Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:03 pm

What I really want is a politician to step forward and just ignore the inevitable insults he'll get from Trump and his followers. I want an adult. But are we at a place where an adult has an actual chance of winning enough support to take the White House?

I make jokes about this administration...a lot of them bad...many of them mean spirited...so I'm definitely not above the rabble I complain about in many ways. But I'd seriously back someone with the gumption to display integrity and maturity in 2020.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:28 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:59 pm
hepcat wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:49 pm Elizabeth Warren listed herself as Native American on her Texas Bar Registration.

Warren really needs to just give up on any plans to run in 2020. She's made herself a laughing stock by stooping to Trump's level instead of just ignoring him. Now every time something like this comes up, she diminishes herself even more. She's got zero chance of winning against him. Step aside so you don't ruin the chances of someone with better odds.
Honestly I think she never had a chance to begin with, so this is probably just going to help get her out of the way so someone else can make a run at it.

But yeah, this isn't going to go away and it's going to torpedo her chances.

I thought she torpedoed her chances when she did the DNA test stunt. I'm not sure how well she would survive a general election with Trump as more and more stuff about her claiming to be an American Indian comes out, especially since Trump does like to call her Pocahontas.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:33 pm

I'm interested in how she'll respond to this. This is a little different from what's come before on this, in that (as the article notes) this is the first time that we've seen indication of Warren herself representing herself as Native American (as opposed to having some Native American ancestry).

I like Warren a lot in general - she has some very interesting and pretty workable progressive ideas (I like the wealth tax and her codetermination proposal), and she seems pretty sensible and like she's done her homework. Honestly this stuff doesn't seem important enough for me to care about it all that much, but it's something that worries me a lot for the general election.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:41 pm

hepcat wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:03 pm What I really want is a politician to step forward and just ignore the inevitable insults he'll get from Trump and his followers. I want an adult. But are we at a place where an adult has an actual chance of winning enough support to take the White House?

I make jokes about this administration...a lot of them bad...many of them mean spirited...so I'm definitely not above the rabble I complain about in many ways. But I'd seriously back someone with the gumption to display integrity and maturity in 2020.

I'd like to believe one day, we'll get back to being civil and the right side will be the ones to do it in earnest first. That said, I'm of mixed minds about doing it in 2020. I'm still hopeful for Merkley, in part, because he's not afraid to get in the fray but he also doesn't seem to do it with reckless abandon. Warren, I think, has more hubris, and I don't think hubris is good for 2020. I think this specific manifestation of pride is the failing many don't seem to know how to account for. What makes no sense in my thinking, though, is *really* wanted her to run in 2016 when I thought her pride complemented the fact that she knows her shit like no-one else. Maybe Trump winning was a check on that. I don't know. 2016 really challenged my relationship to country around me.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:51 pm

The context is that rules of decency apply only to Democrats apparently. Sigh.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:54 pm

The hope is that democrats can rise above the current lack of decency. It's not an insult.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:25 pm

hepcat wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:54 pm The hope is that democrats can rise above the current lack of decency. It's not an insult.

This. It's quite the opposite, given the current state of the GOP, I am too small minded to work out a path to what I see as honest discourse without hostile subtext. That said, it's becoming increasingly hard for me to see the donkey path as well.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:38 pm

hepcat wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:54 pm The hope is that democrats can rise above the current lack of decency. It's not an insult.

I'm perfectly fine with that, I only want the expectations applied in context and as evenly as possible. If drumpf calls for 2nd amendment people to do something about HRC, I don't want to hear "both sides" when she suggests the IRS take a look at his books.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:53 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:33 pm I'm interested in how she'll respond to this. This is a little different from what's come before on this, in that (as the article notes) this is the first time that we've seen indication of Warren herself representing herself as Native American (as opposed to having some Native American ancestry).

I like Warren a lot in general - she has some very interesting and pretty workable progressive ideas (I like the wealth tax and her codetermination proposal), and she seems pretty sensible and like she's done her homework. Honestly this stuff doesn't seem important enough for me to care about it all that much, but it's something that worries me a lot for the general election.

+1. She still has time to put this to rest with one pithy quip (like Reagan defused the age issue when he refused to hold Mondale's youth against him). But every time it comes up, she somehow manages to dig herself in deeper. As much as I like her positions and her pragmatism, it gets harder and harder to see her sitting on the iron throne.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:59 pm

I literally do not care, and the GOP only cares so much as it harms her. Nothing she says will actually be a net positive with them. The only people she needs to make peace with are her own, and that should be easy. Still, a hot potato is a hot potato and it can still burn you if you're stupid about it.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:02 am

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1094969946117828609

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:12 pm

I don't understand the popehat tweet.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:16 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:12 pm I don't understand the popehat tweet.

When lawyers appear in court and introduce themselves, they state their name and who they represent. So for her as prosecutor, it was "Kamala Harris for the people."

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:19 pm

stessier wrote: Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:16 pm
GreenGoo wrote: Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:12 pm I don't understand the popehat tweet.
When lawyers appear in court and introduce themselves, they state their name and who they represent. So for her as prosecutor, it was "Kamala Harris for the people."

Thanks. I'm sure Popehat thinks the tweet worth making for some reason, but I still fail to see it even after it's explained to me. I mean, I understand the comment now, I just don't know what makes it worth making.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:22 pm

Fed consistently criticizes Harris for her record as a prosecutor, where he feels she was pretty . . . I guess "overzealous" might be the right word. I think he's trying to play into that with the tweet, but it's not terribly clear.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:29 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:22 pm Fed consistently criticizes Harris for her record as a prosecutor, where he feels she was pretty . . . I guess "overzealous" might be the right word. I think he's trying to play into that with the tweet, but it's not terribly clear.

Fair enough. I've read enough Mr Fed to understand his view on government abuse of authority and that it was likely that he held a negative view for *any* prosecutor, so I thought that might be part of it. I think that while everything Fed says is probably true from his viewpoint, I find his view here to be particularly skewed and biased. And sure, it comes from real world experience but he's gone from having a negative opinion of "the Feds" from the time he left to a zealotry now that is quite frankly offputting to me. It appears that the Feds are the root of all evil for Mr. Fed now, and that's just not something I can subscribe to, even if I agree that abuses are happening and people need to fight against them. As he is a defense lawyer, I don't fault him for this view, it's just not mine.

I literally have no idea who Harris is, let alone her legal record, so I have no opinion on her.

Thanks for the follow-up.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:39 pm

FWIW I have a few lawyer friends from California who have in the past expressed significant misgivings about Harris's prosecutorial record, especially regarding the Backpage prosecution. Though I haven't talked with them about her for awhile, so I'm not sure how current those objections are, but it is a possible source of concern for me.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:43 pm

As California Attorney General, Harris opposed marijuana legalization as late as 2014

That seals her fate.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:47 pm

Jaymann wrote: Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:43 pm
As California Attorney General, Harris opposed marijuana legalization as late as 2014
That seals her fate.

You really think so? I would think the number of people who care that much about *when* she became pro-legalization would be pretty small.

I think her prosecutorial record will give her some issues to address with the left wing of the party, but I doubt that that stuff is insurmountable.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:58 pm

I was being facetious, but some pretty poor optics in that link.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:03 pm

Jaymann wrote: Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:58 pm I was being facetious, but some pretty poor optics in that link.

Indeed. I'm genuinely curious how much people will care about and focus on this stuff during the primary.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:06 pm

Buttigieg made a pretty good decision in making his last name as small as possible in his logo..

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:20 pm

pr0ner wrote: Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:02 am https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1094969946117828609

"Yang 2020: Humanity First" sounds like something you'd see in the first or second scene of Dystopian Sci-Fi Thriller.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:22 pm

Don't blame me. I voted for Yodos.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:38 am

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/statu ... 7836319744

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:50 am

It worked so well last time to find the best Republican candidate...

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:00 pm

Mainly I worry about the possibility of a brokered convention, particularly if its involving Sanders (I can't imagine his supporters taking it well if Sanders loses in a convention fight).

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:49 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:00 pm Mainly I worry about the possibility of a brokered convention, particularly if its involving Sanders (I can't imagine his supporters taking it well if Sanders loses in a convention fight).

I REALLY want Sanders to admit his time for running is past. Or he could admit that he is not a Democrat and stop mucking up their primaries by running as an independent and thus allow us all to hate him for dividing the polls givng Trump another term.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:56 pm

He caucuses with the Dems, I think it fair he run as a Dem. That said, he lost to Hillary who was notoriously unpopular. That should be the that. Hang your progressive hopes somewhere else. (In different times that goes back to Warren whom I preferred and hoped for in 2016. I'm not sure now. I think I'm going to wait to get informed here... and I'm still hoping Merkley is my dark horse.)

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:58 pm

LordMortis wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:56 pm He caucuses with the Dems, I think it fair he run as a Dem. That said, he lost to Hillary who was notoriously unpopular. That should be the that. Hang your progressive hopes somewhere else. (In different times that goes back to Warren whom I preferred and hoped for in 2016. I'm not sure now. I think I'm going to wait to get informed here... and I'm still hoping Merkley is my dark horse.)

Caucuses is fine but he is not actually a Democrat so the idea that they should have to consider him for their primary is silly. Declare as a Dem if you want to run as a Dem.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:01 pm

Remus West wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:49 pm
El Guapo wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:00 pm Mainly I worry about the possibility of a brokered convention, particularly if its involving Sanders (I can't imagine his supporters taking it well if Sanders loses in a convention fight).
I REALLY want Sanders to admit his time for running is past. Or he could admit that he is not a Democrat and stop mucking up their primaries by running as an independent and thus allow us all to hate him for dividing the polls givng Trump another term.

As long as he doesn't run, he's my pick. Once he shows the bad judgement of running again, he's disqualified.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:02 pm

Remus West wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:58 pm
LordMortis wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:56 pm He caucuses with the Dems, I think it fair he run as a Dem. That said, he lost to Hillary who was notoriously unpopular. That should be the that. Hang your progressive hopes somewhere else. (In different times that goes back to Warren whom I preferred and hoped for in 2016. I'm not sure now. I think I'm going to wait to get informed here... and I'm still hoping Merkley is my dark horse.)
Caucuses is fine but he is not actually a Democrat so the idea that they should have to consider him for their primary is silly. Declare as a Dem if you want to run as a Dem.

I found out recently that Sanders is an independent, but every time his seat comes up he registers as a Democrat to run in the Senate democratic primary, but then declines the democratic nomination and runs as an independent, so that he doesn't have to run against a Democrat in the general.

I don't care that much, but it's a little annoying that he wants all the benefits of being a Democrat but none of the drawbacks.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:28 pm

Annoying is not the word I'd use. Sanders, Biden and Hillary need to stay the F away from being considered for election. If they want to stump for someone else, terrific. But it's time for all of them to let it go.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:13 pm

Sanders and Clinton I can understand, but Biden didn't even run last time.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:28 pm

To be clear, my opposition to Biden is more about him siphoning away votes and/or clouding the field. I think he's extremely qualified and has the right temperament for the position. I fear he's just not physically up to the task and rigors of being President and I'd hate for that to become an issue. Maybe if Biden can start blasting out random tweets at 6am every day about COLLUSION or RUSSIA I'll feel different. Sadly, I think Biden's window of opportunity has passed. I'm hopeful he can lend energy and support to the party though.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:44 pm

Diamond Joe Biden too old!?!?!

Malificent · Post by **Malificent** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:49 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:28 pm To be clear, my opposition to Biden is more about him siphoning away votes and/or clouding the field. I think he's extremely qualified and has the right temperament for the position. I fear he's just not physically up to the task and rigors of being President and I'd hate for that to become an issue. Maybe if Biden can start blasting out random tweets at 6am every day about COLLUSION or RUSSIA I'll feel different. Sadly, I think Biden's window of opportunity has passed. I'm hopeful he can lend energy and support to the party though.

Yeah, the presidency AGES people. Just looking at before and after photos always amazes me. Biden, Sanders, Bloomberg, Kerry, really anyone that is already past the average life expectancy age or that WILL pass it during a first term, I wish they would just stay out of it. Warren is dangerously close to that point as well.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:54 pm

It was particularly pronounced in W and Obama.

OtOH, fump is hardly aging at all, while all of his indicted cohorts all seem to have aged decades in the last two years.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:59 pm

Obama? You're nuts. He looked almost the same leaving his presidency as the day he took office. The man rejuvenated while serving.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:05 pm

2008 vs 2017