The 2020 Presidential Election Primary Thread

[Jeff Lebowski]

She's part of the problem. Sanders had 27% of the NH vote, and won by 1.3%. Together the socialists had 34% of the vote. And from the comments in response to Friedman's shout out for Bloomberg in today's Times, it looks like a lot of Warren's supporters are not socialists. (By the way, in 2016 Sanders had 62% of NH and beat Hillary by 22%.) Amy or Peter need to drop out. Amy needs to join Bloomberg as his running mate, right now.

Hmm... That would be a smart move.

[myboynoah]

She's part of the problem. Sanders had 27% of the NH vote, and won by 1.3%. Together the socialists had 34% of the vote. And from the comments in response to Friedman's shout out for Bloomberg in today's Times, it looks like a lot of Warren's supporters are not socialists. (By the way, in 2016 Sanders had 62% of NH and beat Hillary by 22%.) Amy or Peter need to drop out. Amy needs to join Bloomberg as his running mate, right now.

Klobuchar's not the problem, she's the solution. And why should she become second fiddle to Bloomberg? She should head the ticket.

It’s looking like Democrats might have a chance to beat Trump after all

Today’s nomination process has myriad defects but one manifest virtue: It provides ample time and small early venues for aspirants who, such as Klobuchar, start with more pluck than money, and less notoriety than seriousness. Sanders’s coming defeat might send some of his most dyspeptic supporters — those most like him — into hibernation or opposition. Pouting would be in character for true believers who are self-righteous and ideologically inebriated. But it would not necessarily be fatal to the Democratic Party, which has survived defections before. In 1948, South Carolina Gov. Strom Thurmond led the Dixiecrats’ rebellion on the right and Henry Wallace, Franklin Roosevelt’s second vice president, led the Progressives’ departure from the left, yet FDR’s third vice president, then-President Harry S. Truman, won anyway.

. . . . . . . . . .

Among Democratic activists, a nascent ABB faction — Anybody But Bloomberg — is decrying New York’s “stop and frisk” anti-handgun police measures during his mayoralty, measures often applied to young minority males. This policy probably was more lamented by white liberals living in buildings with doormen than by minorities living in danger. Nevertheless, a party whose most fervid members consider “billionaire” an unanswerable epithet might flinch from nominating one of those who was last elected to office as a Republican.

So, a Bloomberg-Klobuchar ticket is less feasible, and probably would be less potent than, say, a Klobuchar-Deval Patrick (the African American former two-term governor of Massachusetts) ticket. So, after Tuesday, it is somewhat less likely that the Trump-Mike Pence ticket will repeat its Midwest victories or add Minnesota to them.

Amy! Amy! Amy!

[PaloAltoCougar]

I'd gladly support any combination of Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar (BBK!). But having no women on the Dem ticket is extremely unlikely, and Bloomberg isn't spending billions to become Veep, so that limits the permutations. At the personal level (intelligence, gets along well with others, likeability, etc.), I think Pete is the best of the bunch, but his youth and inexperience are significant negatives, so it should be either Mike/Amy, or Amy/Pete.

[Pelado]

I'd gladly support any combination of Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar (BBK!). But having no women on the Dem ticket is extremely unlikely, and Bloomberg isn't spending billions to become Veep, so that limits the permutations. At the personal level (intelligence, gets along well with others, likeability, etc.), I think Pete is the best of the bunch, but his youth and inexperience are significant negatives, so it should be either Mike/Amy, or Amy/Pete.

What about the Amy/Deval Patrick ticket proposed above?

[PaloAltoCougar]

What about the Amy/Deval Patrick ticket proposed above?

I don't know much about DP, but I think that'd fine. Actually, as long as one of the three I mentioned are at the top of the ticket, I'd probably be okay with a talking mule in the second spot. Amy/Francis in 2020!

[beefytee]

I'd gladly support any combination of Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar (BBK!). But having no women on the Dem ticket is extremely unlikely, and Bloomberg isn't spending billions to become Veep, so that limits the permutations. At the personal level (intelligence, gets along well with others, likeability, etc.), I think Pete is the best of the bunch, but his youth and inexperience are significant negatives, so it should be either Mike/Amy, or Amy/Pete.

Youth and inexperience didn't seem to hinder Obama. He was 4-5 years older than Pete.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Youth and inexperience didn't seem to hinder Obama. He was 4-5 years older than Pete.

I don't want to overstate Obama's case, but a few years in the Senate sound better than a stint the South Bend city hall. I'm more bothered by the experience thing than the age thing. In fact, I'd prefer someone not yet eligible for SS benefits (Bloomberg excepted).

[beefytee]

I don't want to overstate Obama's case, but a few years in the Senate sound better than a stint the South Bend city hall. I'm more bothered by the experience thing than the age thing. In fact, I'd prefer someone not yet eligible for SS benefits (Bloomberg excepted).

The senate definitely offers some experience that can be handy as president, but some would argue that it lack the executive experience that a mayoral position offers. Of course I would prefer a governor or a mayor of a major city (NY, LA, etc) experience-wise. This is quite the step up for Pete. The next logical step would have been a run for governor of Indiana and then president.

Choosing presidents with less and less experience seems to be the norm now, so who knows.

[SeattleUte]

I'm optimistic that this will work out. We're seeing that the vast majority of the electorate, including in the democratic party, is not crazy. We've seen a huge shift in the past two weeks and this has created an unreliable illusion that is only temporary. Biden and Warren are imploding. Sanders has benefitted from both those developments. He's picked up some socialists from Warren's losses, but not many. We see that Warren has lost support because most of her support actually were not socialists. Her death spiral started when she tried to explain how she was going to raise the money to fund her socialist proposals--something Sanders has resisted. Sanders's polling numbers in NH didn't improve by much. The biggest boost was that previously the democrat moderate lane appeared to have consolidated around a single candidate, Biden. For whatever reason, Biden's support is dissolving. Thus, this consolidation is, for now, gone because Biden's and some of Warren's support has been distributed between Pete, Amy and Bloomberg (Blomberg's is the only last name I have any confidence in correctly spelling; hence, Pete and Amy).

But everything is fluid. And there are vast numbers of sane, centrist votes for the taking. Many more than are available to Sanders. He and what's left of Warren (presumably the part of her base that is more socialist) totaled only 35% of the NH vote. There is the risk of the Trump phenomenon, that Biden, Bloomberg, Amy, and Pete will continue to split that 65% and Sanders will therefore continue to win with a bare plurality. But I'm not taking this for granted. Trump was stronger than Sanders 2020 in NH, winning by 22%. And the current situation is recent and fluid. Two of the centrists, Pete and Biden, have evident flaws. Pete has had no ability attracting AA and Latino support, and Biden is clearly past his prime as he appears to shriveling up before us. Bloomberg missed the early primaries. I think its' likely 2-3 of the centrists will do very poorly on Super Tuesday and democrats will emerge with a strong moderate frontrunner.

I'm betting on Bloomberg, but I do think the next most likely is Amy. She needs to continue her viscous attacks on Pete, try to do a mercy kill for Biden, and start in on Bloomberg. She needs to gain ground on the moderates, because that's enough, she has to clear them out, and the extremists still solidly with Sanders and Warren are zealot socialists.

[myboynoah]

I'm optimistic that this will work out. We're seeing that the vast majority of the electorate, including in the democratic party, is not crazy. We've seen a huge shift in the past two weeks and this has created an unreliable illusion that is only temporary. Biden and Warren are imploding. Sanders has benefitted from both those developments. He's picked up some socialists from Warren's losses, but not many. We see that Warren has lost support because most of her support actually were not socialists. Her death spiral started when she tried to explain how she was going to raise the money to fund her socialist proposals--something Sanders has resisted. Sanders's polling numbers in NH didn't improve by much. The biggest boost was that previously the democrat moderate lane appeared to have consolidated around a single candidate, Biden. For whatever reason, Biden's support is dissolving. Thus, this consolidation is, for now, gone because Biden's and some of Warren's support has been distributed between Pete, Amy and Bloomberg (Blomberg's is the only last name I have any confidence in correctly spelling; hence, Pete and Amy).

But everything is fluid. And there are vast numbers of sane, centrist votes for the taking. Many more than are available to Sanders. He and what's left of Warren (presumably the part of her base that is more socialist) totaled only 35% of the NH vote. There is the risk of the Trump phenomenon, that Biden, Bloomberg, Amy, and Pete will continue to split that 65% and Sanders will therefore continue to win with a bare plurality. But I'm not taking this for granted. Trump was stronger than Sanders 2020 in NH, winning by 22%. And the current situation is recent and fluid. Two of the centrists, Pete and Biden, have evident flaws. Pete has had no ability attracting AA and Latino support, and Biden is clearly past his prime as he appears to shriveling up before us. Bloomberg missed the early primaries. I think its' likely 2-3 of the centrists will do very poorly on Super Tuesday and democrats will emerge with a strong moderate frontrunner.

I'm betting on Bloomberg, but I do think the next most likely is Amy. She needs to continue her viscous attacks on Pete, try to do a mercy kill for Biden, and start in on Bloomberg. She needs to gain ground on the moderates, because that's enough, she has to clear them out, and the extremists still solidly with Sanders and Warren are zealot socialists.

Boom! Spot on.

Warren is dead (her "we need a woman president" voters going over to Klobuchar), Biden is, as you appropriately put it, shriveling, and the rest of the hangers on are pulling out. It's now Amy, Pete, or Bloomberg. I can live with any of those, but don't have confidence Pete can face off well with Trump. I long for Bloomberg just to see him destroy Trump in the debates. But I prefer Klobuchar.

One thing that mitigates against Sanders following Trump's path is that Sanders lacks a large group of loyal voters outside of his natural base (Trump has evangelicals that stay with him through thick and thin because he promises them things that are easy for him to give).

[All-American]

Bloomberg (Blomberg's is the only last name I have any confidence in correctly spelling; hence, Pete and Amy). .

That is darn funny.

[myboynoah]

Sure TrumpRight, it's just about Bernie and Trump.

Trump vs. Sanders is the main event. Everything else is an undercard.

[YOhio]

Bloomberg won’t win because of he’s so anti-gun. It has to be Amy. Cheer for her.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm optimistic that this will work out. We're seeing that the vast majority of the electorate, including in the democratic party, is not crazy. We've seen a huge shift in the past two weeks and this has created an unreliable illusion that is only temporary. Biden and Warren are imploding. Sanders has benefitted from both those developments. He's picked up some socialists from Warren's losses, but not many. We see that Warren has lost support because most of her support actually were not socialists. Her death spiral started when she tried to explain how she was going to raise the money to fund her socialist proposals--something Sanders has resisted. Sanders's polling numbers in NH didn't improve by much. The biggest boost was that previously the democrat moderate lane appeared to have consolidated around a single candidate, Biden. For whatever reason, Biden's support is dissolving. Thus, this consolidation is, for now, gone because Biden's and some of Warren's support has been distributed between Pete, Amy and Bloomberg (Blomberg's is the only last name I have any confidence in correctly spelling; hence, Pete and Amy).

But everything is fluid. And there are vast numbers of sane, centrist votes for the taking. Many more than are available to Sanders. He and what's left of Warren (presumably the part of her base that is more socialist) totaled only 35% of the NH vote. There is the risk of the Trump phenomenon, that Biden, Bloomberg, Amy, and Pete will continue to split that 65% and Sanders will therefore continue to win with a bare plurality. But I'm not taking this for granted. Trump was stronger than Sanders 2020 in NH, winning by 22%. And the current situation is recent and fluid. Two of the centrists, Pete and Biden, have evident flaws. Pete has had no ability attracting AA and Latino support, and Biden is clearly past his prime as he appears to shriveling up before us. Bloomberg missed the early primaries. I think its' likely 2-3 of the centrists will do very poorly on Super Tuesday and democrats will emerge with a strong moderate frontrunner.

I'm betting on Bloomberg, but I do think the next most likely is Amy. She needs to continue her viscous attacks on Pete, try to do a mercy kill for Biden, and start in on Bloomberg. She needs to gain ground on the moderates, because that's enough, she has to clear them out, and the extremists still solidly with Sanders and Warren are zealot socialists.

Don't put all your money on Bloomberg. I am not convince he will get the minority vote:

I think Amy would be a good running mate for Bernie. But Bernie has a good chance of kicking over before November. So I have to agree Amy has a good shot in being the pick.

[myboynoah]

Don't put all your money on Bloomberg. I am not convince he will get the minority vote:

I think Amy would be a good running mate for Bernie. But Bernie has a good chance of kicking over before November. So I have to agree Amy has a good shot in being the pick.

Meh. If Trump has taught us anything, it is that people can look past a lot of stuff.

I am struck by how people overlook that fact that Bernie had a heart attack just 4 months ago. He needs to release those medical records.