2020 Presidential Election

[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 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/polit...=.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/polit...=.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 who's had an axe to grind against warren for years and has been frequently criticized for supporting white supremacists and racists. e.g..

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.