'He's Barack Obama, but white': Beto O'Rourke blows up the 2020 Democratic primary

[DonViejo]

Top party donors and operatives are eager to see the Texas congressman jump into the presidential race.

By DAVID SIDERS 11/19/2018 05:04 AM EST

Sparked by his narrow defeat in a Texas Senate race, Beto O’Rourke is scrambling the 2020 presidential primary field, freezing Democratic donors and potential campaign staffers in place as they await word of his plans.

Even prior to O’Rourke’s meteoric rise, many Democratic fundraisers had approached the large number of 2020 contenders with apprehension, fearful of committing early to one candidate. But the prospect of a presidential bid by O’Rourke, whose charismatic Senate candidacy captured the party’s imagination, has suddenly rewired the race.

O’Rourke — who raised a stunning $38 million in the third quarter of his race — is widely considered capable of raising millions of dollars quickly, according to interviews with multiple Democratic money bundlers and strategists, catapulting him into the upper echelons of the 2020 campaign.

Mikal Watts, a San Antonio-based lawyer and major Democratic money bundler, said several donors and political operatives in Iowa, after hearing from other potential candidates in recent days, have called to ask if O’Rourke is running, a sign of his impact in the first-in-the-nation caucus state.

more
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/19/beto-orourke-2020-democratic-primary-995353

[LexVegas]

1. ...

[jcgoldie]

2. Still in

We need all hands on deck 2020 and if Beto is what brings out the youth and more of the hispanic vote then he's my guy. Plus I really love that he had the balls and the personality to barnstorm deep red Texas on a liberal message rather than a bluedog one like some of the senate candidates in the purple midwest.

I even ordered this hat last week on etsy and hoping I get it in time to wear to turkey dinner this week with the gun toting, "yay jesus" relatives...

[lunasun]

28. I am not from TX. How could he bring out more of the Hispanic vote?

[sandensea]

64. I think it's a combination of good policy (more socioecomics, less bigotry) and personality politics

Most Hispanic voters know from either personal or family experience what can happen under right-wing kleptocracies: debt crises, economic collapse, a massive shift to the 1% from everyone else, etc.

This, plus the GOP's avowed bigotry, is what draws most to the Democratic Party.

But Beto not only hit all the right notes there; but also in his personality.

Latin American politics are very personality-driven, and the most successful politicos combined socially responsive policies with a strong (but not vulgar) personality.

Think Lázaro Cárdenas (Mexico), Getúlio Vargas (Brazil), Evo Morales (Bolivia), and of course Argentina's Juan Perón.

Context and specific policies aside, Beto fits that image of the Latin caudillo (leader) very well: the man of the people with aplomb and resiliency on one hand, and charisma and concern for everyday people on the other. The good father, if you will.

But, of course, without the flaws Latin America's caudillos have often suffered from.

[MicaelS]

105. Because he was born in El Paso, and...

He served on the El Paso city council from 2005–2011. Then he served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2012 onward. This is the 16th district and covers most of El Paso County. The District is 83% Hispanic / Latino.

He, his wife and three children live in El Paso.

[jcgoldie]

116. I also haven't seen the specific stats on turnout

But I have read a couple of articles which indicated youth and Hispanic turnout in Texas was very heavy for a midterm. That is how he got so close while veteran Democratic senate candidates in states which are traditionally less red than Texas got beaten pretty soundly in Missouri and Indiana. I'm also not from Texas, but in watching his townhalls and debates I saw him more than once give answers in fluent spanish. I haven't seen many candidates willing to go there honestly.

[TexasBushwhacker]

137. He and his wife are fully bilingual

He speaks Spanish better than Ted Cruz. His wife comes from a wealthy family in El Paso. After college, she taught kindergarten in Guatemala City for a year.

[Bucky]

146. I think he did improve Democrats performance among Hispanic voters compared to 6 years ago

And he has good ideas. I'm not in the can for him. But this time 12 years ago I thought Obama running was premature and I wanted Biden to get the nomination. History proved me wrong.

I definitely think we need someone younger than Clinton or Biden or Bernie. I really wanted Elizabeth Warren to run 4 years ago, but she didn't. I think she missed her window.

I would vote for any of them now, but job #1 is to turn out voters who are still not showing up. And Beto has a track record for doing that. And don't you secretly want to see what it's like to have a punk rocker as president? If I can't have Joey Ramone, Beto is a good second choice

[Kahuna7]

94. That's the beauty of Beto. I see him as someone who can reinvigorate the Obama coalition.

I'm inspired. He give me goosebumps.

[ananda]

3. Please run Beto!

You'd have my vote and many others I know
both in Texas and outside!!!!

[Celerity]

4. I think Kamala Harris/Beto is a superb ticket

[True_Blue]

19. IMO they would be an unbeatable ticket.

[LakeArenal]

46. Nope

[Bucky]

147. Well not argued

[Wintryjade]

115. I agree. Unbeatable. Awesome in the contradiction of each other. I think it is perfect.

[LuvNewcastle]

5. He must be clean because if there was any sort of dirt on him,

Cruz would have used it against him. I don't know what the guy has done in his life, though. Seems like his resume is kind of light. He'd probably make a good VP pick for Warren.

[NewJeffCT]

12. What Cruz brought up in the race

was there was a DUI incident 20 or so years ago where O'Rourke reportedly left the scene. If I recall, the incident was resolved at the time, or right afterwards.

[LuvNewcastle]

30. If that's all they could dig up against him,

I don't think it would be a problem. If they chose not to charge him with leaving the scene, he probably had some mitigating circumstances. One of my college friends ran over a woman and left the scene. That was well before cell phones, so my friend had to leave in order to call for help. He went back there after he made the call, so it was obvious to them that he wasn't trying to evade responsibility. The autopsy of the woman showed that the woman he ran over was already dead anyway.

[Eric J in MN]

59. He didn't leave the scene.

Another driver on the scene said he turned on his lights to stop Beto O’Rourke from leaving.

That doesn’t mean that O’Rourke would have left otherwise.

[DFW]

6. This is one Texan that would be on board with that.

I suspect there might be others. It's a long shot now (and where was BHO at this time in 2006?), and if he is really thinking seriously about running, I hope he keeps quiet about for another 8 months while quietly (VERY quietly) meeting with all the right people. Then he can open with a big splash. Sort of an amalgam between Obama and RFK.

[karynnj]

72. This time in 2006?

There were major articles speculating that he would run and he was already polling a relatively strong second to Hillary Clinton. She was 39% in 2 polls and he was 21 and 23 percent in them. http://pollingreport.com/wh08dem2.htm

In addition, he had a pretty high profile since he spoke at the 2004 convention. There were many articles that suggested he would make his decision on running while on vacation over Christmas 2006 in Hawaii. So, Obama had been whispered as a potential future President for over two years when he announced. He ran a phenomenally good primary race, but he was also lucky that the race was reduced to just him and Hillary Clinton and she made some big errors.

Now -- it is possible that the "not someone over 70" contingent could coalesce behind Beto -- rather than someone with a longer resume, but who is not seen as being the rock star he is. I was impressed with many of the segments of his speeches that were posted here. Not to mention, although he might try, Trump can't really complain about him not having a long public record -- as he had none in 2016.

One thing that might swing people will be head to head polls with Trump. 2016 can be characterized between a very qualified candidate vs Trump -- or it could be seen as two people both underwater on favorability, honesty and trustworthiness. Some argue that we need someone with rock star charisma. It might be that as potential Democrats increase their name recognition, one or more might resonate with voters. Then, it will be interesting to see how they poll against Trump. (I suspect that if you polled most of them now, you might get very similar results for all -- which would be identical to Trump versus a generic Democrat.)

[DFW]

89. Agreed, the 2004 speech gave him a huge boost

But the rest was speculation on top of a lot of favorable PR. He didn't announce until Feb. 2007.

Beto, for that matter, is far greener on the national stage than Obama was, though a well-coordinated PR program could turn that around easily enough. Have him on Colbert, Fallon and Kimmel a few times. I think he is a fast learner, and a willing one. The rock star looks and demeanor will make up for some of that, too, but not all. One of Obama's best moves was, despite all the buzz, NOT to announce too early.

I'm not at all convinced that Trump will run again. He is definitely not having any fun, and it appears that the ego boost he craved has long since worn off. He could just as easily, given his grasp of reality, say "I did more in one term than most presidents accomplish in two. My work is done here" and then leave it to Pence, only to crap on Pence when Beto crushes him in 2020. If he is referring to destruction of the national fabric, he'd even be correct about the condensing two terms into one.

Obama spent most of his time in office doing damage control from Cheneybush. I doubt even Aladdin's genie could do the damage control we now need in just two terms. I hope the next president, a Democrat, realizes that. Undeserved frustration will set in, if not. If the next president is a Republican, then it's pretty much game over, and I will make my EU residence permit permanent. I already have one daughter who had her first child in Germany and is raising her here, saying the USA is no place to raise a child these days. That stings, but I don't have much of an argument against it, either.

If Trump, despite all past and future gaffes, does indeed go for a second term, there is something seriously wrong with the country if polls show that a generic Democrat does anything but wipe the floor with him.

[Kahuna7]

99. Beto reminds me of all the Kennedy Bros, but RFK the most. nt

[DFW]

119. Similar hair, but far more outgoing.

I met RFK several times, and my dad was a good friend of his. In person, although he concealed it well when the cameras were on, he was almost shy and soft-spoken. Beto is way more out front, completely different kind of guy.

[Kahuna7]

123. I really wasn't talking about appearance, but oookay. I was

referring to his ability to reach out across the political, classes and racial divides.

[samnsara]

7. i want my prez candidate to be battle tested...

..I need to see more results.

[BannonsLiver]

87. You'll start seeing them in February 2020 if he runs

[dalton99a]

8. Austin American-Statesman: Why Beto O'Rourke may be headed toward run for president

https://www.statesman.com/news/20181117/why-beto-orourke-may-be-headed-toward-run-for-president

Why Beto O’Rourke may be headed toward run for president
By Jonathan Tilove
Posted Nov 17, 2018 at 5:33 PM
Updated Nov 18, 2018 at 1:25 PM

If U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke had defeated Sen. Ted Cruz for the U.S. Senate, he would have had no choice but to rebuff demands from Democrats across the country to run for president in November 2020.

Instead, he lost to Cruz by 2.6 points, and might now find it hard to resist those appeals.

“O’Rourke would have changed the country by defeating Cruz,” Christian Archer, a Democratic political strategist based in San Antonio, said last week. And yet, for Texas Democrats and sympathetic out-of-state observers, so accustomed to defeat in this big red state, “for him to come up a little bit short, it’s almost like he’s got more momentum than he had the day before the election. It’s really an anomaly.”

“Clearly, we’re not a week out from the election, and the calls for Beto to run for president are loud, they’re everywhere,” Archer said. “He’s just right there, and I don’t know how he could say no. He just can’t deny the sense of hope and optimism that he brings out in the country right now, that the country is starved for, just starved for.”

In an emotional post-election thank-you email to supporters last Sunday, O’Rourke described the intense joy of being home in El Paso with his wife and three children, “just hanging out, just being around, just being — that I haven’t done in almost two years,” but he also spoke of how much he also misses the shared energy and higher purpose of the campaign just ended.

[jcgoldie]

9. BTW the article title is a bit cringe-worthy but...

At this point in time I would in fact take Barack Obama in any hue... (although I would prefer not orange ).

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

25. Yeah, I don't like the title either

They could have just said he is like Barack Obama. It seems weird that they had to make the distinction that he is white. We all can see that by looking at a picture of him. It seems kind of strange... like their saying a white person can't really be like a black person because the skin color difference.

[ismnotwasm]

10. Nope.

[In It to Win It]

11. I'm game!

[NewJeffCT]

13. If Kamala Harris runs, are we going to say "She's like Barack Obama, only a woman"?

She's smart and also mixed race (Black and Indian)

If Andrew Gillum runs, are we going to say that's he's the Next Barack Obama because he's black?

[In It to Win It]

16. Not at all.

But I will say that the first time I heard Barack Obama speak, I felt extremely motivated and inspired. President Obama is the whole reason I started paying attention to politics.

I was a teenager in high school at the time. I remember my teachers tell my class that they’ve never seen so many students into politics before. I remember thinking that Barack Obama was not going to win. I remember people saying he was too inexperienced. I remember thinking we’d be lucky to have that man leading our nation.

Barack Obama changed what I thought politicians looked and sounded like.

All these thoughts and feelings come back when I think of Beto O’Rourke. Beto O’Rourke captured the hearts and minds of Democrats around the country, just as Barack Obama did a decade ago. That’s the primary reason I compare him to Barack Obama and I think that’s also applies to many others.

[jcgoldie]

17. It seems to me that they are making reference to Beto's charisma

... and specifically not to his race so those examples you give which compare candidates to Obama specifically based on their race don't much apply here in my opinion.

[Horse with no Name]

70. They are

I closed my eyes listening to Beto and felt the same inspiration that Obama inspired.

[Kahuna7]

100. Agree. His race has nothing to do with the comparison. nt

[EffieBlack]

141. Then why refer to his race at all?

[lunasun]

20. + It is all very cringey

[NewJeffCT]

22. it makes me cringe as well

however, I realize it's natural to compare to current people to "greats" of the past -

I used to cover sports on a part time basis:
In baseball in the 1970s and 1980s, every time a good white outfielder that could hit with power came along, he'd be labeled the next "Mickey Mantle" - but, if the player was black, he'd be the next Willie Mays

In basketball, every time a good white player comes along, he was compared to Larry Bird

[jcgoldie]

23. I mean duh...

...of course every white player is a reincarnation of Larry Bird... unless of course he's a Kevin McHale type...

[LakeArenal]

49. No one is the next anyone..

Obama is one of a lifetime. That is all.

[Bucky]

148. She reminds me more of Bobby Kennedy

So does Beto O'Rourke, by the way.

Obama reminded me more of FDR. He was that happy warrior type. I liked that, and it worked when we needed to handle all the crises at the Bush maladministration left.

But when it comes to cleaning up all that Washington corruption, I want a scrapper. Harris fits that. O'Rourke fits that. I would vote for either or both.

[Renew Deal]

152. No, because it's not true

She’s completely uncharismatic.

[LanternWaste]

163. "If 2+24, are we going to say everything equals four?"

What leads you to project a sentiment regarding one onto everyone?

"If 2+2=4, are we going to say everything equals four?" is a pretty absurd and irrational question, no?

[crazycatlady]

14. Run Beto Run

This is what I like about him (policies aside).

1) He has that 'it factor' and is super charismatic. THe Democratic nominees for president (in my voting lifetime) that lost (Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton) were extremely qualified but didn't have the charisma to fire up a crowd the way their GOP opponents did. (I'm only going as far back as Gore as I was 8 during the Bush Sr/Dukakis election and don't remember much of it). IN fact there's been some unqualified GOP candidates who have advanced way further than they should have because of charisma (Trump, Palin).

2) He puts Texas in play. On other forums, there's debate about whether Florida is becoming a lost cause. If this is the case, it needs to be replaced by another large state to put in play. Texas would fit that book. In addition, Beto's popularity with Latino voters probably puts Arizona in play too. (IIRC Hillary did better in Texas than she did in Ohio-- the latter of which was in play and the former was not). But Beto could very well put FLorida in play too by riling up the Latinos there.

3) Age. Beto's 46. Dems have a Gen X problem (not too many Gen X Democrats on the bench). In my lifetime, the two Democrats elected president (Bill Clinton, Obama) were under 50 at the time where the over 50 nominees lost. Beto fits into this category.

[jcgoldie]

21. +1

Especially #3... there is huge potential sitting on our bench as you said in every election... we just have to get them to the polls. Not sure about Latino voters in Florida though they don't seem to behave very predictably.

[BannonsLiver]

104. Looks like you put some thought into it unlike a few intellectually lazy folks here

“He doesn’t have the experience.”

“He said fuck on TV.”

“He didn’t win.”

That’s about all they’ve got so far and it won’t be enough.

[violetpastille]

15. He's really not, 'Barack Obama but white."

(Nor is he Elizabeth Warren but male.
Nor Bernie Sanders but not old.
Nor Kamala Harris but not female, Californian nor on the Senate nor Black.)

He's great but that comparison is really not accurate or fair to either man. They are very different.

[Kind of Blue]

43. +1000.

[Bucky]

149. Oh, that's just a thing people say

When they are too stupid or too lazy to look beyond skin color. It's a sort of thing people who are not original thinkers say to sound smart.

A more informed analysis would be "He's like Grover Cleveland but without the prostitution scandal", or possibly "He's like Henry II but without the trebuchets." But people just don't go for nuance these days.

[violetpastille]

157. Your reply is suitable for framing or gift giving.

[LonePirate]

18. More subtle racism from the Republican-supporting Politico.

[DonViejo]

34. Shame on Politico for using the direct quote of a Democratic bundler in the story's headline!

Shame, shame, shame! Clearly subtle racism on the part of Politico.

[appal_jack]

24. I'd like to see a more nuanced approach to 2nd Amendment issues

From afar (I'm in NC), the O'Rourke candidacy looked great to me overall. I was on-board with just about every approach to every issue he raised. As a potential VP pick for Harris or Warren, I think O'Rourke could be great. That he came so close to beating Cruz shows that he has widespread appeal.

But before any of these three candidates vie for the office of the President (or, perhaps, accept a VP slot in service to another Democrat), I think it's worth learning some lessons from the O'Rourke loss in TX, along with Abrams' loss in Georgia and many others (e.g. - my local Congressional race where DD Adams lost to Virginia Foxx).

All three of the losing candidates I mention above had endorsed a so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" as part of their platform. For reasons that have been hashed-out over and over again at length here in GD as well as our Gun Control & RKBA forum, AWB's are losing issues for Democrats. To summarize, for one, "Assault Weapons" are used in a tiny proportion of crimes. For another, AWB's violate both the letter and the spirit of the Second Amendment. Thirdly, AR-15's and similar rifles have been the most popular long guns sold in America for DECADES now. And a fourth big reason why AWB's are a losing issue for Democrats is that a significant plurality Americans (particularly Americans in TX, GA, and rural NC) just don't want them.

I think that O'Rourke, Abrams, Harris, and Warren (etc.) would all appeal to a broader constituency if they approached the gun violence issue by attacking the violence rather than the guns. A nice contrast to the losing races I mentioned above is Jon Tester's victory in MT. Tester has never embraced an AWB as a policy. Trump came to MT four times to campaign against Tester, and still he held on. The RKBA voting bloc in MT was certainly part of this victory, while these respective blocs in TX and GA certainly went elsewhere. In Montana, the failed Repub candidate, Matt Rosendale, just could not use the gun-issue cudgel against Tester successfully.

The 2020 election will be all about peeling portions of many constituencies and issue-based voting blocs away from Republicans in order to assemble a winning majority across the Electoral College range. While O'Rourke, Abrams, Harris, and Warren (etc.) all have said enough to alienate the gun fiends of America, a simple "we plan to respect the Second Amendment, enforce the gun laws already on the books, and find new ways to address actual violence rather than pursuing feel-good but ultimately ineffective and unconstitutional bans on particular hardware" would do worlds of good for them in attracting a number of voters who want the Second Amendment left as-is while we address more pressing issues of health care, economic justice, women's rights, etc. In fact, I think that such an evolution is essential for O'Rourke, Abrams, Harris, Warren, and any Democrat as they step to the national stage. They can take a cue from Barack Obama, who was smart enough to mostly leave gun control alone once in office.

-app

[jcgoldie]

26. Good post but I'm glad he supports the assault weapons ban

Nothing in the second amendment guarantees a right to machine guns. Aside from that I don't think that the segment of the population who you are trying to appeal to is going to vote democrat in substantial numbers anyway. If assault weapons are more important to them than health care, climate change, women's rights, et. al... then they have larger issues than their guns which will make them vote the other way. I will favor a candidate who unapologetically takes a stand on gun control over one with a "nuanced approach" as you call it.

[appal_jack]

36. I'm here as a pro-RKBA progressive

For me, health care, climate change, women's rights, and similar issues are much more important than the general noise about gun control. In my mind, certain Democratic candidates presently feel free to make unworkable and unconstitutional gun control proposals because they have no chance of passage.

However, there is some level of confiscation and ban proposals where I could conceivably become a die-hard RKBA voter for an election cycle or two until the Party regains some true "common sense." There are many Democrats and Independents like me. I hope to avoid any such choice by broadening the conversation about violence, safety, and rights well ahead of time.

-app

[appal_jack]

121. Also, Constitutional principles are, by necessity, broad.

One could just as easily argue that since the Second Amendment says "arms" it protects Light Anti-Tank Weapons (presently regulated by the NFA to the point where they are, for all intents and purposes, banned), which are small enough to be kept and fielded (or borne) by most any individual.

Opposing private ownership of practical, modern, semi-automatic weapons is a viewpoint that might be reasonably defended in moral (if not practical when speaking of the USA with probably 400 million firearms in private hands), but it cannot be squared with the Second Amendment. When it was written, the Second Amendment explicitly protected the very same arms as the military fielded. In modern reality, nearly anything (beyond a service pistol) that a soldier might field is effectively banned from private hands. The semi-automatic rifles misclassified as "Assault Weapons" are similar to, but in function quite different from any modern military rifle.

If Americans wish to ban "Assault Weapons" they are free to organize toward that end. But they should be honest that what they are calling for is basically a repeal of the Second Amendment, which has already been quite circumscribed by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, along with various Supreme Court decisions.

I appreciate the courteous manner with which you have engaged this topic though, and hope that conversations such as this might bring Democrats (including O'Rourke, Harris, Warren, us, etc.) together toward more common ground. I certainly hope to be able to vote Democratic in 2020 (just as I did in 2018, etc.) across the ticket without any reservation that I am imperiling even one Constitutional right.



-app

[jcgoldie]

124. So you are saying that what exactly the 2nd amendment protects is a matter of interpretation

They ban tanks as you said. So how is banning assault rifles inconsistent with the 2nd amendment?

Furthermore, why does anyone need AR-15s? They sure help you run up a body count if you choose to shoot people. They are worthless for hunting to my knowledge. I don't see how they would be necessary for self defense unless you think 10 or 12 people will break into your home together. They are quite annoying to listen to I can attest having a neighbor a few farms over who gets his kicks blowing through a couple hundred bucks of ammo on a sunday afternoon. I have no idea what "practical" is referring to in your description of this type of weapon. What is practical about them outside of shooting people?

[appal_jack]

132. I'm saying that Court-interpretations stretch things quite far already.

I have no idea what "practical" is referring to in your description of this type of weapon. What is practical about them outside of shooting people?

So-called "Assault Weapons" are often classified as "practical" due to ergonomic features: vertical grips, removable magazines, points of attachment for scopes and lights, etc. These features are part of what distinguishes them from "Fudd Guns" (a pejorative you can hear in black rifle circles) that often have wooden stocks, might need machining in order to accept a certain scope, and are fed by tube magazines or other such fixed and less ergonomic ammunition systems, etc.

Incidentally, "Fudd Guns" are just older designs of practical, "Assault Weapons," as Grandad's hunting rifle is probably based upon a Mauser, Enfield, or 1903 action whose designs helped swing the outcome of World War One.

I don't see how they would be necessary for self defense unless you think 10 or 12 people will break into your home together.

I'm glad that you live in a safe location where the thought of facing down 10 or 12 criminals is inconceivable, but many Americans do not. Sure, some such Americans are themselves criminals, but many others are people whose jobs take them into rough circles or circumstances: shopkeepers, teachers, police officers, judges, etc. Any of these types of peaceful citizens could easily irritate a gang member such that ten or twelve violent people seeking revenge show up at their doors. This has never happened to me, but one time when a very large man made a very credible threat against me and I called the local Sheriff's office, the Deputy on duty said that their patrols routinely kept them about 45 minutes from my rural location, and that I needed to be prepared to defend myself for such a duration.

They ban tanks as you said. So how is banning assault rifles inconsistent with the 2nd amendment?

In my understanding of Second Amendment history, "arms" were long-ago designated as man-portable and deployable by a single individual. Therefore, crew-served weapons such as tanks and battleships have not been an option since that time (sorry, I can't point to a citation here...). Then, the 1934 NFA further restricted arms to limit ordnance (explosives) and fully-automatic weapons, as such weapons allow the user to target indiscriminately: everyone within range is in danger of the explosion or spray. Now, to the non-gun enthusiast, a modern semi-automatic weapon may appear similar, but in fact with the latter, one must pull the trigger with every shot. Thus, there must be intent during the use (or misuse) of semi-automatic firearms.

But the main point is that under an Amendment citing "common defense" as part of its rationale, we are now restricted from owning nearly all military arms. The closest we can get as civilians are similar-looking rifles that no "real" military actually fields for its soldiers. If anything, restrictions on the Second Amendment have gone too far already, but further restricting the most popular firearms in America clearly crosses a red line.

-app

[jcgoldie]

133. You are obviously a gun enthusiast

I am sorry to hear you say above that this may be the difference between whether you choose to vote democrat because this little hobby of yours pales in comparison to so many issues not the least of which is the immediate future of the entire planet.

I'll cherry pick your post just this one most ridiculous point because I seriously don't see us remotely agreeing....

"I'm glad that you live in a safe location where the thought of facing down 10 or 12 criminals is inconceivable, but many Americans do not."


This is complete nonsense.

[Polybius]

164. I agree with you for a National run, but it wasn't a good move in Texas

That, saying he understood the NFL National Anthem kneelers, and publicly opposing Kavanaugh probably cost him the race in red Texas. He didn't move to the right at all after he won the primary. At least pretend and/or dodge some hot-button issues. He could have said "I need to see what the Senate Judiciary Committee has seen to give my opinion on supporting or opposing Kav." He opposed him before he even got accused of harassment!

[USALiberal]

33. Any talk of gun bans IMO loses us votes that we might get.....

And also does nothing to stop gun violence.

Most the mass shooters obtained their guns legally.

And we cannot collect all the assault rifles out there already.

Not much upside and a lot of downside.

[appal_jack]

38. Exactly. Thanks!

[jcgoldie]

41. "we cannot collect all the assault rifles out there already."

I mean this is like saying people are going to speed so why bother with a speed limit. Assault weapons do one thing and thats allow people to kill A LOT more people at once. Controlling them is common sense.

[USALiberal]

45. So door to door collect banned weapons? That will go well. Nt

[jcgoldie]

48. You offer incentives for people to give them up

Whether they do it or not... controlling the sale and further distribution of these things is a huge step in the right direction. Should we give up on climate change because the barn door was left open and the horses are out and it will take years and years to reverse the effects?

[LakeArenal]

53. Ha ha... incentives...

My husband hugely progressive man. No incentive will get his gun. He’s had his gun all his life. He inherited his Dad’s and grandfathers guns.

My highly liberal brother tells his NRA neighbors, if Hillary comes for our guns I’ll stand with you.

Assault rifles are another matter. Ban them, burn them, whatever. But no one is ever taking his guns.

[jcgoldie]

54. We are talking about assault rifles

Another thing that occurs to me... I live in the country and there's a neighbor 1/2 mile away who fires one of these off a couple times a month. The sound is incredibly annoying and easy to pinpoint and distinguish from any other gunshots from far away. It wouldn't be too hard to make firing them off illegal.

[LakeArenal]

58. No one is going to collect assault rifles either.

Ban away. Nuts will hoard them in vast collections. Ban them is correct to me but collecting existing is impossible.

[USALiberal]

50. Murder is banned now, so that seems to be working.....

Short of collecting guns, nothing will prevent mass shootings.

[jcgoldie]

51. Lol

So why not just legalize it since some people do it anyway... that's the argument?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

67. So why do other countries that actually have guns not have our level of mass shooting?

We are clearly doing something wrong.

[Ferrets are Cool]

44. Bingo

[marlakay]

136. Why does it lose us votes?

I read recently to my surprise more people don’t own guns in this country than do.

They just are louder and have NRA and republicans backing them.

My point is if there are more of us like me that don’t have any why would we lose votes other than our own fear of standing up to them and being afraid of being weak.

If Beto has a good come back then he should have more votes.

[Demsrule86]

153. Not according to polls...in fact a number of new people with an NRA 'F' won.

And you sure can confiscate assault weapons. Put those that don't turn them in ...in prison...problem solved. I am no longer willing to live with gun violence where you can't even go to church without risk of gun violence. Also, if you accidentally shoot someone, prison for manslaughter or assault...you provide a gun to a shooter...prison for you. We can also regulate ammo. There are many things we can do.

[octoberlib]

27. cult of personality doesn't do it for me.

I’ll have to see how he does during the debates since there are no legislative accomplishments to go off of. And no he’s not the “white Obama” and I’m not confident Trump wouldn’t win in a matchup.

[Demsrule86]

32. I think he might lose too.

Sherrod Brown or Biden on top...don't know who should be VP...Corey booker? Kamala Harris Perhaps one of our Latina elected?

[BannonsLiver]

85. Brown has zero chance to break out of the field you mentioned.

[crazycatlady]

42. Trump had no legislative accomplishments

And he came out on top of a crowded GOP primary where most of his opponents had some legislative accomplishments.

[octoberlib]

63. Trump won. Beto didn't and I'm not convinced

he could pull it off against Trump. I would really hate to see our party fall so far that we’re emulating Trump to win.

[mainstreetonce]

29. Biden/Beto

Great team

[LakeArenal]

56. My secret wish....

Lots of “no old white guy” pushback, which it’s hard to believe has been said directly to me on Du

Which to me rings ageist, sexist, and racist if said of a woman but somehow okay about Joe.

PS. Biden/Beto have no Franken baggage

[mainstreetonce]

117. Joe could excite rallies the was Trump does.

Joe is a young "old guy"
It is going to take a showman .
Both Joe and Beto have that special ability.

It's a dream ticket.

[LakeArenal]

122. A huge plus for me...

Joe has global diplomacy experience that stands above almost every other candidate.

We will definitely need it.

[Demsrule86]

31. I don't see how Beto can run because he lost...Pres. Obama was a sitting Senator.

And can Beto whom I admire carry Texas? Cruz is a very unpopular candidate and Beto still lost. I think more work needs to be done...perhaps 2028.

[octoberlib]

35. +1

[Demsrule86]

37. Thank You!

[33taw]

39. There are some who compare him to Lincoln (talk about setting up a guy to fail) when he lost to

Stephen Douglas and won the presidency two years later. I personally like his charisma. He did navigate Texas pretty well and can relate to the Hispanic voters. But he has to want it and I am not sure he does.

[Demsrule86]

76. I see many in the party looking for a savior as I have said before...there is no such thing. If

we vote in every election for every person who wins the Democratic Party end all message voting bullshit...our party will do much better...We must save ourselves. No candidate will do it for us. I sometimes think this stems from Roosevelt saving our country literally, but it was a different time...save yourself. No one else can.

[violetpastille]

80. Yes. A thousand times, yes.

[Demsrule86]

150. Thank you!

[BadgerMom]

57. Yep.

I love Beto for many of the reasons others have mentioned. I don’t live in Texas, so I couldn’t vote for him, but I did donate and purchase his merch. I think he might be a good VP candidate in 2020. But he holds no office come January, he has only served in the House so far and not on any high profile powerful committees. He needs some seasoning and experience. Following Trump, the country will need an practiced hand. I think Beto’s time will come and I’ll be thrilled, but I don’t think his time will be 2020.

[getagrip_already]

61. Disagree....

It's not that he lost, it's that he almost won. There is no way that race should have been close, and any other candidate would have been shellacked.

He also dragged a lot of house and state candidates over the line.

So he didn't lose in those respects.

He's also an outsider, so he will have a lot of freedom to pick his policy positions without a lot of baggage (like iraq votes or close ties to the nra).

So he can be a very viable candidate, even without being a sitting senator. He is probably a more3 effective candidate because he isn't.

Let's retire the 2016 race and all of it's candidates completely.

[Demsrule86]

74. I just don't agree. He more than likely will not deliver his home state.

And I think we probably lose. I don't see him as helpful in the rust belt either. I simple don't think he wins. I have to say all this talk about some candidates being the one ...new candidates and all. Democrats need to stop looking for a savior and learn to save themselves.

[getagrip_already]

79. When was the last time we won TX in a presidential race?

That's a foolish negative to hold up. There are 49 other states to worry about, but we may just do better in TX with him, than without.

[Demsrule86]

151. if we don't win Texas, it doesn't matter how much better we do. I would pick a candidate for

president and vice president who can deliver their state. Beto may be a candidate in the future but not 20.

[getagrip_already]

156. lest I remind you.....

Trump didn't win NY and is still considered by scotus to be the potus.

There is no requirement that a nominee win their own state. There is no requirement a nominee be a senator or a governor. There is no requirement the nominee ......

In fact, lots of nominees who have been senators or governors, and who won their own states, didn't become potus. Dukakis comes to mind only because I'm from mass, but there are others.

It's a (imho) nothing issue.

[Demsrule86]

158. He won very narrowly and his elections was a trifecta of unrepeatable shit which should

not be viewed as a normal election. I don't think Beto is a good choice.

[getagrip_already]

159. that's fine....

We disagree on that I guess.

There is only one candidate I will fight against. The others I will simply argue for or agin. I haven't chosen a champion yet, just an adversary.

[Polybius]

166. He ran against another NYer, so that's different

If Gore had won his home state of TN in 2000, the FL mess would not have mattered.

[getagrip_already]

167. of course it matters......

So if beto runs against a texan, loses tx, but wins the election, it will be ok? But if he runs against someone from FL, loses tx, and wins the election, it's not?

I really don't get your logic.

It matters exactly squat if any dem loses TX, because we always lose tx. But if we have any chance of fli[[ing it, it will be with a texan, not some has been from vt.

[Polybius]

168. It wouldn't be as bad if he runs against, say, Greg Abbott and loses TX

If two are running from the same state, someone is bound to lose it, so the chances of winning an election while losing your own state go up.

I still think we should run a candidate that wins his home state though. Besides Trump,when was the last time a candidates won an election for President without winning his home state? Gonna have to go back a long, long time.

[getagrip_already]

169. lets just look at another example

Sheldon whitehouse from RI runs and wins RI. Ok, that's 1 EV.

But ANY dem who runs will win RI. So what benefit do we get from him winning RI?

Unless you can point to a state we WOULDN'T win unless a particular candidate runs, then I'm not sure it makes any difference at all.

I do agree that if we find a candidate who can deliver GA, or FL, or some other largish red state we wouldn't otherwise get, plus all the states we should, then it matters.

But by that argument, it's possible Beto could win TX in a general election, depending on who the repugs run. Beto could win against trump in TX. No other candidate could. And that would clinch it.

[BannonsLiver]

86. So don't worry about it?

If he’d make such a lousy candidate and it’s such a lousy idea for him to run I’m sure whichever candidate you support in the primary would have no trouble beating Beto if he ran.

[BannonsLiver]

96. How long do you think your talking point would last if he won in Iowa or NH?

If that happened he would have won his last race and the weak, almost child like logic, that he shouldn’t run because he lost a close senate race in a blood red state would be a fart in the wind.

We’re a long way from that happening of course, but the Beto critics better come with more than he lost to ted Cruz next time around. It’s a very perishable argument and not at all compelling.

[ecstatic]

40. I like Beto. He has similarities to Pres. Obama, but I don't like the comparison

for many reasons. There's only one Barack Obama. Again, there are many similarities. I love Beto's passion, etc., but there are some important distinctions as far as background, education, etc.

[Adrahil]

69. WEll said. Ne

[Ferrets are Cool]

47. Tell me I am wrong...since no one can prove me wrong...

All one needs to win the presidency is Charisma, Money and no Skeletons in the closet...

or if you have an R behind your name...speak in racist code. Evidently that is all you need if you are a repug.

[Eric J in MN]

62. Every Democratic presidential nominee

...since WWII was previously a Governor or a US Senator.

Beto O’Rourke has been neither.

[BannonsLiver]

90. Playing the percentages that's probably due to change

At any rate it doesn’t mean fuck all when the primaries start.

[getagrip_already]

65. the party lines are clear....

It will be a turnout election. The candidate does matter. If he/she is young, articulate, and excites the base, that is a plus.

Experience as a senator from a small white state isn't important. It's a liability.

So yeah,the candidate does matter. Racists and deplorables will NEVER vote for a D, so we have to get as many others to the polls as possible.

Keep in mind we also have a house to hold and a senate to win in addition to the white house. We need a 50 state effort. Not electoral college calculus.

I think Beto gets that. I don't think a sitting senator does.

[Dale Neiburg]

52. I'm not committing yet for 2020, but:

A while back I mentioned that a home three blocks from me in central Maryland had a big "Beto" yard sign out front. I noticed the other day that they've added a handwritten "for President 2020" beneath.

[getagrip_already]

55. I can hear the screams....

from the bernie bots now. They will be livid at this prospect.

Personally, I think it's a good move. We need an outsider. We need excitement. And we absolutely don't need any of the problems the failed candidate from the last cycle would bring.

[Autumn]

73. Excuse me? Big Bernie "bot", though I prefer the term supporter here. Beto is the best

thing that has happened to our Democratic party in a long. If Beto announced tomorrow I would be ecstatic.
Nice way to get in a slam though.

[mvd]

142. Agree. Even if he's not 100% as progressive as Bernie, he has great..

charisma and would definitely think outside of the box. Beto could be pretty progressive. It may be too early in 2020, but we'll see. Maybe at least a VP consideration if Beto becomes willing.

[brooklynite]

60. As the keynote speaker in 2004, Obama had more public exposure when he ran in 2008

Not sure the average Presidential Primary voter knows that much about O'Rourke.

[getagrip_already]

66. that's nonesense....

You had to be living under a rock to not know who beto is. Even fox viewers know him.

O'bama didn't have that kind of name recognition, even with a senate seat.

[brooklynite]

109. The average Democratic Primary voter (not in Texas) doesn't frequent political blogs...

...and doesn't watch endless hours of MSNBC or Fox.

[getagrip_already]

113. still not true.....

I'll bet beto's name recognition is higher right now than obamas was at this point prior to the 2008 primaries.

You don't have to watch hours of cable news. All you had to do was watch the occassional news show, look at the occassional newspaper, or look at ANY internet news feed.

This was a hot race. It was constantly in the news. Chances are even your parents or grandparents know his name.

This wasn't a texas phenomena. It was national.

[JonLP24]

134. That is why I had no idea who Barack Obama was when I was in the Army

I actually knew who Bernie Sanders was before I joined the Army.

[Cosmocat]

108. My goodness

that convention speech was a long forgotten moment for anyone but political geeks like us. A singular moment in time that was mildly lauded at the time.

Beto's profile is many times over greater than BHO's was at this point.

I remember our county dem chair with his BHO table set up at one of many community events on a very chilly fall Saturday two years out, and BHO was at like 2% in the polls.

Hillary of course had a higher profile, Biden and Edwards, Richardson was the dark horse.

He just was so magical ...

[Adrahil]

68. I think he could be the Trump-killer.

He's smart, charismatic, passionate.

That's what we need.

Beto.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

71. He's a great guy, but he's not running in 2020.

He still has to build a successful national profile.

One close but ultimately unsuccessful Senate campaign isn't going to do it.

[BannonsLiver]

93. Can I get the winning numbers for the next powerball drawing?

[Small-Axe]

75. This talk is just silly.

Love Beto. Wanted him to win as much as anyone running in 2018.

But not ready to be on the top of a ticket.

[dembotoz]

77. +1

[BannonsLiver]

91. I guess we'll find out if he runs won't we?

Who are you afraid he’d beat in the primaries?

[Small-Axe]

92. Someone who is more battle tested.

Someone who is sure to beat Trump.

An established leader of the Democratic Party.

Biden/Booker looks good to me. Maybe Biden/Harris.

[getagrip_already]

114. I like Joe, but his time has passed.....

But I'd be perfectly happy to get behind him if he was nominated.

Right now, I think Beto is probably the best candidate in sight from an excitement standpoint. Corker/harris/etc all have issues. Forget the 2016 crowd.

Just saying. This election will be about turnout. Boring may be good for governing, but not for running.

[Small-Axe]

118. Biden isn't boring...

and having our most experienced candidate and one who stacks up best to Trump in the Electoral College map is essential.

Not the time for Hail-Marys IMO.

Joe with a future president as VP is the smart play.

[getagrip_already]

125. Joe is already 75 years old.....

He would 77 or 78 when he takes office. That has one term pretty much built in.

I'd really like a 2 term president. We can't rely on a one term vp having the legs to win a hard fought race.

Look, I'm not anti-old. I'm 60 myself. But having parent's and in-laws that went through that age it brings home how much you lose, even when you aren't slipping into dementia.

The next potus will need to rebuild government. Not just one agency; they have all been gutted. It's going to be a 20 hour a day job.

We need someone with the energy to run 90 miles an hour. An octogenarian like rbg is unusual, and I think even she will retire if we get a dem senate and potus.

[Small-Axe]

127. We'll see. Joe Biden looks quite fit to me.

And I don't see anyone better positioned to unseat Trump.

It is true the government will need to be rebuilt, so now isn't time for a rookie IMO.

Teamed with a VP who is qualified to be president now (like Booker or Harris) we have a winning team in 2020.

We have an Electoral College challenge. Any major Democrat could win the popular vote. Sadly that doesn't win the office.

We need to be strategic in my estimation.

I'm open to another candidate rising, but Biden looks like the made-to-order foil to Donald J Trump.

[getagrip_already]

130. He just seems tired lately....

That concerns me. I will support him if he's the nominee, but I have a lot of concerns.

[iDOcareDoyou]

78. Call For Beto to Run in 2020, Please SIGN THE FOLLOWING PETITION ***********************************

Call For Beto to Run in 2020, Please SIGN THE FOLLOWING PETITION:

https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/836/708/820/


WHY URGE BETO TO RUN?
He is refreshing to older people, and intoxicating to the younger generation!


Call For Beto to Run in 2020, Please SIGN THE FOLLOWING PETITION:

https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/836/708/820/


WHY URGE BETO TO RUN?
He needs to translate the energy from his Texas campaign into future political success. The presidential race is lengthy, early stars can fade, but his window of opportunity “to throw his hat” into the race is also fading right now!




#

[octoberlib]

83. If a candidate has to be "persuaded" or

“Urged” to run , it probably won’t end well. Beto should run only if he really wants the job.

[marble falls]

111. Too soon. Lets get the Congress properly targeted first. How about Beto runs for Cornyn's seat?

[BannonsLiver]

120. How about he does what he thinks is right for him?

And if that’s running for president in 2020 so what? The pushback on this guy running is just bizarre.

[marble falls]

126. How about putting the nation first. Just saying. We've got plenty of time to pull hair over POTUS.

[BannonsLiver]

128. Oh lord

We’ve now transitioned from completely irrational, nonsensical reasons why he shouldn’t run, to hopelessly sanctimonious reasons why he shouldn’t run, and beyond that, nobody should talk about him or anyone else running “for the good of the country.”

[octoberlib]

160. For me, I'm not certain about anything or anybody yet. If Beto shines in the debates and polls well

in states we need, then I'll be on board. I'm just seeing a lot of outright delusional stuff about Beto on Twitter like he's the coming messiah and savior of the world. It's fucking ridiculous and it's actually turning me against him. 'Well, he'll get young voters to the polls" That's good but we need more than just young voters to show up. It's just too soon for me and imbuing someone with messianic status is nonsensical. I also think it's absolute madness to ignore the electoral college as somebody posted above. So.... what, we just want to win the popular vote again? Wtf.

[BannonsLiver]

162. So you're annoyed by the attention he's getting

That’s more or less where I thought the animus was coming from. Got it.

[Demsrule86]

154. a simple answer is 'NO'

[LuvLoogie]

81. Biden-Harris

[obnoxiousdrunk]

82. If Beto wins

the primary he wins the General. No doubt about it.

[Kahuna7]

95. Abso-freakin-lutely!

[andym]

84. He has as good a chance as any

being able to communicate clearly and with passion is a strength. 6 years of federal experience as a Congressman is enough. Winners in Democratic primaries often come out of nowhere like Jimmy Carter, with no federal experience. Let him run and see where the chips fall.

[BannonsLiver]

98. This is the only rational response in the entire thread IMO

[Small-Axe]

112. So everyone who disagrees with you is irrational?

[Vinca]

88. I was thinking about this very thing this morning. Looking back at the midterms,

Beto handled Trump far and away better than anyone else: he ignored him. At the very least, he should be considered for VP. He's definitely more qualified than the Orange Fuhrer and his personality reminds me of Obama. We have to get out of our rut of thinking about the same people to run for POTUS. We need to inject some excitement into this or we're going to be stuck with Trump or Pence for another 4 years.

[Awsi Dooger]

97. Ignoring Trump is an awesome litmus test that most candidates would fail

I don't trust Kamala Harris at all in that regard. I think she would foolishly try to respond to everything. It is the prosecutor mode...point and counterpoint. She would have no idea how masochistic it would be against Trump.

Beto, on the other hand, has big picture clarity and would offer simple big picture ideas that would not only motivate our base beyond anyone else, but also steal away a vital percent or few from the working class swing voters who have been trending Republican.

Beto is easily our best hope in this extremely difficult situational challenge of ousting an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term. It has to be someone charismatic and with teflon. Beto also owns the enormous advantage of already being vetted. That Texas race was like a mini presidential race. Yet essentially they couldn't touch him. His favorables remained high throughout.

Frankly I don't have a heck of a lot of respect for anyone who thinks Beto isn't ready or isn't a top tier presidential candidate. Throw away the conventional wisdom. That should be obvious every day in this era. Conventional wisdom is what got everyone in trouble more than a year ago in assuming Trump would soon be out the door.

[Vinca]

101. Beto's showing in the Texas race says it all. He came darn close to ousting Cruz.

If he can do that in a red state, imagine how he would do in the blue and purple states.

[Eliot Rosewater]

102. Just get the WH out of the hands of Nazis, I dont care who you do it with.

[janterry]

103. People are looking for someone who speaks with honestly and passion

If he wants to try, let him put his hat in the ring -- it will only improve our primaries. I say, go for it.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

106. Cringeworthy title... But go figure.

[Eric J in MN]

107. It's unclear if he'd take more votes from Biden or Bernie.

He’s ideologically closer to Biden.

But he’s popular with youth like Bernie.

[Blue_Tires]

110. So in other words, he's Bill circa 1992?

[jcgoldie]

129. I think he's a lot more liberal than Bill was in 1992...

...either that or I was 19 and I was a lot more liberal in 1992 so I chose Jerry Brown...

[Buckeyeblue]

131. I want someone who has won a state wide election.

Preferably a governor. I don't care how close he came, he still lost. And lost against a really unpopular candidate. Which means he probably wouldn't win his own state.

[JonLP24]

135. Unpopular in the US or unpopular in Texas?

There is a difference. Beto was a great candidate.

[TexasBushwhacker]

138. I would prefer that too, but there's a first time for everything

But a Harris/O'Rourke ticket looks really good to me.

[madville]

139. This is going to be one of the ugliest primaries we have ever seen

Just a feeling.

Beto hasn't run in the spotlight without 75% of the media and 100% of Democrats in his corner, that won't be the case in a primary. We still have to see what Biden and Clinton are going to do also.

[EffieBlack]

140. No, he's not

[LBM20]

143. He has already clearly said he isn't running.

[musicblind]

144. I'd consider voting for him.

I'd need to hear more about him and where he stands on policy, but that's what the primaries are for.

From what I've seen so far, he'd have a darn good shot at taking back the White House if he ran. He is charismatic as f*ck.

[bhikkhu]

145. O'Rourke/Biden

That would be a decent ticket. I think he'd need someone with serious experience to help him get his feet and do the actual job, but I'd be all for him. He has the mind and the heart and the passion for it, exactly as Obama did.

[AlexSFCA]

155. He'll win in a landslide; you don't need to be a genius to see that

He can pack stadiums larger than bernie but he is an ultimate uniter unlike the latter. The media loves him which is mandatory for anyone who is gonna run against trump. Like Obama, he can select a more experienced VP but not Biden. Let’s move forward, stop lookong back all the time - our country has fundamentally changed and we know it’s irreversible so let’s focus on the future.

[Just a Weirdo]

161. Pass

He still lost his race. Made him unviable imho. I'm still looking for a proven winner with progressive ideals. Hmmm.

[gldstwmn]

165. He needs to run. This is our guy.

He would also make an awesome ticket with Joe Biden.