Whom will the Democrats nominate for the 2020 POTUS run?

Whom will the Democrats nominate for the 2020 POTUS run?
0

When I started this thread I was tipping my cap to the Democrats for embracing such an open process to select their nominee. After all, that same approach found a winner for the Republicans in 2016.

But now I’m having second thoughts. The number of contenders is currently at twenty-three! And Mayor Bill de Blasio is contemplating throwing his hat into the ring. That would make twenty-four, with still other possible candidates thinking hard about joining the fray.

Does there come a point where you just want to shout: ENOUGH!! I no longer can keep track of all the names. Democrats need to do some winnowing and it cannot happen too soon.

I use this site which tracks Betfair-exchange-implied probabilities: http://www.gambletron2000.com/us-elections-2020/44723/democratic-nominee-odds

1 Like

This is silly. We’re all old enough to remember these elections. It’s disingenuous to claim there were that many candidates.

I think the difference between right now and the last two elections is that it feels like the media is actually covering a lot of the 23 candidates so early, which was not the case in 2012 (media covered 6 GOP) or in 2016 (they barely covered every republican allowed on the debate stage, covered 2 democrats, barely mentioned 2 other dems, and laughed at 1 independent).

1 Like

I have an observation I want to share. This is somewhat off topic, but since this is my thread . . . I’ll allow it!! :grinning:

It seems to me the Democrat candidates, both announced and unannounced, know a whole lot more about politics than I do. The Republicans do, too, but this thread is about Democrats which I why I’m focusing on them. I do not think so many Democrats would be running, or considering running, unless they thought they had a shot at a nomination of some sort. Perhaps they’re thinking “top spot” or maybe it is “veep” . . . . but one or the other. OK, maybe a few of the candidates are instead looking to raise their profile or trying for résumé enhancement. I think those folks are in the minority.

Anyway, if I’m right it means the race is more wide open than it might appear at first to be. The opinions of so many eager politicians are worth more than mine. After all, media accounts would have us believe Vice President Biden is out front, is running away from the field, and has all but secured the nomination already! Yet many professional politicians seem to be at odds with that scenario.

One wonders how this all will end. Not just who will win the nomination, but also whether or not the process will end peacefully, amicably, and with the Democrat party united behind their eventual standard bearer.

ETA

If you think about the Republicans in 2016, their tumultuous nomination process surely did not conclude with party unity. Quite the opposite! Will the Democrats have a more auspicious outcome this time around?

A lot of them have a pet cause they want to force into the national spotlight. “Running for president” and (attempting to) force the major candidates to address the issue as part of their campaigns is about the biggest spotlight you’re ever going to get. Most that announce a candidacy for president have an agenda completely unrelated to becoming president.

Think of the “The rent’s too damn high” guy. He had no expectations of winning anything, he just wanted to make sure everyone knew that the rent is too damn high.

2 Likes

Vice President Biden is running very strongly according to a recent poll as reported by Reuters. Only Bernie, alone, while far behind is also in double digits. ALL other contenders are well back in SINGLE digits! Here is a link to the Reuters piece:

It’s BIDEN!!

I do not believe President Obama has thrown the considerable weight of his support behind his friend . . . . . yet.

Maybe DeBlasio will quit being mayor of NYC while he tries to convince the country to follow his failed policies.

1 Like

Oh! This will be good. Any deals right now on popcorn? I’ll check hot deals…
:slight_smile:

1 Like

WSJ on de Blasio - harsh.

Politics these days is a form of entertainment, and for the comedy portion of the Democratic presidential nomination fight we now have New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. He has no chance of winning, but we’ll break our longtime policy and consider an endorsement if he resigns as mayor while he’s running.

Our friends at the New York Post greeted his candidacy with a front page of people laughing at the news. But the one benefit is that he is a walking expression of today’s progressivism: Assertions of great moral virtue in calls to advance equality and justice, followed by abject failure as these good intentions fail miserably in the execution.

He has presided over a catastrophe of mismanagement at the New York City Housing Authority that caused a federal judge to impose a federal monitor. “Somewhat reminiscent of the biblical plagues of Egypt, these conditions include toxic lead paint, asthma-inducing mold, lack of heat, frequent elevator outages, and vermin infestations,” the judge said.

Then there’s his Renewal program for failing public schools that flopped after spending nearly $800 million with little improvement in student performance. He wasted that money while doing everything in his power to harm the city’s successful charter schools that now educate 123,000 children.

Anyone remember Colbert’s superPAC shenanigans? The story was that a superPAC can raise infinite amounts of money from anonymous donors while disclosing absolutely nothing. The candidate can’t “coordinate” with the superPAC, but the gist was that someone running the PAC could just keep whatever is left in the account to themselves (or give it to the candidate). Nobody would ever find out, and it’s not illegal anyway. Is that still so?

I hope that’s not the reason most of the candidates are running, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

I am surprised that Bernie only became a millionaire recently (from book sales). Senators make a pretty good salary and most of their expenses are covered. Six figures with a guaranteed pension, healthcare, etc, few personal expenses, they should all have a 7 digit net worth in a few years.

Do you think that they have a clue about finances? If they spent their household funds like they do ours, they’d be filing bankruptcy as frequently as legal. I’m pretty sure their net worth increases from sources other than their “official” salaries.

One possible reason for Bernie’s lateness to the millionaire’s club is that he was kind of a kook with no real power … and a socialist. Maybe the only people who wanted to pay him were also the ones already holding out their hands.

1 Like

My focus is not on Bernie’s money. My focus is on his eager followers.

Bernie, it now appears, is once again becoming overshadowed by another candidate. This time it is Vice President Biden and, unlike in 2016, I think the situation here is legitimate and not any form of cheating or DNC anti-Bernie bias. I think Tom Perez is a fair man.

But true or false, right or wrong, that makes no difference whatsoever to Bernie’s true believers. Such folks, in the end, might be only one or two percent of the Democrat electorate. But if Bernie is not on the ticket they will at best remain at home on election day; and a few might even vote for Trump! That could be enough for Biden to lose a very close, extremely tight, election.

+1000000000000

The first debate is one month from this weekend. Things are becoming a bit frothy on the Democrat side because:

I was unaware prior but the Democrats have limited the available first debate podiums to just twenty! This is insufficient, frankly, to handle the large number of candidates in the race. So candidates are jockeying with one another for a place on that first debate stage.

At first Mr. Perez (DNC chair) set donations as the standard. But lower tier candidates have been creative, soliciting small donations in large numbers, thereby successfully fulfilling Mr. Perez’s requirement. But Mr. Perez is nevertheless holding the available podiums at twenty, with additional bar(s) established to qualify. It’s becoming rather turbulent and promises to become even more so as the first debate bears down on the field.

One thing is for certain: The Democrats surely have no lack whatsoever of POTUS candidates!!

Things heat up as the first debate moves closer

How can you have a productive debate with 20 people? It’ll be the wild west, with no one respecting any rules or decorum, and only being focused on making the biggest impression possible in whatever backhanded way necessary. It’s going to be a joke, the only question is if it’ll be funny or sad.

1 Like

Will anyone watch?

2 Likes

No person who knows me would ever accuse me of being supportive of Democrats or the Democrat agenda. However:

I do support and admire the very open process Democrats have adopted this time around to arrive at their POTUS nomination. I am respectful of Mr. Perez in this regard. He has his hands FULL and is doing the very best he can in a challenging situation for his party.

If you compare this with the Democrat’s process prior to the 2016 election, it is night and day. What would you do in Mr. Perez’s situation? The Democrats desperately need a nominee who has been openly and fairly arrived at. And that is exactly what Mr. Perez is doing his level best to give them. Credit where due.

Knowing that you’re not naive, I admire your hopeful, positive (or positively hopeful) opinion.

Might I ask how any previous nomination was not open? Oops! Rephrase - Without the use of hindsight, between 1968 and 2016, what Democrat nomination was not open?

I thought Bernie got rather a raw deal back in 2016. If you recall, then DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) was forced to resign in the wake of revelations related to her pro-Hillary bias. Admittedly it took a telephone call from President Obama finally to force her out. She was also not permitted to gavel open the Democrat Party 2016 convention. Compared with DWS, the DNC chair now, Mr. Perez, deserves a commendation for fairness. I have seen nothing whatsoever indicating he has put his finger on the scale in favor of any candidate in the large Democrat field - and that is how things should be.

Some might argue that Hillary would have defeated Bernie, back in 2016, even had the nomination process been open and totally fair. That certainly is possible. But we will never know.

2 Likes

My apologies, Shin. Your memory is greater than mine, which ain’t saying much. :slight_smile: I thought all of the “finger on the scale” revelations came after the nomination.