• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Inslee will be an easy cabinet choice.

Who knows who Bernie would endorse if he has to drop out some time this year. I think it's weird to assume he would endorse a front-runner because he endorsed Hillary last year after dropping out of a two-person primary.
 
I know it's still early, and foolish to make predictions, but that hasn't stopped us for the previous 420 pages.

My thinking is that it's becoming increasingly more clear the party is coalescing support around Warren. Clearly the establishment and Clinton wing were never going to throw support to Bernie, but for the last several months it was not clear if they'd mostly be getting behind Biden or Harris or Warren or anyone else. The Tom Perez era has been marred with the stink of the Clinton failure. From agreeing to accept fossil fuel money to kicking Bernie supporters out of party leadership to endorsing Andrew Cuomo to favoring market-based solutions to climate change, the dude (and the establishment party) has not learned a thing from 2016. But the messaging that has remained popular since 2016 is largely Bernie's messaging, so even if the party is going to demonize Sanders and his supporters, they need to find someone electable that's the next best thing.

I recently heard a framing of contemporary American politics I'm sympathetic to.

On Bernie vs Warren and power:

Warren supporters are more educated, and their theory of power is largely meritocratic. To wit, her supporters seem to love that she has a plan for everything. For the educated middle/upper middle class, generally they've seen if you follow the rules you get ahead. That message also tends to resonate with media types, insiders, technocrats, establishment people (even if the politics don't line up, the theory of power does). Bernie's supporters are less educated, more working class and more aggrieved about power structures. They like the populist, grassroots, and frankly angry message that Bernie has. And Bernie by not courting more of the establishment vote alienates his supporters from the mainstream and alienates the mainstream from his voters. It makes it hard, even with a full-throated endorsement of another candidate (which IMO was extremely difficult to give in good faith in 2016) for his supporters to stay enthusiastic for another candidate. I do think though that even if the theory of power is different, the politics are more similar from Bernie to Warren than Bernie to Hillary, and for that reason and because Trump is a complete disaster and hasn't helped defector Bernie Bros at all, Bernie will eventually drop out and endorse Warren (assuming current trends continue and Bernie doesn't somehow pull it out).
 
For Warren, it depends what she's looking for. If we're in a recession, and she needs a truce with Wall St, Booker makes the most sense. If she were to want to make climate change 1 of her signature efforts (which I kinda doubt), Inslee would make sense. Given her age, if she wants to look for the next young gun with long term potential, Buttigieg makes sense. Of the 3, Inslee makes the least sense from an EC perspective. He doesn't help anything from a geographic perspective, nor would he help any with independents or never Trumper Pubs. I think Booker helps her the most with independents and never Trumper Pubs, Buttigieg after that. The reason I say Booker is we're probably heading into rocky economic waters. We're already in a manufacturing recession. Neither Wall St nor the banks care for Warren in the least, though she is at least much more tolerable than Sanders. Booker is a former Wall St guy who could help make Warren more tolerable to the financial industry, which could be a serious asset in helping her through a recession. And while Booker seems to be nobody's favorite Dem, it's not like he's despised by moderates or the far left. Add to that he's a good looking guy with a seriously hot girlfriend (would be hottest potential 1st girlfriend since Linda Ronstadt back in the day). I see Inslee more likely as Interior Secretary no matter the nominee. Same with Doug Jones as AG.
 
Not that he’s provided any reasoning or data behind his claim, but Sailor is not wrong in the sense that the polls have an accuracy and prediction problem. They largely indicated a Clinton win in 2016 and many of us were over confident but in the end Trump weeks out a spatial victory. There is a good chance the polls still have a accuracy and prediction problem and it is easy to just believe they are wrong.

The polls struggled at a state level but not nationally - the polls were within the margin of error for the final popular vote.
 
Feel free to dispute any EC state by state analysis. We elect by the EC, not the popular vote. I've opined for the last 2-3 months that Warren would be the nominee. I've said that her brand of populism will probably bode well for her in the midwest - that she'll probably hold MN and retake PA, MI and WI. I've said I don't think she will do as well in the south and mountain west (outside of CO & NM - NV will be close). And I've said she'll probably have to win the popular vote by at least 4-5% in order to win the EC. Which of these statements do you want to argue with? Or do you just want to name call? And while we're at it, why is Buttigieg a dumb, dbag candidate?

I will add to the above that I think the election is extremely fluid because of the impeachment inquiry and Trump's increasingly bizarre behavior. The world of possibilities over the next 13 months could vary wildly. Most Washington Pubs would love to abandon Trump if they felt they had sufficient cover. The more bizarre he gets, the better the chances he's impeached and convicted. The timing of any impeachment and conviction could lead to a brokered Pub convention (and a nominee not named Trump - maybe Cruz or Sasse). Trump has already badly screwed the situation in Turkey and Syria. We could see the ME or some other foreign crisis blow up or enter a recession. On the flip side, Trump's situation could stabilize, and he could win a tight EC vote next year. As it stands today, I'd predict Warren will win the EC with 272-278 EVs and win by 5%.

Cville:

Assuming Warren takes back PA, WI, MI that basically gets you to 266. What do you figure puts her over the top: AZ, IA, or a wildcard state?
 
For Warren, it depends what she's looking for. If we're in a recession, and she needs a truce with Wall St, Booker makes the most sense. If she were to want to make climate change 1 of her signature efforts (which I kinda doubt), Inslee would make sense. Given her age, if she wants to look for the next young gun with long term potential, Buttigieg makes sense. Of the 3, Inslee makes the least sense from an EC perspective. He doesn't help anything from a geographic perspective, nor would he help any with independents or never Trumper Pubs. I think Booker helps her the most with independents and never Trumper Pubs, Buttigieg after that. The reason I say Booker is we're probably heading into rocky economic waters. We're already in a manufacturing recession. Neither Wall St nor the banks care for Warren in the least, though she is at least much more tolerable than Sanders. Booker is a former Wall St guy who could help make Warren more tolerable to the financial industry, which could be a serious asset in helping her through a recession. And while Booker seems to be nobody's favorite Dem, it's not like he's despised by moderates or the far left. Add to that he's a good looking guy with a seriously hot girlfriend (would be hottest potential 1st girlfriend since Linda Ronstadt back in the day). I see Inslee more likely as Interior Secretary no matter the nominee. Same with Doug Jones as AG.

I take it you’re assuming Doug Jones loses his Senate race right?

I don’t see Booker as the VP especially if Warren picks him to pacify Wall Street. That’s the worst reason possible for a Dem to pick a certain VP.
 
Cville:

Assuming Warren takes back PA, WI, MI that basically gets you to 266. What do you figure puts her over the top: AZ, IA, or a wildcard state?

I think Clinton had 232 (didn't win northern ME). Adding PA, WI & MI is 46, so that gets you to 278 and an electoral win. That's provided you hold MN, NH, VA and NV, which Clinton narrowly won by 1-4 points. Right now, Larry Sabato has MI back in the light blue category, and he only has 3 toss-ups: PA, WI & AZ (plus Omaha). If he's right, that's Trump 248, Warren 248 with 42 outstanding EVs. I would put PA and WI as blue leans and AZ as a red lean. So I've been saying 278 is the most likely outcome if it were held today. As for other states that could turn from red to blue, AZ, NC and FL are probably the most likely. As I've said, I don't see Warren playing as well in the mountain west or the south as she would in the midwest. The state I don't get is IA. Iowans fell big time for Trump's anti immigrant message, but now they're suffering maybe the worst in the country from Trump's trade wars, and that's why 3 of the 4 seats flipped to blue in 2018. But Warren is also an anti free trader, so I don't know how that'll affect IA.
 
I take it you’re assuming Doug Jones loses his Senate race right?

I don’t see Booker as the VP especially if Warren picks him to pacify Wall Street. That’s the worst reason possible for a Dem to pick a certain VP.

Damn straight Jones loses his senate race. His only chance of winning that is if Roy Moore is the nominee, and I don't think AL Pubs will screw it up again by nominating him. He'll do well in early polling due to name recognition, but by the primary, they'll rally around whoever emerges as his main foe.

As for Booker as veep, the worst mistake Warren can make if we're in a recession is declaring war on the financial industry. Recessions are president killers. Ask HW Bush. To an extent, the whole financial industry is a house of cards that is built on a bit of trust and faith. It won't matter to folks that she didn't cause the recession. If we have a prolonged recession, Dems will get slaughtered in the 2022 midterms, and she'll be a 1 termer.

I'm not saying Booker should be veep, just that he would help her with never Trumper Pubs and with Wall St. What scares me about Warren is she's more ideological and less practical. She had a hostile relationship with the Obama administration as per a Politico piece from 2-3 weeks ago. Her veep choice might provide a hint as to how she intends to govern. After a rough start, she's run an excellent campaign and has avoided mistakes like Biden and Harris have made.
 
If the whole financial industry is a "house of cards" why be so deferential to Wall Street? Why not rebuilt a more stable system?

Obviously Jones has an uphill challenge, but he will have the power of the incumbency plus he's running in a great climate for Democrats. He has more of a chance than people thing.
 
I think warren picks Pete as VP right? I don’t see an all female ticket (not because I don’t think it would be a good one just because the goal is to win the election). Could see Castro too. Don’t see many other solid choices.
 
After a rough start, she's run an excellent campaign and has avoided mistakes like Biden and Harris have made.

The people on Warren's campaign are no slouch. She's got a really impressive staff. Biden and Harris got all the ex-Clinton people.
 
The polls struggled at a state level but not nationally - the polls were within the margin of error for the final popular vote.

I know that, but lots of people think those polls completely failed in 2016. And, all but one of the predictive modeling efforts completely failed, partly because of what PH described but also because they were bad, over precise models. People that think the polling analyses failed in 2016 have no reason to believe polling data or predictions now.
 
His support of Hillary was late and half-assed.

That sounds like an opinion, RJ. He went on a DNC-sponsored GOTV tour with Clinton and campaigned for Clinton. You can move the goalposts all you like. Sanders fell in line when it counted. He'll do so again.

Remind me of how hard the primary losers in 2008, 2004, and 2000 campaigned for the nominee?
 
I think warren picks Pete as VP right? I don’t see an all female ticket (not because I don’t think it would be a good one just because the goal is to win the election). Could see Castro too. Don’t see many other solid choices.

Yeah. I see Pete or Castro.

But of course, I just saw this:

[h=1]Warren’s Been Talking to Gillum, Sparking VP Buzz[/h]“If you’re trying to win Florida, I would be courting Andrew and that’s what’s happening,” a source familiar with the conversations said.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/eliza...to-andrew-gillum-sparking-vice-president-buzz

I think if there are talks, it's about getting an endorsement. I don't see Gillum being a strong VP choice.
 
literally spent more time at GOTV activities than Clinton did...for her own campaign
 
That sounds like an opinion, RJ. He went on a DNC-sponsored GOTV tour with Clinton and campaigned for Clinton. You can move the goalposts all you like. Sanders fell in line when it counted. He'll do so again.

Remind me of how hard the primary losers in 2008, 2004, and 2000 campaigned for the nominee?

so they should just do the same old thing in the face of Trump, huh
 
Back
Top