Want to see who the next Democratic Nominee will be?

[MineralMan]

Look up at the top of this Forum. There are four faces there. One of them will be the nominee. The rest are running for something else, maybe the VP spot. But those four are the group from which our nominee will come, I'm certain. The VP nominee is probably in that same group.

I don't think we have the heart for a crowded primary race, nor do we need such a thing. This will probably be decided even before the first caucus and primary, perhaps, but if not, it will be decided on Super Tuesday. We desperately need to focus our attention on the person who can win and on winning as many House and Senate seats as possible. Those Congressional seats will determine whether we can return to progressive leadership or not.

[bearsfootball516]

1. I think your line about Super Tuesday is accurate.

I think that after the first Super Tuesday, it'll be down to 2 serious candidates and possibly 1 more that's clinging on for dear life, but everyone knows doesn't have a chance.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. That's assuming there isn't some event or previously-unknown scandal that comes out of left field

and either takes one of them out or elevates someone else. A year is a very long time in politics. I do agree that many of the current candidates or candidate-curious people realize that their chances of actually getting the nomination are minuscule, but are actually running for running-mate or are trying to raise awareness of some issue or of themselves.

[MineralMan]

5. Well, yes. It could change, I suppose.

However, I'll still bet that the nominee's picture is up there right now. If I had to guess, today, I'd guess Joe Biden, who will probably jump up when he announces. If I had to guess today, I'd guess that Kamala Harris will be the VP nominee, simply because she is so damned good at presenting herself in public appearances and because she has strong appeal among demographics we really, really need to turn out next November.

If I had to guess today, I'd guess that Elizabeth Warren might drop from the top four, being replaced by someone from farther down the list or someone not yet on the list. I don't think she's going to play much of a role in the 2020 race, frankly. She's very nice, and well-qualified, but she's outmatched in terms of personality and chutzpah.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Right now that's my guess too, subject to regular and frequent change.

Biden has several advantages: Name recognition, vast experience (including foreign policy experience that most of the others don't have), and a way of presenting himself that seems very genuine. On the other hand, he's no spring chicken, which might be off-putting to some, as well as the perception, at least, that he's an old-school "establishment" guy. Choosing Harris as his running mate might help dispel some of that, and it would also give her a huge advantage for 2024, since it's unlikely he'd run for a second term in his 80s. But Biden hasn't even declared yet. Anyhow, I will probably keep my comfortable seat on the fence for quite awhile.

[WeekiWater]

3. Except for your point about the VP coming from that list...

I think you are right.

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. I hope it is Kamala, but I cant get Bill Clinton out of my head and what a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG

shot he was at this time of the process in the year he ran and first won.

Right, am I remembering correctly he was "who?" at this point? I dont remember the details, so who knows who might be.

[Hortensis]

7. I think it's way too early. They aren't even all declared.

Regarding that last, though, I was just reading that Senator Schumer is trying to get some of impressive Democrats who have been considering a run, governors etc., to apply their big names and reputations in their states to taking senate seats away from Republicans. Yes!

Also, regarding those 4 pictures, DU is incredibly UN-representative of Democrats and left-leaning indies in general. By far most of them are paying little to no attention yet, sensible people that they are. And these pictures reflect transient enthusiasms that mostly completely ignore the various giant occult factors at play in the background.

[MineralMan]

8. We'll find out. That much is certain.

[Hortensis]

10. Oh, yes. :) Choices will winnow down dramatically

after Super Tuesday. Remembering the media's need to sell newspapers, though, and the need of some voters here, if not so much "out there," to reject whoever the more mainstream candidate(s) may be, and of course interference by enemies foreign and domestic, I think many Americans might not understand that it was essentially decided before or after ST, even if it were.

Btw, just counted 15 titles with Sanders mentioned, plus this thread with his picture among the four.
Yet we know he's not going to happen. Not unless the GOP/Putin/China do an incredibly better job this time, and maybe not then. The big media are already analyzing and reporting whose candidacies are being promoted by our enemies.

[Garrett78]

17. Exactly. After NH, how does Sanders possibly contend?

Anyone still standing as we head into Super Tuesday will have a better chance than Sanders. I imagine those individuals will be Harris, Biden, O'Rourke and possibly 1-2 others.

The main thing Sanders does is prevent certain candidates from doing well enough in IA and NH to justify continuing. There are a lot of candidates for whom IA and NH will be crucial. Klobuchar (because MN borders IA), Warren (because she's a New Englander) and any of the lesser known candidates have to really impress in those first 2 contests.

[Hortensis]

21. Makes sense. The competition for the dissenters

vote is a good point. It's also highly unlikely that dissension is going to be as big as in 2016, outside agitprop notwithstanding. Enemies tried to drum it up to split and discourage midterm Democratic voters and failed rather spectacularly.

Speaking of "others," Jay Inslee, governor of Washington, just announced. I need to know a lot more about him, but I like his long, strong, genuine climate/environment/energy and generally solid liberal record. In that respect he's the real thing, and experience running a vigorous, diverse state is a great asset for any candidate. He's supposed to be running as a one-issue candidate, but governors are always many-issue workers.

Jay Inslee on the Issues

Mr. Inslee has praised the Green New Deal — a sweeping proposal by some Democrats in Congress that, among many other environmental and economic goals, calls for a fully renewable energy supply within 10 years — for elevating public discussion of climate change and acknowledging the scale of the action needed. But he has also described it as more of an “aspirational” outline of principles than a policy document.

His environmental policy record in his home state is long...



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/us/politics/jay-inslee-on-the-issues.html

Washington's liberal in the PNW west of the Cascades, but basically conservative over the rest of the state. Inslee tried and failed last year to pass the first carbon tax in the nation, but that's only one fight on a variety of fronts.

[Garrett78]

22. The narrative that he's a single issue candidate won't help him.

I like him and appreciate that he'll bring greater attention to climate change.

[Hortensis]

23. He thinks it can help him stand out, shrug. But his

deep and varied record as a governor means he'll be anything but a one-dimensional offering.

Agree with the value of attention to not just climate change but especially attention by a long-time professional activist who genuinely knows what he's talking about and can help drive discussion. We need all of that we can get. I'm happy to have him on board.

[Garrett78]

24. We're immediately seeing headlines labeling him as a single issue candidate.

Being an underdog in a large field of candidates, including some superstars, is incredibly tough. On the one hand, you need to get noticed, so you find a niche. On the other hand, you can only be viewed as "the climate candidate" for so long. And it's not like any of our candidates are going to be dismissive of the problem of climate change. Any one of them could speak forcefully about environmental policy and undercut Inslee.

But, yes, I welcome his voice. My wife and I lived in Washington not all that long ago. I like Inslee.

[Hortensis]

34. Being elected president may not be

his only motive for running, also. He may be doing it to help shape the dialogue nationally and also to grow support on climate and energy among the people of the state. Just a thought.

That article describes him as low-key, though. That didn’t work on the debate stages for O’Malley...

[still_one]

9. I hope your assessment is right that Super Tuesday decides it, but I am no so confident that will

be the case with so many candidates

[Garrett78]

25. I think we'll be down to 2 or 3 contenders after Super Tuesday. And 2 weeks after that...

...following the March 17 primaries, I think we may have our nominee.

The field will winnow before Super Tuesday, and even before Iowa. More than half of those on the debate stage in June probably won't make it to New Hampshire, if Iowa.

[still_one]

31. I hope so

[LakeArenal]

11. Biden / Beto for me.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. Kind of reminds me what I was thinking during the

Cohen hearing. Do we really need this many questioners? Can we take the most senior members and funnel questions to them. Or vote on the best questioners and give questions to them? Better flow with 10 min vs 5.

It's all about our inclusiveness but doubt we will ever change even if we wanted to for a particular situation or even if it was the smartest thing to do like you say.

[Garrett78]

13. I give Beto much better odds than Sanders and Warren.

The race certainly won't be decided before Iowa, but it might be after Super Tuesday. Or after the March 17 primaries, at which point more than 60% of the delegates will have been allocated.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. Heard a poll yesterday on Austin talk radio

right wing show..poll of only Texans matched against trump. Naturally trump won each. Duh. Biden was closest..like 1 point below trump, then I remember Bernie, Beto, Harris and Warren.
(I'll see if it's published somewhere).

Didn't surprise me much since now living in a red part of Texas, think the highest level of bigotry is toward women. Even the older generation of women think men are the Masters.

If we don't get WI, MI and PA we need TX. Amazingly, people hate trump in Texas more than people in Ohio and Florida do. But other factors play a role. Weak Dem infrastructure, and the smear works very well here...so many low-infos.

[Awsi Dooger]

29. There is zero chance Texas joins before Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania

Zero. A state with 44% conservatives is not in play at all, unless we've got such a national tilt it has already taken those other three states by 5+ points apiece.

Just because nobody else mentions the number of self-identified liberals and conservatives in each state doesn't mean that it is not easily the most decisive variable.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

32. Trump's approval in Texas is 41%!

Lower than Ohio.
Lower than Florida.
Lower than Michigan.
Lower than Pennsylvania.
Lower than Wisconsin
Lower than North Carolina

Agree we are more likely to take back "the three" - WI, MI, and PA before we win Texas. But if we don't take ALL the former back, we have to have Texas. Or another state to make up a loss.

So, why not pick a candidate who can win in Texas and the three? If disgruntled landowners affected by a wall start making headlines we have an even better shot.

And don't forget TRussia. If it really happened that they affected the outcome in "the three" they can do it again.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. Think you are so right about people with very

slim chances running for VP.

[MineralMan]

16. Well, the VP choice is almost always made for political reasons,

and is named to help win in some vital state or to win some demographic group or another. The VP can be anyone who can meet that need. it could be Beto O'Rourke, if Texas is seen as essential, or Kamala Harris, if the youth and women demographics are at risk. It could also be someone like Amy Klobuchar if it was felt she could carry certain Midwestern states.

Purely a political decision.

[pansypoo53219]

18. who does mass media want. they wanted the moron & hillary.

and made sure to cut her down, so the moron had a chance.

[brooklynite]

19. Undecided 2020!

I think you're being too simplistic. Biden could decide not to run; Beto and Sherrod could decide to get in. Any of those changes could shake up the rankings.

I'm supporting Hickelooper BASED ON THE CANDIDATES SO FAR. Everything is subject to change (I reached out to Inslee today so see if he wanted in meet in the future).

[MineralMan]

20. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

We shall see.

[Kurt V.]

26. um okay

[Pachamama]

27. Biden/Harris

As much as I want Harris/Biden I realize that in order to win and the things that will need to be done, we need experience (Biden) and we need a woman (Harris but Biden too) and we need to have the black vote (Biden and Harris) and we need the blue collar working class whites (Biden for sure) and we need someone with Foreign Policy experience (Biden) and we need someone with legal experience and ability to debate and take on issues and not back down (Both Harris and Biden).

I see it as a tie for me when choosing between the two. But I think Biden/Harris is the winning ticket. Both coasts and Biden could win Texas.

All the other candidates will continue to do good for their states and possibly be great cabinet members or SCOTUS members.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

33. Like the way you reasoned that out.

[tinrobot]

39. I've been saying Biden/Harris for quite a while...

The more I hear from Harris, though, the more I like her. She's really good.

If Biden surges, then of course I'll support him.

[empedocles]

28. 'We desperately need . . . the person who . . . winning as many House and Senate seats as possible

Great goal, has been elusive so far.

[Awsi Dooger]

30. Numbers like that are incredibly weak

The fact that nobody is above 20% means they are hardly formidable, and easily swallowed.

It is like a football team that is favored solely due to the weakness of its opponent and not based on its own strength. Try relying on those teams as favorite and it will be gulp city in a hurry.

[yardwork]

35. I disagree. It's early days yet.

[crazycatlady]

36. I'm not sure about the VP spot

VP selections have been interesting. In the last 3 presidential elections (both sides), only one VP nominee was running for President in the primaries (Biden), and he didn't fare so well.

What I am hoping for VP is that if the nominee is older (Baby Boomer or older) that he/she picks a younger nominee to pass the torch to a new generation. The 2020 election will see people who were not alive on 9/11 voting.

[BannonsLiver]

37. Congrats to "undecided"!

They will make a fine president.

Also, on the “we don’t have” stuff, speak for yourself. “We” may have other ideas.

[BlueStater]

38. I can't say I agree with you. Sorry.

Biden's main advantage is name recognition. He's a pretty bad presidential candidate otherwise. His previous two runs proved that.

[Garrett78]

42. Agreed.

[forklift]

40. It may be decided

but at least one candidate may keep running despite the mathematical certainty of losing.

[JI7]

41. Beto is not up there and I think kamala harris, Biden and Beto are the ones likely

to do best.

[Garrett78]

43. I agree. I also think 1 or 2 others may contend, especially if Biden or Beto don't run.

A candidate or two may do surprisingly well in IA or NH and then contend. Maybe Booker. Maybe Inslee. Hard to say.