where does this statement fall on the Udaman confidence scale? And can you please indicate where "There is NO WAY Interstellar will make $170 million in boxoffice" fell on that scale as well?

-Jason "we kid because we love ;) " Evans

[OldPhiKap]

* There is NO WAY another GOP candidate runs against Trump for the nomination.

I'll bet you a pie on that if you want, even though I know your predictive powers are quite impressive.

If the GOP cancels the primaries, though, the bet would obviously be off. (Similarly, if Trump doesn't run, bet is off too although I think that is unlikely assuming no health issues).

[gus]

Trump is already running. As Boston Devil noted in the midterm thread, he officially filed his re-election campaign with the FEC on January 20, 2017, just hours after his inauguration. He has been raising (and spending) money since. He has raised over $100mm and spent more than half of that (include millions on legal fees and payments to Trump properties and Trump companies).

[El_Diablo]

So you would take the over at 18.5?

It might be a fun poll question. We'd need to have some clarity on what constitutes a candidate.

You know what would be even more fun? A fantasy draft! We could get some people together, have them draft their candidates, and award fantasy points based on the percentage of support the candidates have in the most recent Gallup poll the day of each DNC debate. I.e., if one of your draft picks never declared or has dropped out, he or she receives 0 points for that debate. If he or she qualifies to participate in the debate and is polling at 25% in the last poll released before the debate, you get 25 points for that debate. Add up the totals as we go, and declare a winner after the last DNC debate (who will probably end up being whichever person drafted the eventual nominee, but not necessarily).

[OldPhiKap]

I can't imagine there is a Vegas line. I don't think Vegas is actually allowed to take wagers on non-sporting events.



Don't know what Oddshark.com is, but their odds as of 12/30/18:

1. Will Trump be impeached by the House?
Yes +100
No -140

2. Will Trump las his full first term?
Yes -300
No +200

3. Will Trump leave office via impeachment?
Yes +600
No -1500

4. Will Trump resign the presidency in his first term?
Yes +350
No -600

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Let's make a couple of things perfectly clear:

* There is NO WAY Trump does not run for re-election. He loves the spotlight. He loves the limelight. Stepping down would be admitting defeat and a sign of weakness. Zero chance. It will not happen.

* There is NO WAY another GOP candidate runs against Trump for the nomination. Anyone who did would get smoked. And they know it. Trump is still wildly popular with the GOP base.

These two things are givens to me. What are not givens is a) will Trump be impeached, b) what the Mueller report will state, c) are there any major indictments coming down and d) who the Dems will nominate.

Personally, I hope it's not Bernie or Warren, mainly because I think they galvanize the other side too much. Would love to see Biden and Booker, or O'Rourke, or K Harris. Agree with J Evans that it will not be two white men.

Can't believe this thing is 22 months away....

Trump can very easily not run. I tend to agree that he will, but it isn't hard for him to pull out. If he wants to save face, he just says that his business demands his full attention, he would rather live in NY, he has done everything he has set out to accomplish, or some other such statement. Those who love him will believe it. Those who hate him will think it is a cop out but will rejoice that he is gone. Trump's most prominent character trait is his ability to convince himself that everything he does is the biggest, the best, flawless, etc. so he would have no trouble doing this.

The two things that seem to drive him are money and power. There isn't much more powerful than President of the United States, so from that perspective, he wants to stay. But he has to determine what is the most profitable alternative - does he want to start really cashing in on his presidency sooner rather than later (some would argue he already is)? By leaving office he could immediately write the books, do the TV shows, etc. I am sure that is very tempting to him. I am not sure how concerned he is with his own mortality but he is not getting any younger.

[Duke79UNLV77]

Trump can very easily not run. I tend to agree that he will, but it isn't hard for him to pull out. If he wants to save face, he just says that his business demands his full attention, he would rather live in NY, he has done everything he has set out to accomplish, or some other such statement. Those who love him will believe it. Those who hate him will think it is a cop out but will rejoice that he is gone. Trump's most prominent character trait is his ability to convince himself that everything he does is the biggest, the best, flawless, etc. so he would have no trouble doing this.

The two things that seem to drive him are money and power. There isn't much more powerful than President of the United States, so from that perspective, he wants to stay. But he has to determine what is the most profitable alternative - does he want to start really cashing in on his presidency sooner rather than later (some would argue he already is)? By leaving office he could immediately write the books, do the TV shows, etc. I am sure that is very tempting to him. I am not sure how concerned he is with his own mortality but he is not getting any younger.

He is the unnamed coconspirator in an indictment with a guilty plea for a charge with a (I believe) 5-year statute of limitations. Doesn’t he really need to stay in office at least that long for the protection of the DOJ guidance on not indicting a sitting President? He’s got to run.

[wavedukefan70s]

I'll take someone who's got a ton of experience in politics without too much baggage and is a middle of the road policy wonk who knows how to compromise in order to get things done. I'm sure I'm in the minority.

I wonder how long before nikki Haley will run for v.p or president?I believe she would be a attractive choice for v.p to a presidential candidate.

[JasonEvans]

I wonder how long before nikki Haley will run for v.p or president?I believe she would be a attractive choice for v.p to a presidential candidate.

Haley is the heir apparent and might be able to cut into the Dems huge lead among women. I doubt Trump ditches Pence, but I would expect Haley to be a leading contender at the top of the ticket in 24.

[JasonEvans]

In other news... Elizabeth Warren has a kick off event in Iowa tonight. The audio on her microphone went out for about 10 minutes so she had to scream for the crowd to hear her. Given the way her popularity has waned in the past couple years, the “yelling but no one can hear me” thing is pretty funny.

By the way, the difference in where Warren‘s political capital is today versus where it was four years ago is an important cautionary tale. I wonder if Beto is paying attention to that story.

Jason “sorta like how everyone loves the backup QB... huh?” Evans

[OldPhiKap]

In other news... Elizabeth Warren has a kick off event in Iowa tonight. The audio on her microphone went out for about 10 minutes so she had to scream for the crowd to hear her. Given the way her popularity has waned in the past couple years, the “yelling but no one can hear me” thing is pretty funny.

By the way, the difference in where Warren‘s political capital is today versus where it was four years ago is an important cautionary tale. I wonder if Beto is paying attention to that story.

Jason “sorta like how everyone loves the backup QB... huh?” Evans

“The Bobby Jindal Effect”

[lotusland]

I can't imagine there is a Vegas line. I don't think Vegas is actually allowed to take wagers on non-sporting events.

As for how many, lets do some quick figuring.


Declared or already have exploratory committee (I'm not counting crackpots and others who have no shot): Warren, Castro, Rep. John Delaney, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (4)
Major politicians who look really, really likely to run: Beto, Biden, Booker, Brown, Bloomberg (the five Bs), Harris, Sanders, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Casey (10)
Lesser known politicians who have expressed some interest in running: South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg; Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard; LA Mayor Eric Garcetti; Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper; fmr. Attorney Gen. Eric Holder; Va Gov. Terry McAuliffe; Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan; CA Rep. Eric Swalwell; losing FLA/GA governor candidates Stacy Abrams and Andrew Gillum; New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu (11)
Celebs/Businessmen who look likely to run: Billionaire Tom Steyer; Fmr. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz; Oprah; Angelina Jolie; George Clooney; the Rock; Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (7)

So, that is 32 folks and while some of them clearly won't get in (no way all those celebs get in the race) I strongly suspect we end up with something like 20 truly viable candidates. A lot of them will quickly realize they simply are not getting any traction (and any money) and drop out shortly after coming into the race, but it is going to be a very crowded field into at least the fall.

-Jason "I am sure I missed a couple... and I bet there will be a surprise or two as well" Evans

John Kerry?

[Mike Corey]

Nikki Haley? Why and how and on what grounds would she pull Democratic voters?

[golfinesquire]

As far as Biden and Sanders go, there a couple of issues that have not gotten talked about that will come into play that will make them less attractive. Biden has run before and has shown himself to be a terrible campaigner. He talks too much and invariably puts his foot in his mouth. Those of us old enough to remember, lived through him plagarizing speeches in the Eighties and being caught by Maureen Dowdand forced to drop out of the campaign. Then there is the Anita Hill issue. Those hearings were televised which means there is film footage out there of his patronizing, dismissive comments of her. That will be a real albatross when running during the #MeToo era. As for Bernie, Hillary was somewhat hands off with him in hopes of avoiding a bruising, divisive battle (she might be regretting that at this point) but he was/is actually a fairly flawed candidate. He was actually opposed to gay marriage initially, voted for Bill Clinton’s tough crime package and, as that evidences, has a voting record that is anything but progressive. In addition, identity issues are important to the left and he is actually a bit tone deaf on that front. Moreover, once the other side decides he has to be dealt with, likely, more unflattering issues will surface. The NY times already ran a piece about the unaddressed sexual harassment during the ‘16 campaign. I see himcrashing and burning earlier in the primary cycle.
I would not write off Liz Warren quite yet. While she has had some missteps, you might find that, like how the attacks on Pelosie actually angered people, voters will rally around her as the latest woman to be unfairly attacked by a strain of misogynistic voters.

[Philadukie]

You have certainly identified one possible scenario for him to not run.

I just don’t see it. As much as he may hate the actual job of governing, he LOVES the attention and the constant media coverage that the presidency brings him, good or bad. And he loves doing campaign rallies too.

It’s highly unlikely that he would voluntarily step away from that. He loves a good fight, and he relishes an ugly fight even more. And 2020 promises to be UG-LY.

[lotusland]

I have a close friend who is a HS Econ teacher. Apparently there is a YouTube mash-up of Biden hugging a little too long and being a little too handsy with young ladies. Nothing horrible by itself but, apparently, the youngsters think Uncle Biden is pervy.

As for Nikki Haley, I’m forever in her debt for removing that stupid flag from the statehouse. I truly thought that would not happen in my lifetime. Maybe she was being opportunistic in the wake of the Mother Emmanuel shooting but it sure seemed courageous at the time. Unfortunately for Duke it allowed NCAA to schedule tournament games in SC again, but I digress. I’m an independent voter raised by Democrats. In SC that makes me a flaming liberal and I would vote for Nikky Haley over a Socialist any day.

[Philadukie]

Nikki Haley? Why and how and on what grounds would she pull Democratic voters?

You know Mike, I'll have to ask my wife. She's a Democrat who likes Nikki Haley. These are interesting times that are putting some people at heterodoxical odds with their typical political leanings, sometimes inscrutably so. On the other hand, I know it's strengthening and polarizing those political leanings in many folks even more.

I'll be interested to see how things unfold in my family. Like many of your families I suspect, ours is wonderfully, and sometimes maddeningly, politically diverse. You have moderate Chamber of Commerce type R's (like me, who voted for Clinton, and my father in law, who voted for Trump), moderate Clintonian/Obama loving Democrats (like my wife), hard core Sanders/AOC progressives (like my brother, who is married to a Muslim, and my 22 year old niece who is Muslim but engaged to a Protestant Christian - yes, that's true!), devout Catholic pro-life Mike Pence supporting types (like my mother-in-law), and blue collar Democrats who support Trump (my mom). My brother and I often joke that had our dad still been alive in 2016 - a fire-breathing liberal if there ever was one, think the Ragin Cajun - Trump surely would have killed him.

Thankfully, even in these trying times, we've held it all together. Thanksgiving is certainly interesting but it never gets ugly. I've heard horror stories of families breaking apart and not speaking to each other. Rather than putting strains on our family though, it's actually, I think, made us better at listening to each other and more respectful and gracious of each other's differences. I've even seen some people change their minds on some things.


Which gets back to my wife and your question. Again, I'll have to ask her what she likes about Haley, but in the context of our family, I know she's learned to be more open and look for areas of agreement where she may have not seen them before.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

As far as Biden and Sanders go, there a couple of issues that have not gotten talked about that will come into play that will make them less attractive. Biden has run before and has shown himself to be a terrible campaigner. He talks too much and invariably puts his foot in his mouth. Those of us old enough to remember, lived through him plagarizing speeches in the Eighties and being caught by Maureen Dowdand forced to drop out of the campaign. Then there is the Anita Hill issue. Those hearings were televised which means there is film footage out there of his patronizing, dismissive comments of her. That will be a real albatross when running during the #MeToo era. As for Bernie, Hillary was somewhat hands off with him in hopes of avoiding a bruising, divisive battle (she might be regretting that at this point) but he was/is actually a fairly flawed candidate. He was actually opposed to gay marriage initially, voted for Bill Clinton’s tough crime package and, as that evidences, has a voting record that is anything but progressive. In addition, identity issues are important to the left and he is actually a bit tone deaf on that front. Moreover, once the other side decides he has to be dealt with, likely, more unflattering issues will surface. The NY times already ran a piece about the unaddressed sexual harassment during the ‘16 campaign. I see himcrashing and burning earlier in the primary cycle.
I would not write off Liz Warren quite yet. While she has had some missteps, you might find that, like how the attacks on Pelosie actually angered people, voters will rally around her as the latest woman to be unfairly attacked by a strain of misogynistic voters.

Putting your foot in your mouth is no longer the deal breaker it once was.

I agree that Biden doesn't necessarily bring out new voters and wouldn't make a great candidate this go round, but we also have to acknowledge that the rules have clearly changed dramatically when no one was paying attention.

I don't even know what it would take for someone to make a gaffe anymore.

[devilish]

Wasn’t aware the gop was considering doing away with the primary this time. As an independent who tends to vote for republicans, that’s a bad look. It would likely add fuel to the “trump is a fascist” theory. Thinking about it some more, a good primary challenge might actually help trump... His voters tend to get more fired up when he fights back.

[BandAlum83]

I just don’t see it. As much as he may hate the actual job of governing, he LOVES the attention and the constant media coverage that the presidency brings him, good or bad. And he loves doing campaign rallies too.

It’s highly unlikely that he would voluntarily step away from that. He loves a good fight, and he relishes an ugly fight even more. And 2020 promises to be UG-LY.

Just to be clear, I think that is one possible scenario, but not the most probable. I think it is more (but not the most) likely that he doesn't complete his first term in office.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I took a look at our 2016 thread (which was started in Feb of 2015, so we aren't that far off for 2020) and I had opened it with a prediction from Nate Silver.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clinton-has-a-78--of-winning-democratic-nomination--nate-silver-151120593.html

He did get it correct that HRC (unannounced at the time) would be the Dem candidate, but Trump was nowhere in his future. In fact, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker were tied for his bet. Pretty fun to look back at that, and put it in perspective where we are now.
Long story short, predict now all you want, you will likely be wrong. ;)

[Mike Corey]

Thanks, PhilaDukie, for the thoughtful response. I’ll look forward to hearing about your wife’s thoughts on Haley.

Would love to chat at greater length offline. Much to learn from you, it’s clear.

[OldPhiKap]

FWIW, MrsPK is an independent and likes Nikki too. A bright spot in a dark room for her.

[wavedukefan70s]

FWIW, MrsPK is an independent and likes Nikki too. A bright spot in a dark room for her.

I like her aswell.my niece has/had worked for her for a long time.didnt like a deal she tried to cut with georgia as our governor.but there are worse candidates. I'd probably vote for her.

[luvdahops]

In other news... Elizabeth Warren has a kick off event in Iowa tonight. The audio on her microphone went out for about 10 minutes so she had to scream for the crowd to hear her. Given the way her popularity has waned in the past couple years, the “yelling but no one can hear me” thing is pretty funny.

By the way, the difference in where Warren‘s political capital is today versus where it was four years ago is an important cautionary tale. I wonder if Beto is paying attention to that story.

Jason “sorta like how everyone loves the backup QB... huh?” Evans

Very true

It is my understanding that Warren was the Dem that GOP operatives were most fearful of heading into the 2016 campaign

IMHO, she has been consistently unimpressive and awkward publicly since Trump has been in office, and has no real shot at the 2020 nomination

[sagegrouse]

Very true

It is my understanding that Warren was the Dem that GOP operatives were most fearful of heading into the 2016 campaign

IMHO, she has been consistently unimpressive and awkward publicly since Trump has been in office, and has no real shot at the 2020 nomination

OTOH, Chris Matthews tonight on his program Hardball said he could imagine Elizabeth Warren getting a quick start and running away with the nomination. Iowa caucus: the Dems there like progressives New Hampshire primary: New Englanders always win in NH. South Carolina primayr: Warren may be the favorite if others have dropped out. Etc., etc.

I do';t see it, but who knows?

[OldPhiKap]

OTOH, Chris Matthews tonight on his program Hardball said he could imagine Elizabeth Warren getting a quick start and running away with the nomination. Iowa caucus: the Dems there like progressives New Hampshire primary: New Englanders always win in NH. South Carolina primayr: Warren may be the favorite if others have dropped out. Etc., etc.

I do';t see it, but who knows?

Not feeling that one. I get his argument, but . . . .

Does anyone see her doing well come Super Tuesday? I think she gets wiped out in the South. Georgia, Florida, and some of these purplish states are too big for the Democrats to just write off it seems to me.

Plus she may have Vt. Bernie in NH.

[PackMan97]

I think Warren's narrow path to the Presidency was over when she took that DNA test to prove she was a Native American.

[lotusland]

I think Warren's narrow path to the Presidency was over when she took that DNA test to prove she was a Native American.

I think Warren makes HRC seem warm and natural in comparison but I don’t get the backlash over the DNA test. Clearly playing above the fray hasn’t worked against Trump’s name calling. I’d have done the same thing. The beer video, on the other hand, is cringe worthy.

[OldPhiKap]

To me, a Warren seems to be a very earnest and effective legislator. She has a very impressive back-story and she tells it well. Having said that, I think the progressive end of the party is likely looking to someone much younger and I think she has already been defined politically in a way which makes her path very difficult.

[JasonEvans]

538 chimes in saying it is unlikely (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-would-it-take-for-trump-to-get-primaried/)that Trump get a serious primary challenge... but it could happen to change Trump's popularity with GOP voters. Well, 538, thanks for clearing that up.

[howardlander]

I think Warren makes HRC seem warm and natural in comparison but I don’t get the backlash over the DNA test. Clearly playing above the fray hasn’t worked against Trump’s name calling. I’d have done the same thing. The beer video, on the other hand, is cringe worthy.

I agree with you here. Basically, Warren told a family story that she has a Native American ancestor. Trump picked up on this and used it as the basis for a racial slur against her, essentially claiming that she had made the story up. Warren took a DNA test that showed she has a Native American ancestor. How is Warren the one that looks bad? Maybe, just maybe, the problem is not with her...

Howard

[Indoor66]

Come on, Howard. She didn't just claim Native American ancestors at a cocktail party. She claimed it as part of her Harvard Faculty CV.

elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/

[BigWayne]

Ideally, no one should be able to tell from your posts if you are a D or an R; if you are Red or Blue or Green; if you are liberal or conservative.


I stayed away from this for a while but it keeps popping up on the top of the list. At least half the posts in the most recent pages do not meet this ideal. There are so many cases now where people are used to posting in forums of like minded individuals that they cannot recognize their own bias. This shows up especially in regards to the way they state "facts" about individuals they oppose without offering any specific evidence.

[JasonEvans]

I stayed away from this for a while but it keeps popping up on the top of the list. At least half the posts in the most recent pages do not meet this ideal. There are so many cases now where people are used to posting in forums of like minded individuals that they cannot recognize their own bias. This shows up especially in regards to the way they state "facts" about individuals they oppose without offering any specific evidence.

Wayne,

I urge you to report posts that you feel cross the line. Or you can simply PM me with the url. A brief explanation can also be helpful.

That said, I was about to warn folks. Some of the Warren stuff is teetering on combative and is getting close to being partisan or at least revealing of biases. "Analysis" is happening infrequently in the most recent conversation about her heritage.

[BandAlum83]

Earlier I put out there that the Democratic party would be running a lot of candidates this time. The Republicans had 16 last time (which looked really silly and made debates difficult). The Democrats may look even sillier this time with perhaps over 20.

Personally, I put the line at 18.5 and would take the over.

What does everyone think? Where would you put the o/u, and would you take the over or the under?

Or, just tell me if you would take o/u 18.5!

Jason, might this be poll worthy? I don't see the need for another thread, but would love to see a poll.

[BandAlum83]

Earlier I put out there that the Democratic party would be running a lot of candidates this time. The Republicans had 16 last time (which looked really silly and made debates difficult). The Democrats may look even sillier this time with perhaps over 20.

Personally, I put the line at 18.5 and would take the over.

What does everyone think? Where would you put the o/u, and would you take the over or the under?

Or, just tell me if you would take o/u 18.5!

Jason, might this be poll worthy? I don't see the need for another thread, but would love to see a poll.

To those who might take exception to the characterization of "silly," I say this: how many memes were there out there referring to clown cars or some such thing? I know it's Democracy in action, but you can't help but wonder how many you can fit in a VW at the circus!

[CameronBornAndBred]

Earlier I put out there that the Democratic party would be running a lot of candidates this time. The Republicans had 16 last time (which looked really silly and made debates difficult). The Democrats may look even sillier this time with perhaps over 20.

Personally, I put the line at 18.5 and would take the over.

What does everyone think? Where would you put the o/u, and would you take the over or the under?

Or, just tell me if you would take o/u 18.5!

Jason, might this be poll worthy? I don't see the need for another thread, but would love to see a poll.

I wonder how many candidates will be in the first debate. On the GOP side last go round, only 10 were in even though there were more players.


Only 10 of the 17 declared contenders for the 2016 GOP nomination appeared in the first official debate of the 2016 campaign season. They were chosen by debate sponsor Fox News Channel because they ranked highest in the polls, though some of them are barely registering.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-dominates-raucous-republican-debate/2015/08/06/b8a5f0e6-3c79-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html?utm_term=.2d010063f10f

[cato]

Come on, Howard. She didn't just claim Native American ancestors at a cocktail party. She claimed it as part of her Harvard Faculty CV.

elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/

What is elizabethwarrenwiki.org? The site says it is a project of the Legal Insurrection, which does not appear to be an impartial organization.

I note that donations are not tax deductible.

[OldPhiKap]

I wonder how many candidates will be in the first debate. On the GOP side last go round, only 10 were in even though there were more players.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-dominates-raucous-republican-debate/2015/08/06/b8a5f0e6-3c79-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html?utm_term=.2d010063f10f

While I think it's gonna be bumper cars for the debates before Iowa, this will get winnowed down pretty quickly I think. The first month of Democratic primaries (tentative, I assume):

Mon, Feb 3 (2019)
Iowa Caucuses

Tue, Feb 11
New Hampshire

Sat, Feb 22
Nevada Caucus (D)

Sat, Feb 29
South Carolina (D)



Tue, Mar 3
Alabama
California
Massachusetts
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia


So by the fourth week, you have to be able to afford simultaneous campaigns in California, Texas, Virginia, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. That is brutal. I doubt more than five or six survive past South Carolina, and there will likely be four or less by the time the smoke clears March 3rd.


Add to this that President Trump will likely be taking up a lot of political oxygen too. So in that first month, it should be obvious to most candidates that a continued run is not viable. No press, no money, no ability to compete in such a large and geographically diverse March 3 event. Play nice, hope for a good cabinet spot or a sweet ambassadorship.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Tue, Mar 3

Alabama
California
Massachusetts
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia

Cross fingers there isn't a game that night!

[gus]

What is elizabethwarrenwiki.org? The site says it is a project of the Legal Insurrection, which does not appear to be an impartial organization.

I note that donations are not tax deductible.

Yeah, legal insurrection is a product of William Jacobson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Jacobson) who's had an axe to grind against warren for years and has been frequently criticized for supporting white supremacists and racists. e.g. (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/12/its-not-that-youre-racist/68522/).

For the record, the Boston Globe did an exhaustive investigation into whether Warren's claims about Cherokee heritage were used to advance her career, and concluded unequivocally that they were not (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html).

[OldPhiKap]

While I think it's gonna be bumper cars for the debates before Iowa, this will get winnowed down pretty quickly I think. The first month of Democratic primaries (tentative, I assume):

Mon, Feb 3 (2020)
Iowa Caucuses

Tue, Feb 11
New Hampshire

Sat, Feb 22
Nevada Caucus (D)

Sat, Feb 29
South Carolina (D)



Tue, Mar 3
Alabama
California
Massachusetts
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia




Corrected -- it is 2020, not 2019. I scared myself.

[budwom]

I look forward to nipping over to NH to see some of the circus next year...without getting into politics (too much) the Demo primaries allow generally more access to events...GOP last time around had a whole lot more restricted access "rallies."
Also get to regard New Hamsterites in their native habitat...

[OldPhiKap]

Also get to regard New Hamsterites in their native habitat...

Is that a Habitrail with an igloo?

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I am all for tradition and such but I don't know why the same states get to have the earliest primaries and thus theoretically have undue influence on the nomination process. For example, being the leading Democrat in SC is really pointless. Dems are never going to win SC in a presidential election so the opinions of SC Democrats should not be that influential - I would be much more concerned about who plays well in the purple states.

[JasonEvans]

The field thins...

Billionaire Tom Steyer, a vocal critic of Trump who has repeatedly called for impeachment, is announcing that he will not run for President in 2020. I'm not sure he was that much of a contender, but his money could have made for an interesting campaign.

[-jk]

The field thins...

Billionaire Tom Steyer, a vocal critic of Trump who has repeatedly called for impeachment, is announcing that he will not run for President in 2020. I'm not sure he was that much of a contender, but his money could have made for an interesting campaign.

Towards whom will he throw his money?

-jk

[Highlander]

I am all for tradition and such but I don't know why the same states get to have the earliest primaries and thus theoretically have undue influence on the nomination process. For example, being the leading Democrat in SC is really pointless. Dems are never going to win SC in a presidential election so the opinions of SC Democrats should not be that influential - I would be much more concerned about who plays well in the purple states.

Good question. My understanding of the current primary map is that it is done to see who has the broadest appeal. I think it is akin to mixing up your conference schedule with some "true road games" early on to see how the candidates poll against different racial, social, and economic demographics. If the first 5 states to vote were all "home court" states, for example, a candidate that was popular there might build enough momentum to push out a candidate with more mainstream and moderate appeal.

IIRC, Bernie Sanders was pretty even or slightly better than HRC in states where Dems were predominately white and in states with caucuses. But he lost handily in states where the Democratic base had high concentrations of minority voters. According to this article, 70% of African Americans preferred Hillary to Bernie, and it was one of the main reasons she won.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/huge-split-between-older-younger-blacks-democratic-primary-n580996

Whichever states go first will always have a greater influence on the process, which is why many have pushed their way towards the front of the line. The interesting question is which voters whose preferred candidate didn't win would support the eventual nominee and which would just stay home. And I think that's key to whether the current primary strategy needs to be adjusted.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Towards whom will he throw his money?

-jk

Not sure he has to throw his cash to anyone, yet instead simply keep throwing it against Trump. And that seems to be his continued plan. His mission is to see the President impeached, and he has pledged $40M for the cause.


“Most people come to Iowa around this time to announce a campaign for president,” Steyer said in his prepared remarks. “But I am proud to be here to announce that I will do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, to remove a president.”

Among Steyer's goals: a "multi-million dollar digital initiative aimed at informing the public and members of Congress about the 10 impeachable offenses that Trump has already committed," town halls across the country, and even an "impeachment summit in late January that will bring more than 250 supporters from across the country to D.C. together to learn about historical precedent for impeachment."

His constant barrage, without the added burden of being a candidate himself, could very well be a big thorn in Trump's side, especially if voters listen.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tom-steyer-billionaire-activist-pushing-for-impeachment-wont-seek-presidency-spokeswoman

[sagegrouse]

I am all for tradition and such but I don't know why the same states get to have the earliest primaries and thus theoretically have undue influence on the nomination process. For example, being the leading Democrat in SC is really pointless. Dems are never going to win SC in a presidential election so the opinions of SC Democrats should not be that influential - I would be much more concerned about who plays well in the purple states.

Here are a couple of reasons, CNC. (a) One advantage with the four early states is that they are individually and collectively small -- under-funded candidates can compete much better than in larger states like FL, CA, TX, NY, etc. (Also, is an advantage for PAC's, who can see how their candidates perform while conserving resources). (b) Plus, they represent four different parts of the country.

Among many problems -- why the hell have caucuses? Colorado, my home, is a caucus state. In 2008 it was -3 and snowing when our county held its caucuses. Turnout is ridiculously low and pretty much limited to the hardcore, not necessarily representative of party voters.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Lesser known politicians who have expressed some interest in running:Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

She's now announced.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said Friday she will run for president in 2020.

"I have decided to run and will be making a formal announcement within the next week," the Hawaii Democrat told CNN's Van Jones during an interview slated to air at 7 p.m. Saturday on CNN's "The Van Jones Show."
Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, currently serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She is the first American Samoan and the first Hindu member of Congress.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/11/politics/tulsi-gabbard-van-jones/index.html

[JasonEvans]

This is gonna shake up the election when it happens on May 1...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxCmxq6WoAAf7E0.jpg

-Jason "someone went to a lot of trouble to create that fake paper... the are reportedly being distributed all over DC today" Evans

[PackMan97]

-Jason "someone went to a lot of trouble to create that fake paper... the are reportedly being distributed all over DC today" Evans

Should have picked April 1st.

[OldPhiKap]

This is gonna shake up the election when it happens on May 1...



"Bet you a pie on that"

[Mike Corey]

This is gonna shake up the election when it happens on May 1...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxCmxq6WoAAf7E0.jpg

-Jason "someone went to a lot of trouble to create that fake paper... the are reportedly being distributed all over DC today" Evans

*resists punishable commentary*

Thank you for sharing this satirical piece.

[OldPhiKap]

New PBS/Marist poll: “With the 2020 presidential election already underway, 57 percent of registered voters said they would definitely vote against President Donald Trump, according to the latest poll from the PBS NewsHour, NPR and Marist.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/57-percent-of-voters-say-they-wont-support-trump-in-2020

Should be deeply concerning for Republicans, should they choose to believe the poll. Ripe picking for a moderate Democratic candidate although a farther left one would likely make some of these folks hold their nose and vote Republican regardless.

[Rich]

New PBS/Marist poll: “With the 2020 presidential election already underway, 57 percent of registered voters said they would definitely vote against President Donald Trump, according to the latest poll from the PBS NewsHour, NPR and Marist.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/57-percent-of-voters-say-they-wont-support-trump-in-2020

Should be deeply concerning for Republicans, should they choose to believe the poll. Ripe picking for a moderate Democratic candidate although a farther left one would likely make some of these folks hold their nose and vote Republican regardless.

Those numbers are largely meaningless. Until I see specific polling data from swing states, I'm not inclined to believe any of that broad polling data. Let's not forget that Hillary won the popular vote by something like 3 millions votes. It doesn't matter how many people vote for candidates, but where they live.

[PackMan97]

Those numbers are largely meaningless. Until I see specific polling data from swing states, I'm not inclined to believe any of that broad polling data. Let's not forget that Hillary won the popular vote by something like 3 millions votes. It doesn't matter how many people vote for candidates, but where they live.

Not to mention, as Trump/Hillary showed in 2016, being unlikable is not important if your opponent is even more unlikable.

I believe the Dems could do very well with a moderate, well respected candidate, which means they are likely to get as left and as unlikable as possible.

[gus]

Those numbers are largely meaningless. Until I see specific polling data from swing states, I'm not inclined to believe any of that broad polling data. Let's not forget that Hillary won the popular vote by something like 3 millions votes. It doesn't matter how many people vote for candidates, but where they live.


I agree that a poll this early and without an identified Democrat is meaningless, but if 57% of people are voting for his opponents, there's really no realistic path to re-election. Clinton's roughly 3mm vote lead translated to a 48.2% to 46.1% margin. If number of voters stays constant (it won't) and the same percentage of voters vote third party (who knows), that would translate to a popular vote loss of 11.3 million votes. That would look a lot like 1980, where Reagan won all but 6 states and crushed carter 489 - 49.

[OldPhiKap]

I agree that a poll this early and without an identified Democrat is meaningless, but if 57% of people are voting for his opponents, there's really no realistic path to re-election.

yeah, as I read this it was not 57% unfavorable. It was 57% "I will not vote for him."


If I am a Democrat, I don't get too excited yet for the reasons stated. If I am a Republican, though, the window to launch a primary challenge only lasts so long and this is a hugely worrying number. As gus states, what's the path forward for a candidate who is not likely to start suddenly winning support given where he has been mired and his (to date) lack of interest in talking to anyone but his base.

[Wander]

So, any thoughts of the effects of the government shutdown on the election? I'm surprised there's not more discussion on it. I've started seeing and feeling very real and tangible negative effects in my area of work. If it gets to the point of having serious effects on air travel, I think it could be a major issue for the election (I mean, it's a major issue now, but I could see it being essentially forgotten by 2020 if it were to end tomorrow). Polling shows more people blame Trump than Democrats.

[elvis14]

So, any thoughts of the effects of the government shutdown on the election? I'm surprised there's not more discussion on it. I've started seeing and feeling very real and tangible negative effects in my area of work. If it gets to the point of having serious effects on air travel, I think it could be a major issue for the election (I mean, it's a major issue now, but I could see it being essentially forgotten by 2020 if it were to end tomorrow). Polling shows more people blame Trump than Democrats.

I think that 57% number which seems low but is actually quite high is what it is because of the shutdown and I think as the shutdown drags on it may go higher. As you suggest, having it be 57 or 60% in Jan/Feb of 2019 may not matter in Nov of 2020. If this shutdown has a significant effect on the economy, I could see it having a more lasting negative effect which could still have an impact in Nov 2020.

[PackMan97]

If I am a Republican, though, the window to launch a primary challenge only lasts so long and this is a hugely worrying number.

I'm of a mixed mind on this. I think a different candidate would give Republicans the best chance at winning.

However, a primary battle will only weaken the eventual winner (Trump or Citizen X) such that they'll all but be doomed to lose. I'm not sure a party has won an election in modern times after a significant primary challenge to a sitting President. This usually means a deep dissatisfaction within the President's own party, which isn't a recipe for winning.

The window isn't to launch a primary challenge (which I feel will end in defeat in the General regardless of the result) but the window is for President Trump to shutdown his 2020 campaign and indicate he isn't running for re-election.

[JasonEvans]

The window isn't to launch a primary challenge (which I feel will end in defeat in the General regardless of the result) but the window is for President Trump to shutdown his 2020 campaign and indicate he isn't running for re-election.

I am largely inclined to agree with you with one caveat... if Trump starts to look utterly unelectable, I think there is a slight chance someone (Romeny or Kasich would be the most likely contenders as they have strong name rec already and could come in late in the process as a result) could rise up as a "we must have a viable candidate or we are certain to lose" alternative.

Put another way, you could love Trump and everything he has done and you could desperately want another 4 years of him in the White House, but if you know with almost absolute certainty that he won't win it is a pretty compelling argument to pick someone who actually stands a chance against Beto/Biden/Booker/Kamala/Gillibrand/whoever. That's how McCain won the nomination in 2008... everyone felt Mike Huckabee was unelectable and folks were not willing to back a Mormon (Romney) at that time.

[CameronBornAndBred]

So, any thoughts of the effects of the government shutdown on the election? I'm surprised there's not more discussion on it. I've started seeing and feeling very real and tangible negative effects in my area of work. If it gets to the point of having serious effects on air travel, I think it could be a major issue for the election (I mean, it's a major issue now, but I could see it being essentially forgotten by 2020 if it were to end tomorrow). Polling shows more people blame Trump than Democrats.

There is an article out now about how his campaign aides are essentially doing their best to "turn lemons into lemonade". They have little doubt that the shutdown and border security it setting up to be the first significant rallying point, and they are none too happy about it. Right now, it is not an issue that favors their candidate, especially with him beginning to lose some support among his base. (Specifically the white non college educated group that has been mentioned this week.)

I don't have a link...but it is on at least one of the major web news sources.

[OldPhiKap]

So, any thoughts of the effects of the government shutdown on the election? I'm surprised there's not more discussion on it. I've started seeing and feeling very real and tangible negative effects in my area of work. If it gets to the point of having serious effects on air travel, I think it could be a major issue for the election (I mean, it's a major issue now, but I could see it being essentially forgotten by 2020 if it were to end tomorrow). Polling shows more people blame Trump than Democrats.

My initial thought was that it would be forgotten by 2020, but I sure did not expect it to go this long. This is gonna leave a mark, and so far Pelosi has played the hand better. (And I am one of those who was criticizing the Dems for not replacing her -- I'll own up to my bad on that, she has pwned Trump for the most part so far although the press is generally giving her a favorable shine for the time being).


I'm of a mixed mind on this. I think a different candidate would give Republicans the best chance at winning.

However, a primary battle will only weaken the eventual winner (Trump or Citizen X) such that they'll all but be doomed to lose. I'm not sure a party has won an election in modern times after a significant primary challenge to a sitting President. This usually means a deep dissatisfaction within the President's own party, which isn't a recipe for winning.

The window isn't to launch a primary challenge (which I feel will end in defeat in the General regardless of the result) but the window is for President Trump to shutdown his 2020 campaign and indicate he isn't running for re-election.

In addition to Jason's points (with which I agree), someone may feel that there will be a return to more orthodox Republican practices after Trump is gone and they want to be the leader of that movement when it happens. A good example is Ronald Reagan, who took on Gerald Ford in '76 declaring a return to conservative roots. While Ford beat Reagan, it set Ronnie up well for his run in 1980.

While it is true that sitting presidents often do not survive serious challenges, it is usually the case that the sitting president was in deep doo doo anyway. Ford was toast after he pardoned Nixon and was going to lose to the house-cleaning Carter. Carter's economy and the disaster of the Iran Hostage Crisis doomed Carter whether Ted Kennedy ran against him or not. It's not like Trump is riding high right now and that a challenger would suddenly make him less popular. I've never seen a candidate like Trump where there is so little middle ground -- you love him or you hate him -- and those positions seem to be incredibly fixed in cement.

I think a Republican challenger likely fails absent some huge (but possible) curve ball or Mueller Report bombshell. But if someone wants to run in 2024 as the "Return to Orthodoxy" candidate, it's a good way to get your name out there and say that you stood tall for your principles despite the long odds.

[dudog84]

I think that 57% number which seems low but is actually quite high is what it is because of the shutdown and I think as the shutdown drags on it may go higher. As you suggest, having it be 57 or 60% in Jan/Feb of 2019 may not matter in Nov of 2020. If this shutdown has a significant effect on the economy, I could see it having a more lasting negative effect which could still have an impact in Nov 2020.

I read/heard somewhere (don't want to go find it) that every week of the shutdown will cost the economy 0.13 percent growth. Doesn't sound like much, but we're already over 0.5 percent and when a big deal is made about 3% growth vs. 2%...

This on top of most economists (I believe) predicting a slowdown in 2019.

Edit: Okay, so I went and found it. I don't like to post such things without back-up. This isn't where I read it (I run out of NYT free articles too fast) but does confirm.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/us/politics/government-shutdown-economy.html

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I read/heard somewhere (don't want to go find it) that every week of the shutdown will cost the economy 0.13 percent growth. Doesn't sound like much, but we're already over 0.5 percent and when a big deal is made about 3% growth vs. 2%...

This on top of most economists (I believe) predicting a slowdown in 2019.

Fair point but as discussed above, I am not totally sure who is taking the blame for the shutdown. I think that Pelosi is generally outplaying Trump on this, but I think there are still a lot of Trump supporters who are blaming the Dems for the situation.

There are a lot of people in America who believe that Trump can do absolutely no wrong - I always refer back to the "shoot someone on 5th Avenue" quote. And, getting back to the rest of this interesting thread, this group of people is large enough that Trump will always have a fighting chance in the general election, regardless of what the national poll numbers say. I am struggling to think of something that could happen or that he could do that would make these voters abandon him, and it would take a really compelling candidate to make them do so.

The rules of engagement as we had known them for many years have been completely changed, and nothing is predictable based on historical events anymore.

[dudog84]

Fair point but as discussed above, I am not totally sure who is taking the blame for the shutdown. I think that Pelosi is generally outplaying Trump on this, but I think there are still a lot of Trump supporters who are blaming the Dems for the situation.

There are a lot of people in America who believe that Trump can do absolutely no wrong - I always refer back to the "shoot someone on 5th Avenue" quote. And, getting back to the rest of this interesting thread, this group of people is large enough that Trump will always have a fighting chance in the general election, regardless of what the national poll numbers say. I am struggling to think of something that could happen or that he could do that would make these voters abandon him, and it would take a really compelling candidate to make them do so.

The rules of engagement as we had known them for many years have been completely changed, and nothing is predictable based on historical events anymore.

Every single poll disagrees with you by a large margin. The rest of your post makes sense :cool:.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Every single poll disagrees with you by a large margin. The rest of your post makes sense :cool:.

Trump is definitely taking the majority of the blame, but there are plenty of people out there who blame the Democrats (or don't blame anyone).

Here are some polls from Nate Silver. As with all such polls, I take them with a huge grain of salt. The polls on who to blame don't vary that much with Trump's approval rating, which has declined since the shutdown began.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-week-4-of-the-shutdown-americans-still-think-trump-is-to-blame/

[Mike Corey]

Re: the election and the latest bombshell, I’ll reiterate: It’s not wise to assume Donald Trump will be on the ballot come November 2020.

[TruBlu]

An open letter:

Dear Political Parties,

For the love of our country, please find some less disgusting candidates for 2020. My nose is still sore from the multiple clothespins I had to wear in the 2016 election.

Seriously,

TruBlu

[lotusland]

Buzz Feed reporting that the special council has evidence that President instructed Cohen to lie to congress. This is a game changer if true and provable


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=hpsplash


The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office.

[OldPhiKap]

Buzz Feed reporting that the special council has evidence that President instructed Cohen to lie to congress. This is a game changer if true and provable

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=hpsplash

Pretty big if true. Will wait for confirmation from another source (I do not personally doubt the story, but have no metric on Buzzfeed’s reliability in this regard).


Re: the election and the latest bombshell, I’ll reiterate: It’s not wise to assume Donald Trump will be on the ballot come November 2020.

AG-designee Barr testified this week, as he must, that counseling someone to commit perjury constitutes an obstruction of justice. FWIW.

Interesting times.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Per the allegations brought forth by Buzzfeed, the Democrats are obviously quickly on this and seeking corroboration. I've not heard any public statements from Republicans, and wouldn't really expect to, because until proven true this is more of a PR campaign. "We're gonna do our job, just like we were elected for, blah, blah".
However, I can only imagine that Republicans are doing the same without stating as much. IF this is true, then their candidate will have a very hard time lasting until the election, much less being electable, and I'd think they would like to know if they need to get another person out there running before it is too late.

Right now, the reporting from legitimate news sources is "Congress is investigating Buzzfeed report", or "Buzzfeed says...". Nobody else has independent confirmation yet. If and once they do, or Congress does, it becomes a game changer for the election.

PS...I was watching one of the news channels last night when the news broke. It always fascinating to see a news cycle switch in real time on big events like that.

[OldPhiKap]

I can only imagine that Republicans are doing the same without stating as much. IF this is true, then their candidate will have a very hard time lasting until the election, much less being electable, and I'd think they would like to know if they need to get another person out there running before it is too late.

Agree with all you say, but here is the problem if you are a Republican elected official:

1. Trump, at least for now, still commands the base. So opposing him (at least prior to the end of the 2020 primary season) means that you risk your chances of re-election.
2. Trump won't take the Nixon route and gracefully bow out. Telling Trump he should resign or not run for re-election will just make him dig in more.
3. Therefore the path of least resistance is: support Trump so your base is happy; let Trump take a drubbing if that is to be; and then morph to support whoever comes next.

It seems a foregone conclusion that the House will pass Articles of Impeachment at some point after the Mueller report comes out. For Trump to be ousted, about 20 Republican Senators will have to vote against him. It is difficult to prejudge the likelihood of that without seeing the Mueller report and the public reaction to it, but that's a big hill to climb unless Trump's base turns on him.

[Wander]

Agree with all you say, but here is the problem if you are a Republican elected official:

1. Trump, at least for now, still commands the base. So opposing him (at least prior to the end of the 2020 primary season) means that you risk your chances of re-election.
2. Trump won't take the Nixon route and gracefully bow out. Telling Trump he should resign or not run for re-election will just make him dig in more.
3. Therefore the path of least resistance is: support Trump so your base is happy; let Trump take a drubbing if that is to be; and then morph to support whoever comes next.

It seems a foregone conclusion that the House will pass Articles of Impeachment at some point after the Mueller report comes out. For Trump to be ousted, about 20 Republican Senators will have to vote against him. It is difficult to prejudge the likelihood of that without seeing the Mueller report and the public reaction to it, but that's a big hill to climb unless Trump's base turns on him.

Agree with this take. Things could get to the point where Trump loses the general election in a landslide, but there is no possibility of Trump not winning the R nomination if he wants to go through with it. I do think Mitt Romney is setting himself up as the "handcuff runningback" candidate if Trump is impeached or voluntarily does not run (remember when people made fun of him for saying Russia was the biggest geopolitical foe of the US? Yeah...)

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Agree with all you say, but here is the problem if you are a Republican elected official:

1. Trump, at least for now, still commands the base. So opposing him (at least prior to the end of the 2020 primary season) means that you risk your chances of re-election.
2. Trump won't take the Nixon route and gracefully bow out. Telling Trump he should resign or not run for re-election will just make him dig in more.
3. Therefore the path of least resistance is: support Trump so your base is happy; let Trump take a drubbing if that is to be; and then morph to support whoever comes next.

It seems a foregone conclusion that the House will pass Articles of Impeachment at some point after the Mueller report comes out. For Trump to be ousted, about 20 Republican Senators will have to vote against him. It is difficult to prejudge the likelihood of that without seeing the Mueller report and the public reaction to it, but that's a big hill to climb unless Trump's base turns on him.

I'm surprised that I haven't seen an analysis of the likelihood of different Republicans flipping against Trump. I don't think it is that big of an analysis - there are only 50-odd Senators. To your point, those who are not up for re-election in 2020 are higher probability. As are those in more purple states who need to be closer to the middle to get re-elected (though they might risk getting taken out in a primary). And since this is largely boiling down to two issues (border security/immigration and getting federal employees back to work), some constituencies, such as those with a higher percentage of federal workers, might react differently than others.

I'm not sure how I would feel about putting myself out there as a Republican on this only to find out you are a few votes short, but I am very curious what types of conversations are being held to broker a consensus. My guess is that if they flip, it will be a carefully crafted group and it will either be unanimous (highly unlikely) or one more vote than they need.

I am flying this weekend and I am very curious to see the morale of the TSA agents at the airports.

[dudog84]

Agree with all you say, but here is the problem if you are a Republican elected official:

1. Trump, at least for now, still commands the base. So opposing him (at least prior to the end of the 2020 primary season) means that you risk your chances of re-election.
2. Trump won't take the Nixon route and gracefully bow out. Telling Trump he should resign or not run for re-election will just make him dig in more.
3. Therefore the path of least resistance is: support Trump so your base is happy; let Trump take a drubbing if that is to be; and then morph to support whoever comes next.

It seems a foregone conclusion that the House will pass Articles of Impeachment at some point after the Mueller report comes out. For Trump to be ousted, about 20 Republican Senators will have to vote against him. It is difficult to prejudge the likelihood of that without seeing the Mueller report and the public reaction to it, but that's a big hill to climb unless Trump's base turns on him.

This is what disgusts me about politicians. IF Trump can be shown unambiguously (tapes, written documents, not just hearsay) to have conspired with the Russians (or any other foreign government), or if his campaign did to tamper with our democracy, he has to go. The Rs should not give a crap about what the base says, this is about our country.

IF NOT, the Ds need to shut up and try to beat him in 2020. Proving perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, violation of the emoluments clause, lying...these are terrible things, set a terrible example and precedent, but I'm just not sure it matters to 30% of the country. Yes it's breaking the law and the Constitution, but I don't think any of these things will get a conviction in the Senate. Some would say unfortunately, but in the spirit of the board I'm not going to opine on that.

Many call this "interesting times". I call it sad times. Honestly, this must be what it felt like in 1860. We are so divided. Whether Trump is involved with Russia or not, Putin is gleeful.

[jimsumner]

Re: the election and the latest bombshell, I’ll reiterate: It’s not wise to assume Donald Trump will be on the ballot come November 2020.

I'll try to put this as dispassionately as possible.

Donald Trump is 72 years old.

He is morbidly obese.

He has a terrible diet.

He does not exercise.

He is under enormous stress.

According to numerous sources, he is prone to frequent outbursts of rage.

He has few, if any, real friends.

He appears to be showing signs of cognitive decline.

This is not the profile of a healthy person.

I'm not sure it's wise to assume he'll even be alive for the next election.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'm not sure it's wise to assume he'll even be alive for the next election.

Obviously hugely hypothetical, but if Trump kicks the bucket before the election, do republicans rally around Pence or put forth a new candidate? I would assume they go with the incumbent.

[lotusland]

As long as we are speculating, I think, in a hypothetical impeachment scenario, a large part of the Republican establishment will be glad to be rid of Trump and enough senators will signal their intent to vote him out that he will resign. Especially if an agreement is reached to spare him and his children from prosecution.

Also that scenario will reak carnage on the GOP and no replacement candidate would stand a chance. Why not just let Pence go up in flames and re-build the party’s with the type of reforms that insiders have wanted for years but the base would not accept?

[golfinesquire]

I believe the Washington Post is one of the news organizations that has reported that a number of Republicans in the Senate are hoping that there is something in the Mueller report that allows them to prosecute him in the Senate (assuming the House brings article of impeachment). These are unnamed sources so make of it what you will but that idea is out there. An interesting problem is what happens if Pence is also tarred with the Mueller brush. Impeach him as well? And, how does that work in terms of succession? I have to think the Republicans would be dead-set against the Speaker (i.e. Pelosi) taking over which means they would need to make sure that Trump or Pence appoints his replacement before heading out the door.

[jimsumner]

I believe the Washington Post is one of the news organizations that has reported that a number of Republicans in the Senate are hoping that there is something in the Mueller report that allows them to prosecute him in the Senate (assuming the House brings article of impeachment). These are unnamed sources so make of it what you will but that idea is out there. An interesting problem is what happens if Pence is also tarred with the Mueller brush. Impeach him as well? And, how does that work in terms of succession? I have to think the Republicans would be dead-set against the Speaker (i.e. Pelosi) taking over which means they would need to make sure that Trump or Pence appoints his replacement before heading out the door.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Trump's win over Clinton resulted in Nancy Pelosi becoming the first female president.

But I agree, I don't see how it could be orchestrated to remove both Trump and Pence at the same time.

[Indoor66]

Wouldn't it be ironic if Trump's win over Clinton resulted in Nancy Pelosi becoming the first female president.

But I agree, I don't see how it could be orchestrated to remove both Trump and Pence at the same time.

Methinks you may be living in an altered reality.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Major politicians who look really, really likely to run: Beto, Biden, Booker, Brown, Bloomberg (the five Bs), Harris, Sanders, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Casey (10)


We can nix Casey from your list. (Which is fun to follow, wish there was a way to stickey it.)


“After two months of considering it, I have concluded that the best way for me to fight for the America that so many of us believe in is to stay in the U.S. Senate and not run for the presidency in 2020,” Casey said in a statement.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sen-bob-casey-rules-out-2020-presidential-bid/ar-BBSqmV9?li=BBnb7Kz

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Methinks you may be living in an altered reality.

Aren't we all these days?

[OldPhiKap]

As long as we are speculating, I think, in a hypothetical impeachment scenario, a large part of the Republican establishment will be glad to be rid of Trump and enough senators will signal their intent to vote him out that he will resign. Especially if an agreement is reached to spare him and his children from prosecution.

Also that scenario will reak carnage on the GOP and no replacement candidate would stand a chance. Why not just let Pence go up in flames and re-build the party’s with the type of reforms that insiders have wanted for years but the base would not accept?

The minute he resigns, Trump (a/k/a "Individual 1") is subject to criminal prosecution in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York absent a pardon. Even with a pardon, he may be subject to criminal prosecution by the State of New York if their tax investigation turns up anything.

He can't resign even if he wanted to.

[Indoor66]

The minute he resigns, Trump (a/k/a "Individual 1") is subject to criminal prosecution in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York absent a pardon. Even with a pardon, he may be subject to criminal prosecution by the State of New York if their tax investigation turns up anything.

He can't resign even if he wanted to.

Wow!

[golfinesquire]

Wouldn't it be ironic if Trump's win over Clinton resulted in Nancy Pelosi becoming the first female president.

But I agree, I don't see how it could be orchestrated to remove both Trump and Pence at the same time.

One thing my lawyer friends and I have batted around is this scenario. Suppose there was strong proof not just that Russia interfered by using bots and trolls to aid in dissemination of certain false or unflattering material about Clinton but they actually hacked machines and changed votes (by way of clarification, I don't think that happened or that Mueller will find evidence of it. This is just a hypothetical). Under that scenario, neither the president nor the veep were legitimately elected. So, what happens then? Does the presidency automatically default to the speaker because neither can appoint a replacement? Again, I don't think we will be facing that question now but it is certainly a scenario worth pondering for future elections.

[golfinesquire]

Wow!

Maybe wow. We still have to have proof of that, but it is definitely a factor.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I believe the Washington Post is one of the news organizations that has reported that a number of Republicans in the Senate are hoping that there is something in the Mueller report that allows them to prosecute him in the Senate (assuming the House brings article of impeachment). These are unnamed sources so make of it what you will but that idea is out there. An interesting problem is what happens if Pence is also tarred with the Mueller brush. Impeach him as well? And, how does that work in terms of succession? I have to think the Republicans would be dead-set against the Speaker (i.e. Pelosi) taking over which means they would need to make sure that Trump or Pence appoints his replacement before heading out the door.

Not to go too far down this path, but should they find something that can potentially be prosecuted, how long would all of this take to play out? I'm assuming there would be a ridiculous amount of law suits, stalling, etc. to make this drag on as long as possible.

[JasonEvans]

We can nix Casey from your list. (Which is fun to follow, wish there was a way to stickey it.)

Well, we can just cut and paste it into a new post every now and then as the list grows/shrinks:


Declared or already have exploratory committee (I'm not counting crackpots and others who have no shot): Sen. Warren, Secy. Castro, Rep. John Delaney, Rep. Tusli Gabbard, Sen. Kamala Harris (5)
Major politicians who look really, really likely to run: Beto, Biden, Booker, Brown, Bloomberg (the five Bs), Gillibrand, Klobuchar(7)
Lesser known politicians who have expressed some interest in running: South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg; Washington Gov. Jay Inslee; LA Mayor Eric Garcetti; Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper; fmr. Attorney Gen. Eric Holder; Va Gov. Terry McAuliffe; Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan; CA Rep. Eric Swalwell; losing FLA/GA governor candidates Stacy Abrams and Andrew Gillum; New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu (11)
Celebs/Businessmen who look likely to run: Fmr. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz; Oprah; Angelina Jolie; George Clooney; the Rock; Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (6)


That "Lesser known politicians" group could easily be expanded if I wanted to. I could add NY Mayor De Blasio, Terry McAuliffe, Sen. Michael Bennett, Sen. Jeff Merkley, Rep. Adam Schiff (his profile could soar as he presides over Trump investigations, and probably a few more.

-Jason "I think the field will get to be close to 20 with folks who actually have the credentials to be considered serious candidates... though most won't get enough money or attention to even leave the starting gate" Evans

[JasonEvans]

I'll try to put this as dispassionately as possible.

Donald Trump is 72 years old.

He is morbidly obese.

He has a terrible diet.

He does not exercise.

He is under enormous stress.

According to numerous sources, he is prone to frequent outbursts of rage.

He has few, if any, real friends.

He appears to be showing signs of cognitive decline.

This is not the profile of a healthy person.

I'm not sure it's wise to assume he'll even be alive for the next election.

I quoted Jim's post, but what I am going to say next could apply to a lot of posts.

I'd like us to slow our roll a weeee bit on some of the speculation about impeachment and Trump's fitness for office (even couched in the terms of his physical/mental health). If you want to cite a legit news article that talks about these issues, that should be ok (please, make sure it is from a journalistic news operation, not a highly biased one) but I feel like we have gone a bit too far in the deep end when it comes to speculative posts about the viability of the President.

In fact, for the time being, I am going to declare a moratorium on the "Trump won't run in 2020" or "Trump will be primaried in 2020" conversation. I think it is too speculative at this point. If events begin to suggest that it is worth discussing again, feel free to PM me with that news and I will post something alerting everyone that we can talk about that again.

To be clear, this thread needs to be a "safe space" for the Trump fans as much as it is for the Trump haters. It just does not feel that way lately. I hope you all understand.

-Jason "thanks to everyone for adhering to the rules of the thread" Evans

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Well, we can just cut and paste it into a new post every now and then as the list grows/shrinks:


Declared or already have exploratory committee (I'm not counting crackpots and others who have no shot): Sen. Warren, Secy. Castro, Rep. John Delaney, Rep. Tusli Gabbard, Sen. Kamala Harris (5)
Major politicians who look really, really likely to run: Beto, Biden, Booker, Brown, Bloomberg (the five Bs), Gillibrand, Klobuchar(7)
Lesser known politicians who have expressed some interest in running: South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg; Washington Gov. Jay Inslee; LA Mayor Eric Garcetti; Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper; fmr. Attorney Gen. Eric Holder; Va Gov. Terry McAuliffe; Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan; CA Rep. Eric Swalwell; losing FLA/GA governor candidates Stacy Abrams and Andrew Gillum; New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu (11)
Celebs/Businessmen who look likely to run: Fmr. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz; Oprah; Angelina Jolie; George Clooney; the Rock; Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (6)


That "Lesser known politicians" group could easily be expanded if I wanted to. I could add NY Mayor De Blasio, Terry McAuliffe, Sen. Michael Bennett, Sen. Jeff Merkley, Rep. Adam Schiff (his profile could soar as he presides over Trump investigations, and probably a few more.

-Jason "I think the field will get to be close to 20 with folks who actually have the credentials to be considered serious candidates... though most won't get enough money or attention to even leave the starting gate" Evans

Love this list but I would downgrade the last group from "Celebs/Businessmen who look likely to run" to "Celebs/Businesspeople who have been mentioned as potential candidates." First - let's be a little more gender sensitive as half the list is women. Second - I wouldn't consider any of them "likely" to run, but I think there is a decent chance at least one of them runs. I have heard that Oprah has totally ruled it out but I would still keep her on the list.

Also, I would upgrade DeBlasio to the "lesser known politicians" group. He is not actively campaigning, but he has taken steps in that direction. Interesting article this week in NY Magazine about him and the fact that he has actually done some of the things the other more progressive potential Dem candidates have just talked about, and he has not ruled out a run.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/will-bill-de-blasio-run-in-2020.html

[golfinesquire]

Not to go too far down this path, but should they find something that can potentially be prosecuted, how long would all of this take to play out? I'm assuming there would be a ridiculous amount of law suits, stalling, etc. to make this drag on as long as possible.

While we lawyers can always come up with new and creative ways to sue, I am not sure that there is a way for anyone other than Congress to put the breaks up an impeachment proceeding. The Constitution says little about the mechanisms of impeachment but it does vest a lot of power in the House in terms of bringing articles of impeachment to the floor. I have a vague recollection that the impeachment proceedings against Clinton moved fairly quickly. I think there was less than a year from the articles being brought to the trial in the Senate. As I recall during the impeachment proceeding in the House, Kenn Starr essentially testified to his investigation and his conclusions that the president had committed prosecutable offenses so there was little taking of testimony. But, each Congress is its own entity and so, assuming they even got that far, how they conduct impeachment proceedings could well look different from 1998.

[El_Diablo]

Well, we can just cut and paste it into a new post every now and then as the list grows/shrinks:


Declared or already have exploratory committee (I'm not counting crackpots and others who have no shot): Sen. Warren, Secy. Castro, Rep. John Delaney, Rep. Tusli Gabbard, Sen. Kamala Harris (5)
Major politicians who look really, really likely to run: Beto, Biden, Booker, Brown, Bloomberg (the five Bs), Gillibrand, Klobuchar(7)
Lesser known politicians who have expressed some interest in running: South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg; Washington Gov. Jay Inslee; LA Mayor Eric Garcetti; Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper; fmr. Attorney Gen. Eric Holder; Va Gov. Terry McAuliffe; Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan; CA Rep. Eric Swalwell; losing FLA/GA governor candidates Stacy Abrams and Andrew Gillum; New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu (11)
Celebs/Businessmen who look likely to run: Fmr. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz; Oprah; Angelina Jolie; George Clooney; the Rock; Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (6)


That "Lesser known politicians" group could easily be expanded if I wanted to. I could add NY Mayor De Blasio, Terry McAuliffe, Sen. Michael Bennett, Sen. Jeff Merkley, Rep. Adam Schiff (his profile could soar as he presides over Trump investigations, and probably a few more.

-Jason "I think the field will get to be close to 20 with folks who actually have the credentials to be considered serious candidates... though most won't get enough money or attention to even leave the starting gate" Evans

Gillibrand announced her exploratory committee a few days ago, so she should be in the first group. And I think Harris should still be in the second group (unless I missed her announcement).

[golfinesquire]

I quoted Jim's post, but what I am going to say next could apply to a lot of posts.

I'd like us to slow our roll a weeee bit on some of the speculation about impeachment and Trump's fitness for office (even couched in the terms of his physical/mental health). If you want to cite a legit news article that talks about these issues, that should be ok (please, make sure it is from a journalistic news operation, not a highly biased one) but I feel like we have gone a bit too far in the deep end when it comes to speculative posts about the viability of the President.

In fact, for the time being, I am going to declare a moratorium on the "Trump won't run in 2020" or "Trump will be primaried in 2020" conversation. I think it is too speculative at this point. If events begin to suggest that it is worth discussing again, feel free to PM me with that news and I will post something alerting everyone that we can talk about that again.

To be clear, this thread needs to be a "safe space" for the Trump fans as much as it is for the Trump haters. It just does not feel that way lately. I hope you all understand.

-Jason "thanks to everyone for adhering to the rules of the thread" Evans

I respect that Jason. It is worth pointing out that both the Washington Post and Vanity Fair routinely run articles confirming what Jim has said about Trump's behavior.

[OldPhiKap]

Well, we can just cut and paste it into a new post every now and then as the list grows/shrinks:


Declared or already have exploratory committee (I'm not counting crackpots and others who have no shot): Sen. Warren, Secy. Castro, Rep. John Delaney, Rep. Tusli Gabbard, Sen. Kamala Harris (5)
Major politicians who look really, really likely to run: Beto, Biden, Booker, Brown, Bloomberg (the five Bs), Gillibrand, Klobuchar(7)
Lesser known politicians who have expressed some interest in running: South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg; Washington Gov. Jay Inslee; LA Mayor Eric Garcetti; Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper; fmr. Attorney Gen. Eric Holder; Va Gov. Terry McAuliffe; Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan; CA Rep. Eric Swalwell; losing FLA/GA governor candidates Stacy Abrams and Andrew Gillum; New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu (11)
Celebs/Businessmen who look likely to run: Fmr. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz; Oprah; Angelina Jolie; George Clooney; the Rock; Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (6)


That "Lesser known politicians" group could easily be expanded if I wanted to. I could add NY Mayor De Blasio, Terry McAuliffe, Sen. Michael Bennett, Sen. Jeff Merkley, Rep. Adam Schiff (his profile could soar as he presides over Trump investigations, and probably a few more.

-Jason "I think the field will get to be close to 20 with folks who actually have the credentials to be considered serious candidates... though most won't get enough money or attention to even leave the starting gate" Evans

I heard the Democratic Governor of Montana on the radio today, who sure sounds like he is contemplating a run. (Steve Bullock -- I had to Google it). Well-spoken, and has worked with a significant Republican legislature (per him at least). Selling the cross-party outsider line, which is usually a pretty strong one if you can otherwise get traction.

I just wonder how well all of the DC-connected folks are gonna do. Since '76 we have had:

1976 -- Governor Carter
1980, 84 -- Governor Reagan
88 -- George HW Bush (continuation of Reagan tough a DC guy)
1992, 1996 -- Governor Clinton
2000, 04 -- Governor George W Bush
2008, 12 -- lightly-DC-dusted Senator Obama
2016 -- Businessman/Celebrity Trump

Congress' favorability rating is miserable and has been for a long time. My money is on an outsider. (Put an asterisk by Uncle Joe, though, as a retired throwback guy).

[Reilly]

... list ... wish there was a way to stickey it ...

Just bookmark this (even has photos): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

[CDu]

I appreciate the moderation on this, Jason. There will eventually be enough other stuff to talk about regarding that election. No need to speculate on a person's potential legal or health concerns with so little known concretely.

[JasonEvans]

Gillibrand announced her exploratory committee a few days ago, so she should be in the first group. And I think Harris should still be in the second group (unless I missed her announcement).

I foolishly got Gillibrand and Harris confused for a moment. I've been sorta buried in Brexit news this week at CNN-international so I am less plugged in than usual when it comes to U.S. politics.

[lotusland]

Apparently Maryland Governor Larry Hogan is an actual potential GOP primary candidate who is testing the water. I don’t know anything about the guy but I doubt Bill Kristol’s hand picked candidate has much of a shot.

https://apple.news/AHZc1F-RNQAKUyuAcPC2wpA

[RPS]

(I'm not counting crackpots and others who have no shot)

Any number of people on that list (or almost any list) might be considered a crackpot or as having no shot.

This wasn't that long ago.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHkPadFK34o

In my voting lifetime (which for president began in 1976), the only winning presidential candidate a significant number of people didn't think had no shot was probably George H.W. Bush.

[OldPhiKap]

Any number of people on that list (or almost any list) might be considered a crackpot or as having no shot.

This wasn't that long ago.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHkPadFK34o

In my voting lifetime (which for president began in 1976), the only winning presidential candidate a significant number of people didn't think had no shot was probably George H.W. Bush.

Good point. In ‘92, many major Democratic candidates (Mario Cuomo comes to mind) skipped the race because GHWBush “could not be beat” and had a crazy high favorabilitiy rating. Clinton, a rising Democratic star but still not a made man, was able to win the primary. Then the economy collapsed . . . .

Game, Clinton.

[Rich]

Any number of people on that list (or almost any list) might be considered a crackpot or as having no shot.

This wasn't that long ago.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHkPadFK34o

In my voting lifetime (which for president began in 1976), the only winning presidential candidate a significant number of people didn't think had no shot was probably George H.W. Bush.

Wow, that video is fantastic. I love the reaction of the ABC commentators. If I was a leader in the Democrat party I would plaster that video all over the place as a "Never Forget" type of thing.

[Mike Corey]

To be fair, most Republican leaders were just as stupefied.

(And still are.)

[BandAlum83]

Well, we can just cut and paste it into a new post every now and then as the list grows/shrinks:


Declared or already have exploratory committee (I'm not counting crackpots and others who have no shot): Sen. Warren, Secy. Castro, Rep. John Delaney, Rep. Tusli Gabbard, Sen. Kamala Harris (5)
Major politicians who look really, really likely to run: Beto, Biden, Booker, Brown, Bloomberg (the five Bs), Gillibrand, Klobuchar(7)
Lesser known politicians who have expressed some interest in running: South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg; Washington Gov. Jay Inslee; LA Mayor Eric Garcetti; Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper; fmr. Attorney Gen. Eric Holder; Va Gov. Terry McAuliffe; Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan; CA Rep. Eric Swalwell; losing FLA/GA governor candidates Stacy Abrams and Andrew Gillum; New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu (11)
Celebs/Businessmen who look likely to run: Fmr. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz; Oprah; Angelina Jolie; George Clooney; the Rock; Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (6)


That "Lesser known politicians" group could easily be expanded if I wanted to. I could add NY Mayor De Blasio, Terry McAuliffe, Sen. Michael Bennett, Sen. Jeff Merkley, Rep. Adam Schiff (his profile could soar as he presides over Trump investigations, and probably a few more.

-Jason "I think the field will get to be close to 20 with folks who actually have the credentials to be considered serious candidates... though most won't get enough money or attention to even leave the starting gate" Evans

my over/under of 18.5 is looking like a good opening line.

[BandAlum83]

Wow, that video is fantastic. I love the reaction of the ABC commentators. If I was a leader in the Democrat party I would plaster that video all over the place as a "Never Forget" type of thing.

It's the Democratic party. Members of the Democratic party are Democrats.

[PackMan97]

Celebs/Businessmen who look likely to run: Fmr. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz; Oprah; Angelina Jolie; George Clooney; the Rock; Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (6)


I would vote for the Rock straight up....then watch the Pay-per-view wrestling match between him and Putin with a nuclear arms treaty as the prize! Could be a lot of fun!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

No surprise, but Kamala Harris is officially in.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Buttigieg from South Bend is in. As the article notes at the end, it is somewhat surprising that he chose to go national before going for governor, but perhaps he feels that his message plays better nationally than in Indiana.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-mayor-south-bend-president.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage

[elvis14]

Buttigieg from South Bend is in. As the article notes at the end, it is somewhat surprising that he chose to go national before going for governor, but perhaps he feels that his message plays better nationally than in Indiana.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-mayor-south-bend-president.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage

That article had a link to another article which is a Democratic Candidate Tracker (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html?action=click&module=inline&pgtype=Article).
I didn't see a link for the GOP's candidate tracker yet, should be interesting to see who runs on that side and when they start announcing.

[Acymetric]

That article had a link to another article which is a Democratic Candidate Tracker (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html?action=click&module=inline&pgtype=Article).
I didn't see a link for the GOP's candidate tracker yet, should be interesting to see who runs on that side and when they start announcing.

I would think it would be advantageous for a Republican candidate to wait as long as possible to declare. Among other reasons, running against a sitting candidate from your own party is a hard line to walk between attracting voters and alienating them. The closer you are to the primaries, the less a problem that is.

[RPS]

The Bulwark (https://thebulwark.com/) is a new and unabashedly conservative site, begun from the ashes of The Weekly Standard. Since it is also aggressively anti-Trump, it offers an interesting perspective on the presidential race.

Power Rankings start here (https://thebulwark.com/may-the-odds-be-ever-in-their-favor/). It opens Bernie, Kamala, Beto...

A very interesting analysis of campaign logos is here (https://thebulwark.com/kamala-harriss-logo-is-a-disaster-heres-why/).

[Nick]

Does anybody know what the Clintons are going to do this cycle? Do they have any favorites in the race they're likely to support? How much sway do they have left?

[luvdahops]

Bloomberg weighs in

https://www.apnews.com/514f2670506b44e599e076ff49f8d25e

If he runs as a Democrat, he will be formidable in my view

[left_hook_lacey]

Does anybody know what the Clintons are going to do this cycle? Do they have any favorites in the race they're likely to support? How much sway do they have left?

I thought there was a lot in the tea leaves that Hillary would run again? http://fortune.com/2018/11/12/hillary-clinton-president-2020/


I wonder how Kamala Harris entering the race will affect Hillary's decision to run or not run? I could see it really bothering her if after all these years of trying and coming so close, some Johnny-Kamala-lately just prances right in and becomes the first female president in her first try.

[mattman91]

I thought there was a lot in the tea leaves that Hillary would run again? http://fortune.com/2018/11/12/hillary-clinton-president-2020/


I wonder how Kamala Harris entering the race will affect Hillary's decision to run or not run? I could see it really bothering her if after all these years of trying and coming so close, some Johnny-Kamala-lately just prances right in and becomes the first female president in her first try.

Hillaryious

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Does anybody know what the Clintons are going to do this cycle? Do they have any favorites in the race they're likely to support? How much sway do they have left?

I think that there are many who will see them as toxic and try to keep their distance, while others will embrace them, particularly because they can help raise a ton of money.

[OldPhiKap]

I thought there was a lot in the tea leaves that Hillary would run again? http://fortune.com/2018/11/12/hillary-clinton-president-2020/




I always assumed this was just a trial balloon, and that the response was unfavorable. But who knows.

I doubt HRC would finish in the top 3 in Iowa or NH this time around.

[Wander]

I still don't think any Republican would beat Trump in a primary (or come anywhere remotely close), but with the arrest of political consultant/Trump advisor/conspiracy theorist Roger Stone and the government shutdown starting to have real effects on air travel (and polls showing voters blame Trump more than Democrats), you have to wonder if anyone out there is thinking about it...

[gus]

I thought there was a lot in the tea leaves that Hillary would run again? http://fortune.com/2018/11/12/hillary-clinton-president-2020/


I wonder how Kamala Harris entering the race will affect Hillary's decision to run or not run? I could see it really bothering her if after all these years of trying and coming so close, some Johnny-Kamala-lately just prances right in and becomes the first female president in her first try.

Lindsey Graham clearly thinks she is (https://www.salon.com/2019/01/23/lindsey-graham-renews-probe-into-hillarys-emails-democrats-burst-out-laughing/).

I doubt she is though.

[JasonEvans]

I still don't think any Republican would beat Trump in a primary (or come anywhere remotely close), but with the arrest of political consultant/Trump advisor/conspiracy theorist Roger Stone and the government shutdown starting to have real effects on air travel (and polls showing voters blame Trump more than Democrats), you have to wonder if anyone out there is thinking about it...

I have a flurry of articles to reference in regards to this.

First, CNN reports that the RNC has merged (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/politics/rnc-closing-ranks-trump/index.html)with the Trump re-election campaign, meaning that if you are campaigning against Trump, you are also campaigning against the party itself.


The Republican National Committee is poised to express its "undivided support for President Donald J. Trump and his effective Presidency" as the committee's members conclude their annual winter meeting here on Friday.

The public articulation of support comes on the heels of an unprecedented merger between Trump's re-election campaign and the RNC, which GOP officials were briefed on during the three-day New Mexico retreat. The merger will bring the Trump re-election campaign and the RNC's field organizing and fundraising efforts under one roof, dedicating party resources to re-electing Trump before he is officially renominated.

That said, a new Zogby poll (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/2020-gop-poll-trump-64-romney-9-flake-1-primary-challenge-unlikely)(I know, not exactly reliable, but still...) finds Trump's support among the GOP very high but it is worth noting that about 1/3rd of the party seems willing to at least consider someone else.
https://mediadc.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/8e55c47/2147483647/strip/true/crop/605x445+0+0/resize/605x445!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediadc.brightspotcdn.com%2Fbf% 2F8a%2F968ba8b441ada15dc360ffe1fdd5%2Frepprimary01 2519.png

Finally, 538 has a look at Larry Hogan (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/does-larry-hogan-have-a-shot-against-trump-in-a-2020-gop-primary/), the GOP Maryland governor who is supposedly thinking about challenging Trump.


So if Hogan were to challenge Trump for the GOP nomination … could he actually win? Well, it depends on what your definition of “win” is. (Bear with me for a second.)

In the modern era of presidential primaries, no incumbent president has ever lost renomination.1 Heck, the last time a president didn’t win renomination was in 1884, when Republican President Chester A. Arthur lost to James Blaine at the GOP convention. Moreover, among rank-and-file Republicans, Trump’s approval rating remains high — north of 80 percent. So actually defeating Trump in a Republican primary contest would be quite difficult, based on what we know now.

But if Hogan’s goal is to win a substantial share of the vote while making the case for a different kind of Republicanism, that seems more attainable.

-Jason "ok, question to all... if you had to bet, do you think someone will contest Trump for the GOP Nom? I know Trump will almost certainly win it, but will someone oppose him? I think yes" Evans

[Wander]

-Jason "ok, question to all... if you had to bet, do you think someone will contest Trump for the GOP Nom? I know Trump will almost certainly win it, but will someone oppose him? I think yes" Evans

That is a good question, and much harder to answer. I guess I could see someone running just in an effort to influence the dialog of the Republican party (like Bernie did last time with Democrats) or someone running in a sincere effort to win the nomination... of 2024. If the Trump administration collapses in scandal like some people think it might, it could make for a powerful message for someone in 2024 to say "I stuck to my values all along and ran for the nomination even when it was unpopular back in the 2020 version of the Republican party" (like I somewhat alluded to earlier, I think Mitt Romney already has a case for this, and should play up his Russia comments he got made fun of for in 2012).

I would still guess the answer to your question is no... but I'm much less certain about it.

[PackMan97]

That is a good question, and much harder to answer. I guess I could see someone running just in an effort to influence the dialog of the Republican party (like Bernie did last time with Democrats) or someone running in a sincere effort to win the nomination... of 2024. If the Trump administration collapses in scandal like some people think it might, it could make for a powerful message for someone in 2024 to say "I stuck to my values all along and ran for the nomination even when it was unpopular back in the 2020 version of the Republican party" (like I somewhat alluded to earlier, I think Mitt Romney already has a case for this, and should play up his Russia comments he got made fun of for in 2012).

I would still guess the answer to your question is no... but I'm much less certain about it.

Romney is already 71 and would be almost 77 if he's running for 2024...so I'll say no, he wouldn't be running for 2024. If he runs in 2020 it's to because he thinks its the right thing to do not because he's setting himself for another run after Trump hits the term limit in 2024.

What the Republican party needs is their version of Obama. Someone who is articulate and easy to understand on policy, has a short enough political career not to have a bunch of history to run against and who is likeable, even by political opponents. I thought in 2016, that could be Rubio, but he disappointed me on that account.

[OldPhiKap]

-Jason "ok, question to all... if you had to bet, do you think someone will contest Trump for the GOP Nom? I know Trump will almost certainly win it, but will someone oppose him? I think yes" Evans

Yes, and willing to bet a pie. Bet is off though if GOP cancels primaries or blocks a challenge by rule.

[Nick]

Yes, and willing to bet a pie. Bet is off though if GOP cancels primaries or blocks a challenge by rule.

I think you'll want to establish a definition of "contested" before betting, right? Looking back at the 2012 Dem nomination and 2004 GOP nomination, there were fringe candidates who got on the ballot in one state (e.g. Vermin Supreme) and some of them even made it on in more than one state, so technically the nominations were contested, but really they weren't. Should the bet be on a candidate getting onto the ballot in X number of states or getting Y% of the vote?

[Wander]

What the Republican party needs is their version of Obama. Someone who is articulate and easy to understand on policy, has a short enough political career not to have a bunch of history to run against and who is likeable, even by political opponents. I thought in 2016, that could be Rubio, but he disappointed me on that account.

I'd say that Rubio WAS the conservative version of Obama. But the two parties are not equal, and they're not looking for the same thing in a candidate.

[BandAlum83]

That was fast. I'm not sure we ever even recognized that he was "in"

Dem Richard Ojeda drops out of presidential race (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/427009-ojeda-drops-out-of-presidential-race)

[OldPhiKap]

I think you'll want to establish a definition of "contested" before betting, right? Looking back at the 2012 Dem nomination and 2004 GOP nomination, there were fringe candidates who got on the ballot in one state (e.g. Vermin Supreme) and some of them even made it on in more than one state, so technically the nominations were contested, but really they weren't. Should the bet be on a candidate getting onto the ballot in X number of states or getting Y% of the vote?

Valid points. And to be clear, I do not think a challenger wins although a lot can and will happen on multiple fronts before Iowa (about 53 or so weeks away I think).

Let me think on it, and I welcome propositions. (It’s one of my less savory qualities in general, but I digress)

[CrazyNotCrazie]

What the Republican party needs is their version of Obama. Someone who is articulate and easy to understand on policy, has a short enough political career not to have a bunch of history to run against and who is likeable, even by political opponents. I thought in 2016, that could be Rubio, but he disappointed me on that account.

I am not too knowledgable about him but I think Ben Sasse fits the bill on a number of these measures except I'm not sure how likable he is to his political opponents, as he has actively opposed Trump in many ways but then when push comes to shove has fallen in line. At this point, I think most Republicans who have served in congress during the Trump administration and have largely voted with the party will not be very likable to Democrats, regardless of their positions pre-Trump.

[RPS]

ok, question to all... if you had to bet, do you think someone will contest Trump for the GOP Nom? I know Trump will almost certainly win it, but will someone oppose him? I think yes

I think "yes" too. In fact, if I were an ambitious Republican with a bit of a national reputation but no decent path to a nomination normally, I'll definitely run. Whatever you might think of the president, he is high variance. I'd believe almost any outcome at any point. Who knows what news might come out, what Trump might do, or what else might happen? I'd take a flyer.

[OldPhiKap]

I think "yes" too. In fact, if I were an ambitious Republican with a bit of a national reputation but no decent path to a nomination normally, I'll definitely run. Whatever you might think of the president, he is high variance. I'd believe almost any outcome at any point. Who knows what news might come out, what Trump might do, or what else might happen? I'd take a flyer.

Yup. And there are substantive folks willing to throw money and press towards a challenge.

[BandAlum83]

So.....Howard Schultz.

What say you all? No impact? Significant? Who will he appeal to?

The Democrats seem to be pretty spooked by it, thinking he would serve to split Trump's opposition while not affecting his base, thereby letting him capture some states he couldn't capture otherwise.

[gus]

So....Howard Schultz.

What say you all? No impact? Significant? Who will he appeal to?

The Democrats seem to be pretty spooked by it, thinking he would serve to split Trump's opposition while not affecting his base, thereby letting him capture some states he couldn't capture otherwise.

I think it's a legitimate concern, even if almost no one will vote for Schultz. Jill Stein's 1.4mm vote might have swung 2016.

So is Schultz...

1) Vainly delusional and thinking he actually has a chance to win?
2) Actually a Trump supporter, and doing this to help throw the election his way?
3) Doing this in the most vain way possible to make sure Democratic voters don't put someone too liberal on the ticket?
4) Trying to sell a book?

[Lord Ash]

It seems the Koch brothers will NOT contribute money to Trump, just as they did not in 2016.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/billionaire-koch-brothers-wont-support-trump-in-2020-snubbing-his-bid-for-second-time

They say that financially they will likely stay away from politics in this cycle.

[OldPhiKap]

I think it's a legitimate concern, even if almost no one will vote for Schultz. Jill Stein's 1.4mm vote might have swung 2016.

So is Schultz...

1) Vainly delusional and thinking he actually has a chance to win?
2) Actually a Trump supporter, and doing this to help throw the election his way?
3) Doing this in the most vain way possible to make sure Democratic voters don't put someone too liberal on the ticket?
4) Trying to sell a book?

Of course, it also could be (5) he thinks the two-party monopoly IS the problem, and he thinks he has something new to offer.

(I have no idea).

Way too early to figure on his impact, but worth watching.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

So....Howard Schultz.

What say you all? No impact? Significant? Who will he appeal to?

The Democrats seem to be pretty spooked by it, thinking he would serve to split Trump's opposition while not affecting his base, thereby letting him capture some states he couldn't capture otherwise.

People in Seattle are still so salty about the Sonics leaving, I can't imagine he would even carry that heavy left state.

[JasonEvans]

Schultz is a longtime Democrat (look at his history of donations on OpenSecrets (https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Howard+schultz)) so I think we can rule out some plant by Trump... unless Schultz and Trump have been playing a long con for more than a decade banking on Trump winning the Presidency and needing a mysterious 3rd party candidate to muddle the field when he runs for re-election. Where's the eye rolling emoji when you need it?

As someone who has been interested in politics for a while, I would think Schultz would recognize a move like this will cause him to be an outcast in the Democratic community. I think he will make some noise and then decided to either run as a Dem or bow out completely.

-Jason "considering we are a year from the first votes being cast... there sure is a lot going on!" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

NYT has an article up on the possibility of a Republican primary challenge. An interesting name raised was William Weld, former Massachusetts governor and the Libertarian VP candidate in 2016. He is also considering a run for the Libertarian top spot.

Also mentions that Kadijah and Flake have TV gigs now so their desire to run may be blunted.

[PackMan97]

I think it's a legitimate concern, even if almost no one will vote for Schultz. Jill Stein's 1.4mm vote might have swung 2016.

So is Schultz...

1) Vainly delusional and thinking he actually has a chance to win?
2) Actually a Trump supporter, and doing this to help throw the election his way?
3) Doing this in the most vain way possible to make sure Democratic voters don't put someone too liberal on the ticket?
4) Trying to sell a book?

In an election like 2016 it is a fallacy to suggest that Stein, Johnson or any other third party/independent candidate could have swung the race one way or the other. I think more so that most other election, those that voted third party were not and would never vote for the two major party candidates.

Now, if we want to rewind to 1992 and discuss the effect a strong Perot run had on things. His candidacy certainly set the tone of the mid 90's political culture which at times were dominated by the fiscal conservatism trumpeted by Perot.

1) You have to be delusional to run for President in the first place, so I think this is just a rhetorical question. I think after the 2016 results, there is no such thing as "no chance to win".
2) I highly doubt that. I think an independent moderate has as much chance as pulling dissatisfied Republicans away from Trump as it does anything else.
3) I don't see any moderate Democrats throwing their hat in the ring yet. Seems like they are intent on running a candidate with strong progressive ideals.
4) Selling a book now, or after two successful terms as President? Either way a book will be written.

I'm well known for wanting our current system disrupted, so I would certainly welcome independent running a well financed campaign, even if he is tilting at windmills.

[PackMan97]

NYT has an article up on the possibility of a Republican primary challenge. An interesting name raised was William Weld, former Massachusetts governor and the Libertarian VP candidate in 2016. He is also considering a run for the Libertarian top spot.

Also mentions that Kadijah and Flake have TV gigs now so their desire to run may be blunted.

I didn't know much about Weld until the 2016 nomination as the VP for the Libertarians, but I would welcome him as a choice at the top of any ticket.

[El_Diablo]

In an election like 2016 it is a fallacy to suggest that Stein, Johnson or any other third party/independent candidate could have swung the race one way or the other. I think more so that most other election, those that voted third party were not and would never vote for the two major party candidates.

Stein and Johnson voters may not have had a strong preference between Trump and Clinton, but it's accurate to point out that they could have swung the race. It's just math.

If everyone who voted for Stein and Johnson had voted for Clinton instead, then Clinton would have won the electoral college resoundingly--by 100 electoral votes--and would be the President right now. Specifically, she would have won Florida (which Trump won by a margin of 112,911 votes), Pennsylvania (which Trump won by 44,292 votes), Michigan (which Trump won by 10,704 votes), Wisconsin (which Trump won by 22,748 votes), Arizona (which Trump won by 91,234 votes) and Nebraska-2nd (which Trump won by 6,534 votes). In all of those states, Stein and Johnson received more votes than the final Trump-Clinton margin. In fact, if just the Stein voters had voted for Clinton, Clinton still would have ended up winning, albeit more narrowly with only 278 electoral votes.

Now, it may not make sense to conclude that these voters "cost" Clinton the election or to blame them for the outcome (for the reasons you stated), but it is indisputable that these voters would have collectively changed the overall result had they voted differently.

[RPS]

So...Howard Schultz.

What say you all? No impact? Significant? Who will he appeal to?
Since both parties seem unalterably commited to ignoring moderates on account of their bases, I think a truly moderate candidate ought to be able to draw from both parties. However, it's hard to be a moderate -- shot at from both sides. Even worse, the odds are heavily (and institutionally) stacked against any independent runs. Finally, does Schultz really qualify as a moderate or is the progressive wing of the Democratic Party so ascendant that he merely seems moderate?

[gus]

I think it's a legitimate concern, even if almost no one will vote for Schultz. Jill Stein's 1.4mm vote might have swung 2016.

So is Schultz...

4) Trying to sell a book?


Hey lookie here: Publication Date: January 28, 2019 (https://www.amazon.com/Ground-Up-Journey-Reimagine-Promise-ebook/dp/B07HWS8LC9).

ETA - He should be disqualified on the basis of that stupid pun alone.

[PackMan97]

Stein and Johnson voters may not have had a strong preference between Trump and Clinton, but it's accurate to point out that they could have swung the race. It's just math.

No, it's not accurate and it's not "just math".

It's a bit like counting donkeys and elephants except that you are now trying to ask an armadillo to be either an elephant or a donkey. It's not going to happen.

For someone to sit through the 2016 campaign, to know what Trump and Clinton brought to the table (both their pros and cons) and then to take the time vote and select "neither" tells me there is no mythical world in which they become a Clinton or Trump voter.

You would have more luck finding the 2.7% of the voting age population that voted in 2008 when turnout topped 58.2% and saying THEY could have made the difference in 2016 when only 55.5% voted.

[OldPhiKap]

I think Clinton’s problem was turnout in two specific suburban areas — the outskirts of Philly and Green Bay — than third party candidates.

Ultimately though, it seems to me that it is the candidate’s job to win votes as opposed to voters supporting someone they would rather not.

[Acymetric]

I think Clinton’s problem was turnout in two specific suburban areas — the outskirts of Philly and Green Bay — than third party candidates.

Ultimately though, it seems to me that it is the candidate’s job to win votes as opposed to voters supporting someone they would rather not.

I'm not sure Tim Kaine was the right VP pick to attract marginal voters either, although I can't really remember the specifics of who else would have been an option that would have been an improvement. He was just kind of...a guy, didn't really move the needle or appeal to any particular part of the base that Hillary didn't already appeal to other than maybe pulling in more Virginians.

(Case in point: I had to look up who the VP pick was because I had completely forgotten already)

[gus]

I think Clinton’s problem was turnout in two specific suburban areas — the outskirts of Philly and Green Bay — than third party candidates.

Ultimately though, it seems to me that it is the candidate’s job to win votes as opposed to voters supporting someone they would rather not.

Probably yeah -- didn't mean to start a 2016 discussion here. I just was saying it's plausible that Schultz could cost the Democratic candidate (whoever that ends up being).

[OldPhiKap]

Probably yeah -- didn't mean to start a 2016 discussion here. I just was saying it's plausible that Schultz could cost the Democratic candidate (whoever that ends up being).

Certainly true, Ross Perot arguably got Bill Clinton elected twice.

It is hard for me to draw many concrete conclusions from 2016 because HRC got 3 million more votes — just not in the right places. She underperformed in a few suburbs that tilted PA, WI, and perhaps other states to cause an Electoral College loss.

[El_Diablo]

No, it's not accurate and it's not "just math".

I am sorry if the implications are troubling for a third party supporter to come to terms with, but it really is just the simple math. Johnson and Stein voters, mathematically, exceeded the margin by which Trump won in various states that collectively accounted for enough electoral votes to give him the victory in 2016. All I am doing is refuting your earlier point that those voters could have changed the outcome, because they clearly could have.


You would have more luck finding the 2.7% of the voting age population that voted in 2008 when turnout topped 58.2% and saying THEY could have made the difference in 2016 when only 55.5% voted.

That's true also. But those points are not mutually exclusive.

[PackMan97]

Probably yeah -- didn't mean to start a 2016 discussion here. I just was saying it's plausible that Schultz could cost the Democratic candidate (whoever that ends up being).

I think in order for an outside candidate (outside as in noting being an R or a D) to start threatening one of the two parties they have to attract folks that are reliable R and D voters. The last time that happened was 1992 with Perot.

Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, Harry Browne, Gary Johnson, they pull in the reliable third party voters and that's about it. The folks that vote for them are the same 2-5% that will almost always vote third party. If you ask them at the point of a gun to pick the R or the D, they will pick the metaphorical bullet.

[PackMan97]

I am sorry if the implications are troubling for a third party supporter to come to terms with, but it really is just the simple math. Johnson and Stein voters, mathematically, exceeded the margin by which Trump won in various states that collectively accounted for enough electoral votes to give him the victory in 2016. All I am doing is refuting your earlier point that they could have changed the outcome, because they clearly could have.

I don't know what to say. Yes, their votes exceeded the margin of victory, but that doesn't help you if you can't access those voters and get them to flip.

I think we may be talking towards each other, but not to each other. I understand your point about margin of victory. Do you understand my point that those votes were inaccessible to both Trump and Clinton?

[El_Diablo]

I don't know what to say. Yes, their votes exceeded the margin of victory, but that doesn't help you if you can't access those voters and get them to flip.

I think we may be talking towards each other, but not to each other. I understand your point about margin of victory. Do you understand my point that those votes were inaccessible to both Trump and Clinton?

Oh, I certainly agree with that. Candidates are not entitled to receive votes from anyone, and it's clear that neither Trump nor Clinton was able to convince those voters to vote for them.

[Acymetric]

Oh, I certainly agree with that. Candidates are not entitled to receive votes from anyone, and it's clear that neither Trump nor Clinton was able to convince those voters to vote for them.

I think PackMan's point is taking it a little further, and saying that for a significant chunk of those third party voters, there is nothing Trump or Clinton could have done to convince those voters to vote for them (or at least not enough to matter). Some people are going to vote for a 3rd party come hell or high water.

[El_Diablo]

I think PackMan's point is taking it a little further, and saying that for a significant chunk of those third party voters, there is nothing Trump or Clinton could have done to convince those voters to vote for them (or at least not enough to matter). Some people are going to vote for a 3rd party come hell or high water.

I don't dispute that either.

[CameronBornAndBred]

This is an excellent look at why a third party run is nearly impossible, and why one could get Trump re-elected even if he were to come in third.

Imagine the following hypothetical Electoral College outcome on Election Day 2020: Republican Donald Trump with 130; Independent Howard Schultz with 190; and the Democratic nominee with 218. Despite Trump winning the least number of electoral votes in this scenario, if the makeup of Congress remains the same, the winner of the presidency would be Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/howard-schultz-electoral-college-difficulty/index.html

[Acymetric]

This is an excellent look at why a third party run is nearly impossible, and why one could get Trump re-elected even if he were to come in third.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/howard-schultz-electoral-college-difficulty/index.html

Am I wrong to suggest that Schultz with 190 seems...unlikely? I guess it is a fun hypothetical to play, but I don't think it approaches anything close to a plausible scenario.

[OldPhiKap]

I think he would have to poll around 15% to get invited to debates, which is unlikely.

I do not know the status of the lawsuit referenced here, however:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/02/10/third_parties_see_chance_for_spot_in_presidential_ debates_133045.amp.html

[PackMan97]

This is an excellent look at why a third party run is nearly impossible, and why one could get Trump re-elected even if he were to come in third.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/howard-schultz-electoral-college-difficulty/index.html

"With the elections of 2016 and 2000 still fresh in the minds of a lot of voters, most Americans have a basic awareness of the Constitution's rules for how presidents are elected"

I am crying on the inside.

[howardlander]

This is an excellent look at why a third party run is nearly impossible, and why one could get Trump re-elected even if he were to come in third.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/howard-schultz-electoral-college-difficulty/index.html

This is truly sickening to me. When the Constitution was adopted, I don't think anyone conceived of the idea that some states would have 2 orders of magnitude more population than others. I respect the Founders, but in some ways the Constitution is starting to show its age.

Howard

[Indoor66]

This is truly sickening to me. When the Constitution was adopted, I don't think anyone conceived of the idea that some states would have 2 orders of magnitude more population than others. I respect the Founders, but in some ways the Constitution is starting to show its age.

Howard

But not its genius.

[Bostondevil]

I think in order for an outside candidate (outside as in noting being an R or a D) to start threatening one of the two parties they have to attract folks that are reliable R and D voters. The last time that happened was 1992 with Perot.

Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, Harry Browne, Gary Johnson, they pull in the reliable third party voters and that's about it. The folks that vote for them are the same 2-5% that will almost always vote third party. If you ask them at the point of a gun to pick the R or the D, they will pick the metaphorical bullet.

See, I don't think so. I think a person who actually goes out and votes for a candidate that has no chance is, above all else, a voter. I think of that group as probably the most likely to vote again, they are going to vote for someone no matter what. Now, I would not argue against the notion that some of them would write in a candidate rather than pick one of the available candidates, but I suspect a significant percentage of them would have voted for either Clinton or Trump if those were their only options.

[Nick]

Neera Tanden, formerly a Hillary Clinton confidante and currently president of the Center for American Progress, threatened a Starbucks boycott (https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/1089254251111567360) if Howard Schultz enters the race.

[Bostondevil]

I already don't go to Starbucks cause I don't like coffee, but I am dismayed by the thought of another businessman thinking that is any kind of experience for being POTUS. As someone else said, not me (but I don't remember who so I can't give them the appropriate citation), "President of the United States is not an entry level position." If you have never held elected office before, you are not qualified to be POTUS. No "successful businessman" has ever made a good president. Yes, I'm looking at you, Warren G. Harding. Herbert Hoover comes to mind as well. If you want to label the Bushes as successful businessmen, I will argue back that they both had experience holding elected office prior to becoming POTUS.

[JasonEvans]

No "successful businessman" has ever made a good president. Yes, I'm looking at you, Warren G. Harding. Herbert Hoover comes to mind as well. If you want to label the Bushes as successful businessmen, I will argue back that they both had experience holding elected office prior to becoming POTUS.

I believe this is what you are trying to say:


You can be a successful business man (or woman, like Carly Fiorina) and be a good president. But, you cannot ONLY be a successful business man and be a good president.

It seems like Michael Bloomberg is an excellent example of this. He is quite clearly an outstanding business success but no one questions his qualifications for President because he has an extensive background in government as Mayor of New York.

That said, I'm going to ask that we be careful this conversation as we currently have a successful businessman in the Oval and a discussion about whether he is a good president would be out of bounds for this thread. If you want to talk about how Schultz's business experience is good or bad for his run or for him serving, that is fine, but please avoid making statements about Trump's performance.

[CameronBornAndBred]

According to the poll (run by The Washington Post - ABC News), 56 percent of registered voters — a clear and statistically significant majority — say they will “definitely” not vote for Trump in his 2020 reelection bid.

There is no way that these numbers don't fluctuate, and of course could even flip by election day. But when over half of the voters say they are definitely not voting for you, that isn't good news.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-a-big-warning-sign-for-trump%E2%80%99s-2020-reelection-effort-in-this-new-poll/ar-BBSTaPl?li=BBnb7Kz

[OldPhiKap]

There is no way that these numbers don't fluctuate, and of course could even flip by election day. But when over half of the voters say they are definitely not voting for you, that isn't good news.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-a-big-warning-sign-for-trump%E2%80%99s-2020-reelection-effort-in-this-new-poll/ar-BBSTaPl?li=BBnb7Kz

1992:

WJClinton 43%
GHWBush 37.4%
Ross Perot 18.8%

Hence the Left’s freak-out about Schultz. Clinton ended up with 370 electoral votes to Bush’s 168 and Perot’s goose egg.

[Matches]

That said, I'm going to ask that we be careful this conversation as we currently have a successful businessman in the Oval and a discussion about whether he is a good president would be out of bounds for this thread. If you want to talk about how Schultz's business experience is good or bad for his run or for him serving, that is fine, but please avoid making statements about Trump's performance.

Personally I am ready for the "Federal Government should be run like a business" idea - which near as I can tell is a lingering notion from Perot's candidacy - to go away. The Federal Government isn't a business. Businesses are designed to maximize profit - everything they do is in service of that. The government's goal is not to make a profit - different people have different ideas about what the priority should be vis a vis military, infrastructure, welfare etc but making a profit doesn't factor into it.

I think what people are trying to say is that the government should be run with a sense of fiscal responsibility, but you don't need an advanced degree or extensive experience in business to get that concept. Maybe one could argue that the types of things a CEO does - managing people, delegating responsibility, etc - translate well to Presidential duties, but that's again different from "running things like a business."

[Bostondevil]

I believe this is what you are trying to say:


You can be a successful business man (or woman, like Carly Fiorina) and be a good president. But, you cannot ONLY be a successful business man and be a good president.

It seems like Michael Bloomberg is an excellent example of this. He is quite clearly an outstanding business success but no one questions his qualifications for President because he has an extensive background in government as Mayor of New York.

That said, I'm going to ask that we be careful this conversation as we currently have a successful businessman in the Oval and a discussion about whether he is a good president would be out of bounds for this thread. If you want to talk about how Schultz's business experience is good or bad for his run or for him serving, that is fine, but please avoid making statements about Trump's performance.

Yes, my statement was to be read that merely having a business background is not enough, I think you need some kind of governing/public office experience to be a good president. As to commenting on the current officeholder - I was not even thinking about Trump when I posted this. History determines whether or not someone was a good president. We won't know if Trump was any good until he's been out of office a few years.