10
   

Big Crowd of Democrats For 2020

 
 
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 06:38 am
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/democrats-2020-presidential-field-235335
An extraordinary alignment of ambition, opportunity and timing is raising the prospect that the Democratic Party in 2020 could have its biggest presidential field in a generation.

A sprawling roster of potential primary candidates is already surveying the political climate and reaching out to campaign consultants in stealthy meetings and calls, according to roughly a half-dozen party operatives familiar with the initial conversations.

At least a dozen senators are widely thought to be in the mix — including Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts’ Elizabeth Warren, New Jersey’s Cory Booker, California’s Kamala Harris, Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, Oregon’s Jeff Merkley, New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand, Connecticut’s Chris Murphy, and both Minnesotans, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken. But the depleted bench of Democratic governors is also stocked with possible White House hopefuls, expanding the list of credible presidential prospects to as many as two dozen.

"You say there are 7,000 Democrats who think they’re going to be president? Well 3,500 of them have a good shot at it,” said Democratic strategist Erik Smith, a veteran of multiple presidential campaigns, including Barack Obama’s. “There are so many candidates who have held back over the last 10 years. A lot of them didn’t get into the race because Hillary Clinton was running in 2007, and then a lot stayed out in 2016 because she ran again, so you have a whole generation that’s been waiting in the wings for years. Those calls are definitely happening."

170223_rex_tillerson_kelly_gty_1160.jpg
FOREIGN POLICY
Trump's words send Cabinet on perpetual clean-up mission
By NAHAL TOOSI
A handful of the party’s top contenders will be showcased at this week’s upcoming National Governors Association conference in Washington. New York’s Andrew Cuomo is high on the list of expected candidates, Washington’s Jay Inslee has caught operatives’ attention with his strident anti-Trump proclamations in recent months, and both Montana's Steve Bullock and Virginia’s Terry McAuliffe are also surfacing on long-lists. Colorado’s John Hickenlooper pointedly refused to rule out a run just this week, telling CNN, “There’s going to be a lot of things on the table.”

“They’re all just thinking, ‘I have no idea what the world is going to look like in a year, so instead of methodically plotting out my march to the nomination, all I’m trying to do is be relevant in this environment, not do anything that closes a door on any future, and make sure I can carve out something that I’m known for so that when people ask, ‘where were you,’ you’re ready with an answer,’” said a Democratic campaign veteran who declined to talk about the 2020 race on the record. “Everyone assumes in four years it’s going to be a referendum on [Trump]. But what’s it going to be a referendum on? He’s a liar?"

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is high on the list of expected candidates in 2020.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is high on the list of expected candidates in 2020. | AP Photo
With repeated trips to Iowa, 2016 candidate Martin O’Malley is another possibility. And unlike many of the other prospects who are playing coy about their intentions while thinking ‘why not me,’ the former Maryland governor has openly admitted his interest in running again. “As for the question of whether I might run for president in 2020, I just might,” he told NBC News in January.

The expansive list also takes into account the growing number of wealthy party donors and activists who are considering whether Trump’s victory is evidence that prior political experience is no longer necessary for a viable presidential bid. That slate includes environmentalist hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer — long expected to mount a gubernatorial bid in California next year — and billionaire Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who has also refused to shy away from the speculation.

The last time the Democratic field appeared so open — and so bereft of candidates with a claim on the nomination — was 1992, when more than a half-dozen Democrats entered the race to take on President George H.W. Bush.

Since then, the seemingly iron-clad rules of presidential politics have changed dramatically — never more drastically than after Donald Trump’s victory. Now, as potential candidates consider their rationales for running, there’s constant refrain in Democratic circles from Capitol Hill to California: No one expected Obama at this point in 2005 either.

Yet it’s the shadow of Donald Trump, not Obama, that looms largest as the presidential field begins to take shape — the party’s animus toward the president is accelerating the types of pre-presidential conversations that usually would not get started so soon after the last election.

Clinton’s team didn’t begin laying the groundwork for her latest run until late 2013, while Sanders’ team started assembling in 2014. But Trump’s unpopularity has Democratic operatives and potential candidates assuming that their eventual nominee will be the favorite to win in 2020.

170222_grassley_town_hall_2_gty_1160.jpg
CONGRESS
Takeaways from a week of raucous town halls
By KYLE CHENEY
Until recently, few Democrats had given any thought at all to 2020 since Clinton’s expected 2016 win was widely thought to seal off any 2020 campaign within the party.

As a result of the vacuum left by Clinton’s defeat, many more Democrats than usual are taking a look at running, calling media consultants, political strategists, and organizing operatives around Washington to sound out ideas for what a campaign starting in just over two years might look like. The early behind-closed-doors moves to court the relatively small group of top-level, battle-tested campaign operatives reflect the widely-held belief that the primary field is likely to be larger than any other in years.

Multiple operatives are already advising ambitious candidates to have a clear message and rationale for running, using the example of Sanders and Trump — and contrasting with Clinton. But so far, the conversations have largely been hypothetical, say Democrats familiar with several of those discussions.

Prospective candidates are mindful of the difficulties inherent in facing a brawler like Trump, but they’re also careful not to project too far into the future with such an unpredictable president in power.

“The biggest mistake people can make four years out — and now more than ever before — is trying to project what the landscape is going to look like and bake in your plan,” said Democratic strategist Dave Hamrick. “How do you extrapolate from this cycle to the next one? I really don’t think you can. And if you say you can, I really think you’re full of it. Is politics as we know it completely and forever changed? Or will there be a regression to the mean?"

Trump predicts Tillerson will have a 'tough trip' down to Mexico
DHS chief softens Trump's talk on immigration
By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL
Accordingly, with few exceptions, the potential candidates’ public steps toward a White House bid have veered away from the standard script, even as their behind-the-scenes preparations get underway. None but O’Malley has visited Iowa or New Hampshire, and there is little chatter in those states about such potential visits. The traditional process of wooing donors hasn’t even picked up.

“The activist community is so engaged right now that there’s a lot you can do without just going to Iowa and New Hampshire,” said Smith. “Before you had to go to San Francisco to raise money, but maybe now you just have to ask, ‘What’s the top podcast?’"

Absent an obvious roadmap toward the nomination, Democrats are being especially careful not to close any doors amid the uncertainty. They are also sensitive to the perception that Trump’s early stumbles and subpar approval ratings is what spurred them to take a closer look at the race, rather than their own vision.

“What Trump does has no correlation to what I may or may not do. And it’s far too early to guess what impact his election and approach to governing will have on future elections,” said Cuban, who has gone out of his way to needle Trump, publicly toying with the idea of a White House run of his own — including wearing a number 46 jersey to last weekend’s NBA All-Star Celebrity game, in reference to Trump’s status as the 45th president.

But asked if it’s safe to say he’s not sealing off any potential avenues for what comes next, Cuban responded, “Correct."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 1,361 • Replies: 75

 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 07:51 am
Quote:
At least a dozen senators are widely thought to be in the mix — including Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts’ Elizabeth Warren, New Jersey’s Cory Booker, California’s Kamala Harris, Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, Oregon’s Jeff Merkley, New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand, Connecticut’s Chris Murphy, and both Minnesotans, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken. But the depleted bench of Democratic governors is also stocked with possible White House hopefuls, expanding the list of credible presidential prospects to as many as two dozen.

All politicians — where's the Democratic Trump?
jespah
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 09:18 am
The party needs to be careful not to splinter over this. I also believe geography still matters. Go too New England, and the folks in the south are going to feel left out. Go too midwest and the same will be true about folks in the Pacific Northwest, etc.

If it looks like too much of a fistfight between hopefuls, I think people will be really turned off. Voters are okay with some mudslinging but I think, at least at the beginning, the strategy has got to be mutual respect and consensus. Of course lesser-known candidates in particular want to stand out, but some of that is to play the long game, courting folks who would not have considered voting Democratic but who are tired of what feels like a perpetual war on Capitol Hill.

I would also suggest mixing up age. Sanders was born in '41. In 2020, he will be 79 years old. If he got the nomination, he would have to be balanced by a strong, younger VP on his ticket for pretty obvious reasons.

And another is to mix up ideology. Too far left, and the very wide swath of the country that treads the middle ground is going to be turned off. Those folks need a place to hang their hats, and the Democratic party really needs to assure that isn't the Libertarian party, etc.

Finally, they have got to address the gerrymandering issue. Voting districts in a lot of places are really obviously gerrymandered. Perhaps a bipartisan study, maybe even by a pair of think tanks, could be the way forward. Put aside ideology and just consider what it means to be in a voting district. What is that supposed to entail? My understanding is that it's, more or less, you vote with your neighbors. And you do so because you've got similar interests but they need not be identical. Perhaps splitting voting districts in a manner closer to how school districts are divvied up would be a start, as there would be a far more direct correlation between the local taxes people are voting on and where those taxes actually go. To do that doesn't mean running for president of the United States. It means running for county alderman.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  5  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 09:21 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
At least a dozen senators are widely thought to be in the mix — including Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts’ Elizabeth Warren, New Jersey’s Cory Booker, California’s Kamala Harris, Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, Oregon’s Jeff Merkley, New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand, Connecticut’s Chris Murphy, and both Minnesotans, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken. But the depleted bench of Democratic governors is also stocked with possible White House hopefuls, expanding the list of credible presidential prospects to as many as two dozen.

All politicians — where's the Democratic Trump?


I'm of the opinion that what we need is not a president who doesn't know how to work with Washington or how to fill a cabinet or the other 500+ positions that need filling. I'm of the opinion that someone with actual foreign policy experience is important.

In other words, we don't need a democratic Trump!
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 09:32 am
@maporsche,
I absolutely agree with you.

Whether intelligence, experience, and competence can be effectively sold to a majority of the electorate is debatable, however.
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 09:45 am
@hightor,
Quote:
Whether intelligence, experience, and competence can be effectively sold to a majority of the electorate is debatable, however.


I guess that would depend on how the administration is perceived by voters by 2020. If they manage to get their act together and be some where close to passable, then, democrats couldn't really make a contrast. On the other hand, if the administration continues along it's present path...democrats might have a shot. I agree the more pressing problem is the gerrymandering and other voting problems in states. Without fixing that, even if democrats manage to get a democrat president, nothing will be accomplished except a halt to Trump's policies.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 10:01 am
@revelette1,
I see a very distinct possibility that the Trump administration will continue to successfully peel off more and more layers of Democratic support, especially if it manages to concoct the illusion of a booming economy. If the bubble lasts long enough you might even see swaths of the black electorate voting Republican, the way white women and union members did. Horrible scenario but there's absolutely no guarantee that moderation and common sense will prevail.
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 10:37 am
@hightor,
Depressing if it turns out like you predict it might.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 11:58 am
The Democrats have a short work time to turn things around. In my opinion, those who voted for Trump 1. Felt that by voting Trump they were sticking it to those who have been sticking it to them. Doesn't matter if their grievances were right or wrong. It's perception that drives. 2. They hate Clinton and perceive Democrats as having abandoned them.

So the Democrats have to demonstrate they are for Americans, not American companies. That they are for white American workers as much as minorities. It is good to have trade alliances, but not the kind that give huge monetary gains to the rich while helping American jobs move out of country. They have to show some grit and not give in to Republicans just as Republicans NEVER give in to Democrats. I would just shut up about gun control, unless there is provable advantage to pressing it. Acting like Trump would in my opinion sink a candidate faster than anything, with Democrats and the general public as well. There is only one Trump. Hopefully there will never be another.

If the Republicans actually make Obamacare into something that works, it will make Democrats' jobs that much harder.

I personally will never vote for a Hillary or Obama clone.
Brand X
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 12:13 pm
#neverchelsie
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 12:51 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:

If the Republicans actually make Obamacare into something that works, it will make Democrats' jobs that much harder.

John Boehner may be right.
Quote:
I personally will never vote for a Hillary or Obama clone.

So you're only concerned with the top of the ticket?

tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 01:34 pm
@Brand X,
Brand X wrote:

#neverchelsie

At this point? I'm fine with that. Maybe she can do well in Congress (the House ... not the Senate) and leave it at that.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 01:40 pm
@hightor,
The topic is 2020 candidates for president.

The Democratic party, top to bottom has to revitalize. In Texas I estimate about 95% of Democrats have gone missing. They don't even bother to field candidates in lots of races.
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 02:17 pm
http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/
Both the locals and the nationals are choosing new leaders. Let's look at the DNC race first, with the AP having already reported that Tom Perez is on the cusp of victory.


Update I: Jaime Harrison has withdrawn and thrown his support to Perez, which all but seals the deal for the former labor secretary and Clintonite.

So it appears that the progressives are going to be turned back again, and as with the primary skirmish last year, are threatening to bolt (again). It would be nice if that would happen, but after spending half of 2015 and all of last year blogging about my expectations for it, I watched with grim face as Berniecrats slowly marched back into the fold, too scared of a Trump victory to risk a vote for Not Hillary even in Texas, where none of them mattered in the ashes of her polls-defying upset loss.

If I had more time to excerpt and comment at length on the following links, I'd do so. Since I don't, I leave it to your reading and interpretation to decide if the Democratic Party will choose a path toward relevance or continue off into the weeds. I'll simply say that no hope and not enough change among the blue sheep seems to be forthcoming.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 02:24 pm
@edgarblythe,
I can easily see Claire McCaskill of Missouri as a possible VP candidate.

Bernie Sanders will be too old come 2020.

Wishful thinking: Have Huma Abedin take Chuck Schumer's Senate seat. Not going to happen but I really wish it would.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  4  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 08:09 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
The Democratic party, top to bottom has to revitalize. In Texas I estimate about 95% of Democrats have gone missing. They don't even bother to field candidates in lots of races.


On the other hand, Texas was one of the few states in the country where Hillary Clinton actually did comparatively well.

Texas was one of only five states in the whole U.S. where Hillary got a larger share of the vote than Obama had gotten in 2012. She got 43% of the popular vote; Obama had gotten just 41%. Even in 2008, Obama only got 0.4% more of the vote than Hillary did now.

From 41% to 43% is still a modest increase, of course. And well short of a shot at winning (Trump got 52%.) But nationally she got 3% less than Obama '12, so she overperformed in Texas by 5 points.

When you rank the states by how much Hillary did better or worse than Obama in 2012, Texas ranks #2, right after Utah. The only other three states where she outperformed Obama '12 were California, Arizona, and Georgia.

Most of that is thanks to the increasing Latino/Hispanic population, of course. But it provided some rare hope that maybe, the demographic realignment will eventually benefit the Democrats after all.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2017 08:43 pm
Doing comparatively well in that way still is far from winning. There get to be less Democrat office holders in Texas with every election.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Feb, 2017 12:47 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I personally will never vote for a Hillary or Obama clone.


Well, that's too bad, because I heard the leading contender for 2020 is an actual clone of Hillary. They hope voters will find a 35 year-old version of her more palatable.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2017 10:26 am
@edgarblythe,
Why don't the "progressives" just leave the Democratic party and start some sort of socialist party? They wouldn't have to worry about appealing to moderates and could push their agenda without counting on money from Wall Street. Meanwhile the rest of the Democrats could re-enroll as Republicans, old-fashioned liberal Republicans, and start shaking up things in the GOP.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2017 11:10 am
@hightor,
In some respects it appears that something roughly like what you suggest is indeed happening. The difference is that Progressives are simply taking over the Democrat party, silencing other voices and leaving "the rest of the Democrats" to start shaking things up somewhere else, much as you suggested.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Big Crowd of Democrats For 2020
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/27/2017 at 06:57:17