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

[NevadanAtHeart]

Harris was in Iowa today stumping for Democrats and the crowds were quite impressive for a candidate this early in the stage...

https://twitter.com/ZachWahls/status/1054830482314137600

https://twitter.com/caseytolan/status/1054830090188742656

I mean, if we're using crowds in Iowa as an indicator, Sen. Booker killed it at the Iowa Dems' Fall Gala. Much larger crowd from what I can see. I recognize that it's not exactly grassroots support (although I believe it's not invite-only), but having the support of the individuals who would be at the Gala certainly seems like a precursor to getting resources.

But I don't think crowd sizes are that much of an indicator anyway, especially at this stage in the game when Iowans (and Dems) are clearly amenable to attending political events. O'Malley gets pretty decent crowds. Andrew Yang is probably about to fill a large dining hall in Baltimore pretty soon. Neither one is someone I rate highly as a contender.

[NevadanAtHeart]

Brown's presidential campaign ended the moment the race was called for Mike DeWine, with the way the Senate it loosing right now any Dem Sen/GOP Gov is a no go.

Even Warren?

Or Bernie??

A few ideas under this:

1. I think that having a Republican governor in office only really significantly decreases the chance of somebody being a VP option. The Presidency, imo, is significantly more valuable than a Senate seat, and the difference is much more than exists between the VP and Senate.

2. The Senate majority might just be out of reach in 2020 anyway. Even if Tester holds out and Sinema wins, Democrats would face a 53-47 (I think) Senate. Jones is DoA. They'd have to win four of of Colorado, Arizona, Iowa, Maine, and North Carolina. Maybe some of Kansas, Kentucky, Georgia, or Montana are somewhat competitive to make it work out a bit easier. If it's looking close to 50-50, maybe don't pull a D Senator in an R state, but if you're not going to win the majority anyway, why not try to boost your ticket using the VP slot?

[NevadanAtHeart]

Sherrod Brown’s wife

https://twitter.com/connieschultz/status/1062009289429209088?s=21

Ordinarily I would be ecstatic, but as I can't emphasize enough, Governor-elect DeWine makes this a bad idea.

Why would this "ordinarily" not be a problem? There would be a special election (that Republicans would be favored in) either way.

I meant "ordinarily" in the sense that the news itself would, or should make me excited, but not anymore. He needs to glue himself to that seat until the Demcoratic numbers in the Senate aren't hanging by a thread, at the very least.

A majority in the Senate is likely out of reach anyway. And I think the presidency is a lot more valuable than a Senate seat, especially one that probably won't mean the difference between victory and defeat in the Senate. So looking at it and just saying "but muh DeWine" only really makes sense if all of the following are true:

1. He'd win. (because if he'd lose it's pretty irrelevant)

2. There is another Democrat who is in a blue state who would have as much or more is a chance to win the general if nominated. (because if this is true then you might as well run them instead) OR the Senate majority is more valuable than the Presidency (because if this is true then your priority should obviously be the Senate)

3. The Senate majority is in play in 2020, where Democrats will have to win 4 of AZ, ME, NC, IA, and CO while losing nothing but AL. (because if it's not in play there's no such thing as "wasting" a seat)

If you don't think all of these are true, then the DeWine factor is pretty irrelevant

[NevadanAtHeart]

Has anyone else started getting Sherrod Brown ads on places like Facebook? Warren and Harris started paying for online ads outside of their states a while back, but I got a Sherrod Brown ad today.

I haven't, and I'm subscribed to both his personal and official FB pages.

[NevadanAtHeart]

Well, now it’s not just folks like Castro and Buttigieg, but Kamala Harris, a candidate widely considered to be in the “first tier”, saying that she intends to follow an “end of this year” decision timeline on 2020:

https://www.nbcnews.com/know-your-value/feature/sen-kamala-harris-near-decision-2020-presidential-bid-ncna942631

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Klobuchar was in Iowa today, and was asked about 2020 (sounds like she does *not* have any imminent decision timeline):

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/01/amy-klobuchar-minnesota-heartland-economics-iowa-caucus-democrats-farm-bill-farmers-union-convention/2174588002/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Weigel recaps Sanders-fest in Burlington (Gabbard also spoke there):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/bernie-sanders-turns-focus-to-the-white-house-and-the-world/2018/12/01/dc01f7ae-f4f1-11e8-80d0-f7e1948d55f4_story.html

Sen. Sherrod Brown, who's probably realistically somewhere between the low first and high second tiers of candidates, also has an end of the year timeline, right? And important to note from this example is that having a decision deadline at the end of the year is not the same as having an announcement planned for the end of the year. I wouldn't expect Sen. Harris to announce this early.

[NevadanAtHeart]

This participation trophy candidacy trend lately with Dems is weird, oh you lost but you still can run for President even if you lost a completely winnable race. It's infuriating considering there are perfectly good Dems out there like Klobuchar who seriously have amazing electoral records.

She’s boring and doesn’t come across as an activist on any issue. Sorry. Electoral records mean nothing, if they ever did. It’s about how candidates make people feel.

I know for a fact that Abrams is not running for President though so you can scratch that off the list.

Aren't electoral records the best record of how people feel? Voting participation rate vs political apathy/excitement, political support vs opposition, opinions on public records, all of these can be found via voting records. In fact, just asking "how do people feel" isn't really important insofar as it doesn't matter how excited you are if you don't or won't vote.

Sure, maybe certain candidates don't draw crowds of millions to cling onto every word. But that literally doesn't matter at all at the point where voters decide that a candidate is exciting, important, smart, savvy, likeable, or positively-performing enough to continue to hold the seat.

Maybe candidates aren't "activists" on any issues -- which honestly is itself a really poor assessment of anybody -- but as long as they get votes, it doesn't matter. They did something right that caused them to get into their seat. Maybe they can do it on a bigger scale. Maybe not. But to say that it's a matter of excitability and that "electoral records mean nothing" is just absurdly reductionist.

[NevadanAtHeart]

Bloomberg campaign will be largely self-funded:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/26/mike-bloomberg-likely-to-spend-over-100-million-on-a-2020-campaign-for-president-if-he-chooses-to-run.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Won't accept any money from PACs but, in the unlikely event that he wins the nomination, I assume he'll still take individual donations.  Because running in the general election costs ~$1 billion, and I assume he doesn't want to come up with that all by himself.

He's worth ~$50bn and has already given at least $8bn to charity, so not really a big sum for him.

Oh wow, I didn't realize his fortune was quite that big.  OK then, never mind. 

To be clear, his net worth doesn't necessarily mean that's how much he has in cash. But he does have a lot of money. The guy casually dropped $1.8 billion last month for financial aid at my school. (Go hop, am I right?)