The 2020 Democratic presidential field widens…and widens…
I wouldn’t rule any of them out, however obscure, however extreme. We’ve seen too many surprises in the past.
I remember how optimistic I was about the GOP field in 2016. And then the debates began, and the sheer numbers were part of the problem. The debates had about as much content as a Twitter war, and each person got about as much time to answer each question as a tweet.
My guess is that the Democratic field will be similar in that respect, and that it will yield a similar number of surprises—or more.
[NOTE: I just added a new category: “Election 2020.” Arghhhh!]
Every time i think about the 2020 presidential election I feel this sense of dread as these things seem to entirely consume our culture now.
I wish we could go back to the days when the candidates would never even campaign themselves. McKinley never campaigned once in 1896.
This is one area where I prefer some of the parliamentary systems like the UK but I know it can’t be here.
Griffin…trust me you do NOT want a parliamentary system.
The party decides who sits in the big chair not the people…and the party can change its mind & then it’s a free-for-all. Oz has endured 6 (SIX) Prime Ministers in the last 10 years…party infighting did most of that damage not a cranky electorate. You do NOT want a Westminster Parliamentary system.
John,
Yeah I know. But the idea of no campaigning until 3 or so months before the election is very appealing. I mean we are 22 months out and it’s starting.
I don’t think it would require a parliamentary system to reduce the quantum of electioneering. A constitutional amendment which would fix some norms for federal elections and provide some defaults for state and local government (from which states could opt-out through petitions and referenda) could ameliorate some problems.
‘Climate’ has an outside chance of being the key wild-card, for 2020.
This scenario is more likely, for 2024.
But it’s been a brave-face show in the climate-trenches, for many years. It would not take much, and there are signs of foreboding.
Eg, big-news item in Science last week, in which lead Woods Hole and second Harvard Oceanography account for the long-time failure of the Pacific Ocean to warm (per models) by invoking – of all things – The Little Ice Age. Okaay!
For decades, “Guess The Next Solar Cycle!” has been a prestigious game. Not for upcoming cycle #25. Nobody who’s anybody has anything to say about 25 (nor for that matter, about moribund outgoing #24, either). Tooo scary.
So yeah, it wouldn’t take much, and we’d be witness to an historic psycho-social event.
The fight is on to decide which dem candidate can claim the title to be the choice of the far (unhinged) left. If the economy doesn’t turn south, djt should be able to eek out a victory in 2020. Pulling the troops out of Afghanistan would be a big plus too.
It’s the economy, for working folks who drive to work, every time the price of gasoline goes done that is more dollars in their pockets, every new job is a person or family just doing better and if that job comes with health insurance that is incredible after what the Obamacare did to wreck insurance. Scaling down our overseas military adventures is good stuff, let the other folks do their share. Pull our nations military clear out of Europe and take all those jobs we made for the last 70 plus years and spend the money here, let other folks do their share 1945 was a long damn time ago. Trump makes a lot of sense even when he is up against both the Democrats and the Professional Federal Workers of every stripe. Bring on an entire rainbow of beauty pageant candidates, old commie socialists and throw as much garbage as possible and it might just come down to the economy, if we are still doing well in 22 months Trump has a good chance to be a real old president.
McKinley never campaigned once in 1896.
That is pretty much a myth. His campaigning was mostly for the nomination. That was hard fought but, at the time, the Republican nomination was tantamount to election. Karl Rove has a good biography of McKinley but I wish he would not read it for the audio version. The professional readers are much better.
Trump makes a lot of sense even when he is up against both the Democrats and the Professional Federal Workers of every stripe.
I have a hard time understanding what Democrats plan to run on. Trump hate seems to be the platform so far.
‘pretty much a myth’
Maybe. But his wife was in poor health and fragile so he stayed at his home in Ohio and would accept visitors and come out on his porch and interact.
He did the same in 1900 but the big difference was he had Theodore Roosevelt as his VP the second time and TR campaigned all over the place.
Want a talk about a massive history changing move then it’s TR on the ticket. He was really the first peace time activist president and he paved the way for Wilson, FDR…
If he’s not on the ticket what happens?
I understand those with power in New York but Teddy R. on the ticket to get him out of New York where he was kind of a pest and put in in a safe place, V.P. of the USA, a job not worth spit, until … and it happened.
I can’t imagine how chaotic this Democrat primary race will be. But then, I’ve yet to see a Democrat I’d consider voting for.
OldTexan,
Yes, after Cuba TR was elected governor of NY and the Republican Party boss was Sen. Thomas Platt and TR did not follow his plan so they found a way to be rid of him. Make him VP. Wildly shortsighted move.
TR is in my opinion the most interesting president ever but some of the things he did set terrible precedents for future presidents and really fundamentally transformed the role of the president in our system of gov’t.
from Power Line
https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/01/Screen-Shot-2019-01-07-at-2.57.48-PM.png?w=998&ssl=1
It will be difficult for the Dems to manage debates with so many running. Perez is trying to do something about it with staggered debates, but will it work? Musical chairs come to mind. We should not short the Dems with so many running. It is worth remembering that 2016 had a lot of Rep running. They will certainly move the party further to the Left. It has left behind Schumer, Poloisi, Sanders, Warren and Biden in what passes for a middle in the Dem party.
Maybe. But his wife was in poor health and fragile so he stayed at his home in Ohio and would accept visitors and come out on his porch and interact.
The campaigning was in the primary and Platt was a major rival. Rove’s book is pretty good.
Mike K,
Yes I understand. But campaigning then was more schmoozing delegates to get the nomination as opposed to actual voters.
And Mark Hanna was the wheeler and dealer behind McKinley. Without him he may have never been nominated.
That was hard fought but, at the time, the Republican nomination was tantamount to election.
Between 1854 and 1930 you had 19 presidential elections. Five were won by Democrats. Of the remainder, six were blowouts for the GOP, The Democrats took the House of Representatives about 1/3 of the time. The Republicans were truly dominant from 1860-72 (when the white South was self-exiled), from 1894-1908 (in the wake of the Cleveland depression), and from 1918-28 (after Wilson’s debacles). Other periods were competitive.
Yes I understand. But campaigning then was more schmoozing delegates to get the nomination as opposed to actual voters.
Oh yes. But McKinley did some traveling around and meeting delegates and potential delegates. Most focus on the campaign but the nomination was the battle. The big issues were tariffs and gold and silver. Silver coinage was a big matter for western politicians.
Politics was quite different then. Men were the voters and newspapers the way people were informed.
For the Dems it kind of like the childhood game ‘King of the Hill’. The last person on top … wins.
They all feel that DJT will lose no matter who is the nominee.
And ever since a non-entity backbench junior Senator proved he could serve as President, well, they all feel ‘Why Not Me?’.
It seems likely to me that a good 2020 Rep campaign by Trump will be repeating the bad stuff the Dem non-nominated candidates say about the nominee, whoever it is. Neither Mitt nor other Reps are likely to try to primary Trump, unless there is a major change (indicted for something?).
Trump’s chances go up if he gets a “win” with $5.7 billion, or many even $1.8 bil? It’s fighting Trump’s win that is keeping the shutdown going — and all Dem elite are on board with this.
@Ted: On climate – 2020 is likely to see the start of a “New Little Ice Age”. No sunspots. Little magnetic protection around the Earth from cosmic rays, which some say means fewer clouds and thus much less heat trapped. No greenhouse effect.
https://wordpress.com/post/tomgrey.wordpress.com/170 << Solar Physicist Valentina Zharkova (Ukraine) predicted almost no sunspots in solar cycle 24; is predicting fewer in cycle 25.
Please NO NO parliamentary system — socialists promising to spend Other People's Money too often win. Seems like "enough of the people are fooled enough of the times" to follow Venezuela down the wrong road. Bad in Slovakia, too, despite experience with communism.
I have a feeling that the Dems are going to be very silly and elevate a ridiculous candidate and shut down their strongest candidate, Tulsi Gabbard. The MSM is already trying to shut her down because she threatens the status quo. Bring the troops home and strive for peace means less tax dollars in their coffers. It is disgusting.
Tulsi is interesting, but she’s not a suitable candidate for President. Kiplinger recently ranked a mess of prospects. The following have executive experience
Bernie Sanders
Amy Klobuchar (to a degree)
Sherrod Brown
Cory Booker
Kamala Harris
Eric Garcetti
Michael Bloomberg
Steve Bullock
John Hickenlooper
John Delaney (in business)
Terry McAuliffe
Jay Inslee
Michael Bennett
Julian Castro
Eric Holder
Howard Schultz (in business)
Tom Steyer (in business)
1. Deduct the frankly sinister characters (Holder, Harris, McAuliffe).
2. Deduct the failures (Bogus Booker)
3. Deduct the candidates pushing 80 (Sanders, Bloomberg)
That’ll leave you with 11 people who meet some baselines, which is an unusually deep bench for the Democratic Party. You might deduct Steyer and Inslee from that list, as they’re both cranks. Castro’s rather wet behind the ears for a presidential campaign.
I think Sherrod Brown has some signatures. Not sure any of the others ever go off script.
To some extent, the Democrats are improving, inasmuch as you have some interested candidates who’ve run something (and not run it into the ground). In 2008 you had three candidates of note: a dilettante lawyer and two skeevy lawyers.
OTOH, their position papers contain even crazier sh!t than they used to (abolish ICE). Also, the penchant of the Democratic Party for electoral fraud (and for lawfare when they lose) renders every victory a danger to the integrity of democratic institutions. Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis had many flaws. They weren’t criminals, and criminality is the order of the day in today’s Democratic Party.
They weren’t criminals, and criminality is the order of the day in today’s Democratic Party.
The politicians anyway. The vote harvesting is scary and should be ended but the Democrats will use it like they use felon voting and illegal immigration.
Mike K said,
“I have a hard time understanding what Democrats plan to run on.”
They could try to team-up with like-minded Europeans. This is not a shot in the dark. Obama was working to tie the Democrats in with a network of Europeans, quite purposefully.
Linking with suitable Europeans has been a big part of Trump’s campaign, and presidency. It can hardly be missed that Trump stole Obama’s fire, and poured the accelerant to it.
Foreign affairs. Who are they’re legit international people? Not a long-tedious nor obscure-unfamiliar list, eh?
I have a hard time understanding what Democrats plan to run on. Trump hate seems to be the platform so far.
Bill Bradley is 75 years old; his last campaign was 19 years ago and his last successful campaign 29 years ago. With the possible exception of Wesley Clark, Bradley was the last wonk to offer passably vigorous competition for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Bernie Sanders isn’t a wonk, but he is retro in the sense that he has something resembling a conception of the public interest manifest in policy. Democratic pols generally don’t. Self-centered career-building, feeding your office’s particular clientele, appropriating the assets of your enemies and using them to feed the Democratic Party’s common clientele (leave no social worker behind), lawfare, abuse of your opponents through the administrative state, and sticking your enemies with the bill for social problems through agitprop campaigns are the order of the day. And the hate isn’t just for Trump, but for the exemplars of the country’s non-exotic vernacular culture.
Is that Arghhhh part of the category? Should be.
Self-centered career-building, feeding your office’s particular clientele, appropriating the assets of your enemies and using them to feed the Democratic Party’s common clientele
I agree this is a big part of it. The tax farmers in 1788 must have known they were sitting on a keg of dynamite. The Administrative State has gotten lazy but they have young applicants for the payroll who want to keep the scam going. Government has acquired some of the characteristics of a pyramid scheme. IT was shown years ago that welfare costs mostly supported social workers and other bureaucrats. Of the 800,000 now “furloughed” or not being paid (this week), about 25,000 earn the money.
Before 9/11 and “The Patriot Act” airlines paid their minimum wage screeners. They had an incentive to keep bombs off their airplanes.
Canada has had private ATC for years at less cost and equal or better performance than the US government union employees.
Perhaps the question now is, Who teams-up with, throws their support to, whom?
Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
Joe Biden and the Obamas?
Kirsten Gillibrand and Al Franken? Hey, ya never know..