2020 Presidential Election

[cspan37421]

Mayor who?

de Blasio of NYC.

No word on whether Mayors Quimby or McCheese will enter as well, but at this point, why not?

[OldPhiKap]

Mayor Bill is frequently accused of being tone deaf and oblivious and his decision to enter the race despite these awful poll numbers seems to further reinforce this opinion.

Anthony Scaramucci had a funny line about Bill’s 8%-45% favorable/unfavorable:

“Someone needs an intervention for the 8%”

[dudog84]

Can't speak to the specific criteria, but doing something makes sense to winnow the D field after giving everyone a chance at the first debates.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...9aW?li=BBnb7Kz

[OldPhiKap]

Can't speak to the specific criteria, but doing something makes sense to winnow the D field after giving everyone a chance at the first debates.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...9aW?li=BBnb7Kz

Still seems like pretty low bars, but moving in the right direction.

With so many candidates, that would really seem to favor the big names. It is hard to gain name recognition when there are fifteen or so folks jockeying to become a nationally known commodity. While there may be flavors of the week bobbing up and down, it would seem that Biden, Bernie, Warren, and Harris can all float above the water while the others eat each other.

As an aside, I did not see Harris' town hall last night. MrsPK, who is not very political and certainly not very liberal, was raving about her this morning. I was surprised to put it mildly. She has watched about four of the Democratic town hall forums, and this is a person who really doesn't pay much attention to politics at all before this year

[JasonEvans]

While there may be flavors of the week bobbing up and down, it would seem that Biden, Bernie, Warren, and Harris can all float above the water while the others eat each other.

In addition to the four you list, I suspect that Buttigieg and likely Beto and Booker should qualify for the third and fourth debates. There will likely be a couple others who rise up but I like the notion of winnowing the field a bit after the first couple debates. I wish the standard was more like 3 or even 4%, not just 2% in the polls but this is a step forward.

[bundabergdevil]

Pew analysis suggests younger voters (<54) outvoted older voters (the rest) for the first time in the 2018 mid-terms. The articles goes on to discuss some of the implications to issues like immigration, climate change, etc. Boomers still represent the largest percent bloc of voters. It looks as if the much heralded generational shift in voting power has finally reached a tipping point.

[OldPhiKap]

Pew analysis suggests younger voters (<54) outvoted older voters (the rest) for the first time in the 2018 mid-terms. The articles goes on to discuss some of the implications to issues like immigration, climate change, etc. Boomers still represent the largest percent bloc of voters. It looks as if the much heralded generational shift in voting power has finally reached a tipping point.

Wow, I'm still a younger voter! (If only for a few months)

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Pew analysis suggests younger voters (<54) outvoted older voters (the rest) for the first time in the 2018 mid-terms. The articles goes on to discuss some of the implications to issues like immigration, climate change, etc. Boomers still represent the largest percent bloc of voters. It looks as if the much heralded generational shift in voting power has finally reached a tipping point.

I hate to be morbid but the election isn't for a year and a half so the ranks of the older group will only be that much smaller between now and then. And there are several candidates for both sides who fit into that older group as well.

[Acymetric]

I hate to be morbid but the election isn't for a year and a half so the ranks of the older group will only be that much smaller between now and then. And there are several candidates for both sides who fit into that older group as well.

Well, it will also be that much larger as people age in. We know it will grow by at least one thanks to OPK, presumably others will turn 54 in the coming year as well. It may increase or decrease on net, but I doubt there would be any significant change in population size between now and then, just some of the people will be different.

[budwom]

credit opioids for moderating, to some extent, the effect of older people dying sooner than younger ones.

(semi relevant aside: Sanjay Gupta of CNN did a special on why our life expectancy as a country is now decreasing after many decades of increasing...the big three reasons are food (obesity), opioids, and guns. (note: has nothing to do with a second amendment argument, pro or con guns, simply that gun deaths are messing with the curve).

[OldPhiKap]

Well, it will also be that much larger as people age in. We know it will grow by at least one thanks to OPK. . . .

I appreciate your optimism in me getting there. Some days I wonder.

Meanwhile, the Democratic presidential candidates are making their opinions known about today's press conference by Mr. Mueller. Gonna make Nancy's job a bit harder to keep back the push from below to start impeachment proceedings. (From a horse race perspective, I think Nancy is right although events may make it inevitable).

[dudog84]

Still seems like pretty low bars, but moving in the right direction.

With so many candidates, that would really seem to favor the big names. It is hard to gain name recognition when there are fifteen or so folks jockeying to become a nationally known commodity. While there may be flavors of the week bobbing up and down, it would seem that Biden, Bernie, Warren, and Harris can all float above the water while the others eat each other.

As an aside, I did not see Harris' town hall last night. MrsPK, who is not very political and certainly not very liberal, was raving about her this morning. I was surprised to put it mildly. She has watched about four of the Democratic town hall forums, and this is a person who really doesn't pay much attention to politics at all before this year

I don't know, in addition to the 2% polling (in 4 separate approved polls) there is this:

"Candidates must also receive donations from at least 130,000 unique donors in at least 20 states. In each of the states, a candidate will need to find at least 400 unique donors, the party said."

I honestly don't know how hard that is, I've never given a dime to a politician. But this would show they have some breadth of support. If candidates don't make a splash in the first debates and they're not polling well, who in their right mind is going to throw money at them? (just kidding, don't answer that)

The article also said 18 had qualified for the more lax requirements of the first debates, and aren't there 24 announced candidates? Those requirements are 65,000 donors OR 1%. The way I read the article, to move on the requirements are AND.

I think they have to move a little slow in the winnowing process, they don't want accusations that it's rigged.

[budwom]

Maybe they should consider a tournament format, with some of the top dudes and dudettes getting a first round bye? Who doesn't love some solid one on one action, good practice for the eventual nominee, too, who will be the recipient of considerable fecal tossing is my hunch is correct.

[JasonEvans]

Nate Silver has a look at who (at this early stage) seems likely to make the 3rd Democratic debate. Seems to jive with the ones I pointed out yesterday.

[budwom]

^ wow, I think I pay pretty close attention to politics, but have to admit there are a couple names on that list I've never heard of...and I probably won't hear much from them in the future, either...

[JasonEvans]

^ wow, I think I pay pretty close attention to politics, but have to admit there are a couple names on that list I've never heard of...and I probably won't hear much from them in the future, either...

So, who will be first to drop out? I think it will be someone with a reputation who does not want to stick around and further embarrass him/herself. It won't come until after the first two debates. If I had to bet right now, I'd go with Gillibrand.

[CameronBornAndBred]

So, who will be first to drop out? I think it will be someone with a reputation who does not want to stick around and further embarrass him/herself. It won't come until after the first two debates. If I had to bet right now, I'd go with Gillibrand.

That's the key right there. The debates are the first (and in some cases the last) chance to have your views heard. I wouldn't want to make a bet on anyone until at least the first round is over. If you don't make an impact in that one, you aren't going to make an impact in the second, at least not one that will save your campaign.
So, Gillibrand may light it up Bernie style. Also, a front runner may pull a Jeb Bush and come out boringly flat, and see their star dim away.

[Indoor66]

So, who will be first to drop out? I think it will be someone with a reputation who does not want to stick around and further embarrass him/herself. It won't come until after the first two debates. If I had to bet right now, I'd go with Gillibrand.

I can't understand calling these timed question and answer sessions with many participants debating. They are more like time limited press conferences. (For either Party)

[Rich]

Nate Silver has a look at who (at this early stage) seems likely to make the 3rd Democratic debate. Seems to jive with the ones I pointed out yesterday.

I say if Zion wants to debate, you let him!


0.jpg

[OldPhiKap]

I say if Zion wants to debate, you let him!


0.jpg

Does that mean he's not coming back?