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

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Haven't seen this in the 2020 board:

Last Friday, Steve Bullock was on Morning Joe and talked about the bad influence of money in politics and about showing up in rural areas to make up ground for Democrats. Still declined to answer whether he'll run: Video

The guy comes over as likeable, has definitely a message and a strategy how to win.

I'm a big Steve Bullock guy. 20% of Trump voters in Montana also voted for him. He's pro-gun, but pro-common sense, pro-net neutrality, runs on a platform of unity across all ideological leanings, comes across as Bernie-esque in terms of potential appeal minus the whole s-word thing.

Because of all that, though, he won't win. It's a shame that the Democrats will end up nominating another candidate who plays the I'm Not Trump/identity politics card, only to get crushed in the states that are more willing to support a candidate like Bullock.

Couldn't agree more. Steve Bullock with a female and possibly minority running mate like Kamala Harris would be pretty tough for Trump. I still hope the Democrats are smart enough.

Bullock and Beto is my pick, but I think Bullock and maybe Tulsi Gabbard could be alright

[Rookie Yinzer]

It's a shame that the Democrats will end up nominating another candidate who plays the I'm Not Trump/identity politics card, only to get crushed in the states that are more willing to support a candidate like Bullock.

A candidate acknowledging that they are a woman and/or a person of color is not identity politics. Sending troops to the border to combat a "caravan" of defenseless brown women and children to win an election is identity politics.

Anyway I hope Bullock or Beto is the nominee because they both will make compelling candidates against Trump. Frontrunners like Biden, Warren, Booker, Harris, and Sanders will fall flat for a variety of reasons.

[Comrade Funk]

It's a shame that the Democrats will end up nominating another candidate who plays the I'm Not Trump/identity politics card, only to get crushed in the states that are more willing to support a candidate like Bullock.

A candidate acknowledging that they are a woman and/or a person of color is not identity politics. Sending troops to the border to combat a "caravan" of defenseless brown women and children to win an election is identity politics.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

It's a shame that the Democrats will end up nominating another candidate who plays the I'm Not Trump/identity politics card, only to get crushed in the states that are more willing to support a candidate like Bullock.

A candidate acknowledging that they are a woman and/or a person of color is not identity politics. Sending troops to the border to combat a "caravan" of defenseless brown women and children to win an election is identity politics.

Anyway I hope Bullock or Beto is the nominee because they both will make compelling candidates against Trump. Frontrunners like Biden, Warren, Booker, Harris, and Sanders will fall flat for a variety of reasons.

You're right, but the Democratic Party nominating a woman and/or PoC so that they can paint the difference between their candidate and Trump as "minority versus racist cheeto" is not good praxis. The Democratic Party likes to take pride in the fact that Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillum, the Castro bros, etc. all fall under their big umbrella, but they use them as tokens. They think just by nominating one of those people for POTUS, they can claim a moral victory...even if those candidates get destroyed in the general. One of the many reasons Hillary got beaten (humiliated) was because she did not stick to the issues. She just expected to win solely by virtue of not being Donald Trump, ergo not a racist/sexist/bigot/deplorable.

[Xeuma]

It's a shame that the Democrats will end up nominating another candidate who plays the I'm Not Trump/identity politics card, only to get crushed in the states that are more willing to support a candidate like Bullock.

A candidate acknowledging that they are a woman and/or a person of color is not identity politics. Sending troops to the border to combat a "caravan" of defenseless brown women and children to win an election is identity politics.

Anyway I hope Bullock or Beto is the nominee because they both will make compelling candidates against Trump. Frontrunners like Biden, Warren, Booker, Harris, and Sanders will fall flat for a variety of reasons.

You're right, but the Democratic Party nominating a woman and/or PoC so that they can paint the difference between their candidate and Trump as "minority versus racist cheeto" is not good praxis. The Democratic Party likes to take pride in the fact that Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillum, the Castro bros, etc. all fall under their big umbrella, but they use them as tokens. They think just by nominating one of those people for POTUS, they can claim a moral victory...even if those candidates get destroyed in the general. One of the many reasons Hillary got beaten (humiliated) was because she did not stick to the issues. She just expected to win solely by virtue of not being Donald Trump, ergo not a racist/sexist/bigot/deplorable.

Maybe I'm stupid and wrong, but I don't think anybody in the Democratic Party takes moral victories. Also Hillary has heavy on substantial issues while Trump had no policy beyond "make America great again." Americans don't give a crap about policy, they want something to rally around. Hillary was not that person, and she almost won just because of how toxic Trump is.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Maybe I'm stupid and wrong, but I don't think anybody in the Democratic Party takes moral victories. Also Hillary has heavy on substantial issues while Trump had no policy beyond "make America great again." Americans don't give a crap about policy, they want something to rally around. Hillary was not that person, and she almost won just because of how toxic Trump is.

You're not stupid or wrong, but Trump represented a rejection of the political status quo. Hillary represented that status quo. People got sick of being talked down to. They want someone who will talk to them like adults, talk to Trump like an adult, and tell them (in plain language) how they will help them directly. Americans are afraid of the unknown. They fear the nebulous "socialism" because all they know about it is that they've been taught their whole lives that it's bad. However, they're willing to accept socialistic policies when they're broken down to plain language. Just look at Obamacare--it was absolutely despised when it was referred to as "socialized medicine" and now repealing it is political suicide in a lot of areas of the country...even some GOP areas. Americans will vote for a Democrat who breaks their policy platform down to language they can understand.

[Figueira]

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.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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.

[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

[Mr. Morden]

Gillibrand's new book is out this week, so she's on the book tour.  Today, she was on The View:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AEjCEWHENk

At about the 3:10 mark, she's asked if she'll run for president in 2020, and she says "I'm thinking about it".

[NewYorkExpress]

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

Honestly, it doesn't really matter. Ohio will be far enough to the right, that Brown probably will lose in 2024 if he runs for reelection anyways.

[Mr. Morden]

Kasich will be in NH on Thursday:

https://www.concordmonitor.com/On-the-trail-post-midterms-Steinhauser-21419471

[Grassroots]

Kasich will be in NH on Thursday:

https://www.concordmonitor.com/On-the-trail-post-midterms-Steinhauser-21419471

This election is going to be great.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Kasich will be in NH on Thursday:

https://www.concordmonitor.com/On-the-trail-post-midterms-Steinhauser-21419471

Endorsed

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Haven't seen this in the 2020 board:

Last Friday, Steve Bullock was on Morning Joe and talked about the bad influence of money in politics and about showing up in rural areas to make up ground for Democrats. Still declined to answer whether he'll run: Video

The guy comes over as likeable, has definitely a message and a strategy how to win.

That seems like a good thing. Him running for the nomination (he won't win) could be a good thing, because at least he would make sure that some rural voters have something to talk about (very few though), but putting his name out there, and what he stands for is never a bad thing i guess. I just wouldn't name him a "strong candidate" necessarily (yet).

[Mr. Morden]

Julián Castro huddles with donors to prepare 2020 bid

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[lfromnj]

Julián Castro huddles with donors to prepare 2020 bid

You must be logged in to read this quote.

wtf is it even with Julian Castro?
Seems like a sh**t tier candidate who just gets hyped by pundits but would be John Delaney level during the actual primaries.

[Comrade Funk]

Julián Castro huddles with donors to prepare 2020 bid

You must be logged in to read this quote.

wtf is it even with Julian Castro?
Seems like a sh**t tier candidate who just gets hyped by pundits but would be John Delaney level during the actual primaries.

Both Castros were too cowardly to run for statewide office.

[lfromnj]

Julián Castro huddles with donors to prepare 2020 bid

You must be logged in to read this quote.

wtf is it even with Julian Castro?
Seems like a sh**t tier candidate who just gets hyped by pundits but would be John Delaney level during the actual primaries.

Both Castros were too cowardly to run for statewide office.

Obviously coz they don't seem the hard workers to actually campaign. Instead some rando congressman from El paso wastes 2 years of his life.

[Mr. Morden]

Booker:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cory-booker-will-take-time-coming-months-consider-2020-bid-222242880.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's a shame that the Democrats will end up nominating another candidate who plays the I'm Not Trump/identity politics card, only to get crushed in the states that are more willing to support a candidate like Bullock.

A candidate acknowledging that they are a woman and/or a person of color is not identity politics. Sending troops to the border to combat a "caravan" of defenseless brown women and children to win an election is identity politics.

Anyway I hope Bullock or Beto is the nominee because they both will make compelling candidates against Trump. Frontrunners like Biden, Warren, Booker, Harris, and Sanders will fall flat for a variety of reasons.

Hillary supporters always claimed that people who didn't support her were sexist and racist white males. That's definitely identity politics.

[Mr. Morden]

Bloomberg's decision timeline:

https://apnews.com/0c074c602c474a82aa096e0b755fc413

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Joey1996]

High chance Gabbard runs

https://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/world/tulsi-gabbard-planning-to-run-for-us-presidency-in-2020-sources/681953.html

[Sherrod Brown Shill]

High chance Gabbard runs

https://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/world/tulsi-gabbard-planning-to-run-for-us-presidency-in-2020-sources/681953.html

Ironic that Bernie's two highest profile Congressional endorsements (Merkley and Gabbard) are probably going to run against him.