2020 Candidate Speculation

[CurlieWhirlie]

Holy shit @ that Bloomberg clip, jaygee. If you want diversity, then get in the race? Easy for you to say, sitting on your piles of money! You're not sure why America seems to be "narrowing it down" to only white candidates? Again, easy for you to say while sitting atop your piles of money, being a cis, straight, white male.

WTF what an asshole. I didn't like him before, but even less so now.

[jaygee]

Dec 6, 2019 15:10:43 GMT -6 CurlieWhirlie said:

Holy shit @ that Bloomberg clip, jaygee. If you want diversity, then get in the race? Easy for you to say, sitting on your piles of money! You're not sure why America seems to be "narrowing it down" to only white candidates? Again, easy for you to say while sitting atop your piles of money, being a cis, straight, white male.

WTF what an asshole. I didn't like him before, but even less so now.

Like a huge fucking asshole. I like how he throws the bone “well every group would be better with more diversity”. Really Michael? You really believe that? Nah.

[CurlieWhirlie]

Yeah that's pretty fucking gross. The entitlement that's inherent in there is something, too. Like hey, it's not MY fault if other people aren't as rich as I am! Don't blame ME for my success!

STFU

[elle]

Dec 6, 2019 15:18:52 GMT -6 CurlieWhirlie said:

Yeah that's pretty fucking gross. The entitlement that's inherent in there is something, too. Like hey, it's not MY fault if other people aren't as rich as I am! Don't blame ME for my success!

STFU

Given some of his views on the poor that he's expressed out loud before, this shocks me not at all.

[dc2london]

I have no time for the Bloomberg candidacy. Neeewwwwp.

[milano]

Is anyone else on here joining the Kamala volunteer conference call tonight? I'm waiting now and am already tearing up. I'm assuming she is doing the talking.

[dc2london]

Dec 6, 2019 17:46:58 GMT -6 milano said:

Is anyone else on here joining the Kamala volunteer conference call tonight? I'm waiting now and am already tearing up. I'm assuming she is doing the talking.

Present!

[dc2london]

PDQ
There's a rumor going around campaigners that Kamala and Biden struck a deal that he will announce before Iowa that Kamala will be his running mate and he will only serve one term

Again, rumor. I don't know the veracity. But I'd believe it

[Ls2012]

I don't think I want to believe it. I feel like she could have found a better horse to hitch herself to.

[bunnyfungo]

This is how I feel about early announcements of running mates.

[dc2london]

Dec 7, 2019 10:53:50 GMT -6 Ls2012 said:

I don't think I want to believe it. I feel like she could have found a better horse to hitch herself to.

If he holds the majority of older black voters and she can mobilize younger black voters, it seems smart to me

[flippinchica]

Dec 7, 2019 12:11:53 GMT -6 dc2london said:

Dec 7, 2019 10:53:50 GMT -6 Ls2012 said:

I don't think I want to believe it. I feel like she could have found a better horse to hitch herself to.

If he holds the majority of older black voters and she can mobilize younger black voters, it seems smart to me

I am with you. Maybe not my dream team but a combo that can maximize a coalitions of "old white men" supporters and the more liberal wing as well.

[dc2london]

Dec 7, 2019 12:19:36 GMT -6 flippinchica said:

Dec 7, 2019 12:11:53 GMT -6 dc2london said:

If he holds the majority of older black voters and she can mobilize younger black voters, it seems smart to me

I am with you. Maybe not my dream team but a combo that can maximize a coalitions of "old white men" supporters and the more liberal wing as well.

I'd vote for a Biden/Harris ticket in a heartbeat

[greykitty]

Dec 7, 2019 10:42:49 GMT -6 dc2london said:

Again, rumor. I don't know the veracity. But I'd believe it

To me, this scenario serves no one well.  I'm also not a big fan of someone declaring themselves a lame duck out of the gate in general.  But you never know.

I admit, I'm also side-eyeing Chicago mayor Lightfoot regarding asking Pete B to break a NDA.  I've worked (at a low level) in the global financial industry.  NDA's are neither uncommon nor necessarily nefarious.  Major companies are not de facto evil either LOL.  I understand he's asked to be released from the NDA, but I personally can't blame McKinsey if they do not agree.

[dc2london]

I don't think an 80 year old saying he will serve one term is declaring himself a lane duck, I think it reassures some voters who think he can beat Trump but are concerned about his age.
It's preferable to challenging people to push up contests

[dc2london]

Dec 7, 2019 12:32:07 GMT -6 greykitty said:

Dec 7, 2019 10:42:49 GMT -6 dc2london said:

Again, rumor. I don't know the veracity. But I'd believe it

To me, this scenario serves no one well.  I'm also not a big fan of someone declaring themselves a lame duck out of the gate in general.  But you never know.

I admit, I'm also side-eyeing Chicago mayor Lightfoot regarding asking Pete B to break a NDA.  I've worked (at a low level) in the global financial industry.  NDA's are neither uncommon nor necessarily nefarious.  Major companies are not de facto evil either LOL.  I understand he's asked to be released from the NDA, but I personally can't blame McKinsey if they do not agree.

I am growing weary of the generalization that all corporations and anyone who has ever worked for or with one are capital E Evil. But I primarily see that on Twitter and Twitter is an exceptionally poor representation of the electorate.

[redbears]

I would 100% vote for Biden if Kamala is his VP. In fact, it is the only way I would vote for him. Yes yes yes

[greykitty]

Dec 7, 2019 12:33:53 GMT -6 dc2london said:

I don't think an 80 year old saying he will serve one term is declaring himself a lane duck, I think it reassures some voters who think he can beat Trump but are concerned about his age.
It's preferable to challenging people to push up contests

And that's a very reasonable thought.  And, given his age, if Biden is nominated, I think even more scrutiny than is usual will be accorded to his VP pick. 

I remember a lot of people who liked McCain a lot and would basically have been very happy to vote Republican that year, were given serious pause by Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency.  I was surprised to hear from several that they changed their vote just based on not wanting Palin near the Oval Office.   To me, I think that selection was a major hit to his candidacy.  And from a cursory look, Palin hit a lot of the 'right' checkmarks but boy, IMO, did she prove that in-depth vetting is a good thing before making public statements.

I guess I'm still in the camp that, unless things settle down dramatically very soon, I'd wait to the convention to declare a pick.  And I'm betting myself an internet nickel it won't be any of the presidential candidates, past or present.  

[dc2london]

Dec 7, 2019 13:13:59 GMT -6 greykitty said:

Dec 7, 2019 12:33:53 GMT -6 dc2london said:

I don't think an 80 year old saying he will serve one term is declaring himself a lane duck, I think it reassures some voters who think he can beat Trump but are concerned about his age.
It's preferable to challenging people to push up contests

And that's a very reasonable thought.  And, given his age, if Biden is nominated, I think even more scrutiny than is usual will be accorded to his VP pick. 

I remember a lot of people who liked McCain a lot and would basically have been very happy to vote Republican that year, were given serious pause by Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency.  I was surprised to hear from several that they changed their vote just based on not wanting Palin near the Oval Office.   To me, I think that selection was a major hit to his candidacy.  And from a cursory look, Palin hit a lot of the 'right' checkmarks but boy, IMO, did she prove that in-depth vetting is a good thing before making public statements.

I guess I'm still in the camp that, unless things settle down dramatically very soon, I'd wait to the convention to declare a pick.  And I'm betting myself an internet nickel it won't be any of the presidential candidates, past or present.  

I had a friend in 2004 vote against Kerry bc she didn't like John Edwards.
I kept saying, "But Bush and Cheney..........."

That still befuddles me

[dc2london]

greykitty then who do you think it would be?
I think the only bigger shitshow than the 2016 primary would be "the establishment DNC" choosing a nominee that nobody voted for in the primaries.

[jenna]

How bizarre that this time next year the presidential election will be over. 😯

[greykitty]

Dec 7, 2019 13:19:17 GMT -6 dc2london said:

greykitty then who do you think it would be?
I think the only bigger shitshow than the 2016 primary would be "the establishment DNC" choosing a nominee that nobody voted for in the primaries.

Well, if we wait til the convention, we'd get a better feel for who actually is getting votes and can add strength to the ticket as a whole (and who knows, maybe all the polling has been dead wrong to date).  Or, if we end up brokered, that leaves the VP pick wide open to a little old fashioned horse trading - which isn't always the worst thing to happen in politics.

So, just for discussion, let's say we're picking today based on polls being votes.  I guess we're looking at Biden/Sanders (or vice versa), don't you think?  Some combo of the top 4?

Those candidates who haven't broken 3-4% in the last month or two (and for discussion's sake, let's say that doesn't change)  - in the cold light of day, could it be argued they wouldn't actually bring much to the ticket?  Why stick with them (again, for discussion's sake, let's say the votes just will not happen for any of the current second tier).  I kind of like Biden/Booker, as I've said before.  I think they could work well together.  I still don't really understand why Booker isn't doing better. He would be my choice if I had to pick  from someone in the pool, but I don't think anyone needs to constrain themselves to the candidates as the only possible pool to pick from.

I mean, personally, what if someone like Tammy Duckworth ended up as a VP candidate?  Would she be criticized as being too establishment?  Maybe.  Does she have a lot of attributes that would play well in a national contest?  Could she provide regional balance?  Think so. Does anyone really care she didn't run for president?  Doubt it.   Do I think she's going to be picked?  Most probably not.

I'm not actually opposed to the 'establishment' weighing in on candidates.  If anything, I think the DNC bent way too far regarding primaries and super-delegates in reaction to 2016.   I'm really not a huge fan of how the DNC handled this year's debates and primary rules, to tell the truth.  I don't think any of it is resonating with 'regular' voters yet.

But it's all just thought exercises at this point, IMO - unless someone is really on the inside!

[dc2london]

Oh oh ohhhh okay greykitty I thought you meant the POTUS nominee would be someone who hasn't run. Hence my confusion.
Yes, as I said the other day, I totally agree with you that the Veep nominee may not be a current/former candidate

[dc2london]

Biden/Booker would also be a very attractive ticket for me

[lemondrop]

Dec 7, 2019 14:09:59 GMT -6 greykitty said:

Dec 7, 2019 13:19:17 GMT -6 dc2london said:

greykitty then who do you think it would be?
I think the only bigger shitshow than the 2016 primary would be "the establishment DNC" choosing a nominee that nobody voted for in the primaries.

Well, if we wait til the convention, we'd get a better feel for who actually is getting votes and can add strength to the ticket as a whole (and who knows, maybe all the polling has been dead wrong to date).  Or, if we end up brokered, that leaves the VP pick wide open to a little old fashioned horse trading - which isn't always the worst thing to happen in politics.

So, just for discussion, let's say we're picking today based on polls being votes.  I guess we're looking at Biden/Sanders (or vice versa), don't you think?  Some combo of the top 4?

Those candidates who haven't broken 3-4% in the last month or two (and for discussion's sake, let's say that doesn't change)  - in the cold light of day, could it be argued they wouldn't actually bring much to the ticket?  Why stick with them (again, for discussion's sake, let's say the votes just will not happen for any of the current second tier).  I kind of like Biden/Booker, as I've said before.  I think they could work well together.  I still don't really understand why Booker isn't doing better. He would be my choice if I had to pick  from someone in the pool, but I don't think anyone needs to constrain themselves to the candidates as the only possible pool to pick from.

I mean, personally, what if someone like Tammy Duckworth ended up as a VP candidate?  Would she be criticized as being too establishment?  Maybe.  Does she have a lot of attributes that would play well in a national contest?  Could she provide regional balance?  Think so. Does anyone really care she didn't run for president?  Doubt it.   Do I think she's going to be picked?  Most probably not.

I'm not actually opposed to the 'establishment' weighing in on candidates.  If anything, I think the DNC bent way too far regarding primaries and super-delegates in reaction to 2016.   I'm really not a huge fan of how the DNC handled this year's debates and primary rules, to tell the truth.  I don't think any of it is resonating with 'regular' voters yet.

But it's all just thought exercises at this point, IMO - unless someone is really on the inside!

Tammy isn't a great example, since she was born in Thailand and isn't eligible for either the Presidency nor the Vice-Presidency. 

I understand the underlying point, but at the same time, I'm not going to be mad if someone picks Andrew Gillum or Stacey Abrams. Frankly, I'm pretty sick of all of the candidates right now, so some fresh blood in a VP pick (who aren't Bloomberg) would be a welcomed situation, IMO. Christ, even Deval Patrick would have been welcomed although he can pound sand now. 

[athn64]

greykitty, they better not take Tammy away from us! She does a lot of good in the Senate and I'd like her to stay there.

Personally, I'm not that interested in potential VP noms just yet. I'd rather nail down who I like best for POTUS

[athn64]

Dec 7, 2019 14:31:31 GMT -6 lemondrop said:

Dec 7, 2019 14:09:59 GMT -6 greykitty said:

Well, if we wait til the convention, we'd get a better feel for who actually is getting votes and can add strength to the ticket as a whole (and who knows, maybe all the polling has been dead wrong to date).  Or, if we end up brokered, that leaves the VP pick wide open to a little old fashioned horse trading - which isn't always the worst thing to happen in politics.

So, just for discussion, let's say we're picking today based on polls being votes.  I guess we're looking at Biden/Sanders (or vice versa), don't you think?  Some combo of the top 4?

Those candidates who haven't broken 3-4% in the last month or two (and for discussion's sake, let's say that doesn't change)  - in the cold light of day, could it be argued they wouldn't actually bring much to the ticket?  Why stick with them (again, for discussion's sake, let's say the votes just will not happen for any of the current second tier).  I kind of like Biden/Booker, as I've said before.  I think they could work well together.  I still don't really understand why Booker isn't doing better. He would be my choice if I had to pick  from someone in the pool, but I don't think anyone needs to constrain themselves to the candidates as the only possible pool to pick from.

I mean, personally, what if someone like Tammy Duckworth ended up as a VP candidate?  Would she be criticized as being too establishment?  Maybe.  Does she have a lot of attributes that would play well in a national contest?  Could she provide regional balance?  Think so. Does anyone really care she didn't run for president?  Doubt it.   Do I think she's going to be picked?  Most probably not.

I'm not actually opposed to the 'establishment' weighing in on candidates.  If anything, I think the DNC bent way too far regarding primaries and super-delegates in reaction to 2016.   I'm really not a huge fan of how the DNC handled this year's debates and primary rules, to tell the truth.  I don't think any of it is resonating with 'regular' voters yet.

But it's all just thought exercises at this point, IMO - unless someone is really on the inside!

Tammy isn't a great example, since she was born in Thailand and isn't eligible for either the Presidency nor the Vice-Presidency. 

I understand the underlying point, but at the same time, I'm not going to be mad if someone picks Andrew Gillum or Stacey Abrams. Frankly, I'm pretty sick of all of the candidates right now, so some fresh blood in a VP pick (who aren't Bloomberg) would be a welcomed situation, IMO. Christ, even Deval Patrick would have been welcomed although he can pound sand now. 

I like Gillum and Abrams as potentials. 

[athn64]

lemondrop, isn't she an American though? I mean, her father was a US vet with ties to the Revolutionary War. So she's got citizenship from birth, and isn't naturalized.

[dc2london]

Dec 7, 2019 14:34:43 GMT -6 athn64 said:

lemondrop, isn't she an American though? I mean, her father was a US vet with ties to the Revolutionary War. So she's got citizenship from birth, and isn't naturalized.

I believe she was born in Thailand while her father was part of the foreign service so she would still be eligible to be VP

[greykitty]

Ok, I thought Tammy was eligible, but was mostly just using her as an example as a nominee who might be 'establishment' but has boatloads of appeal to, I think, a wide range of voters. I want her to stay in Illinois as well!

dc2london, I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. I agree, a real dark horse presidential nominee emerging from a dead-locked convention would be incredibly divisive, no doubt. But the way things are going lately, now I'm thinking I wouldn't even be shocked by that happening!