Steyer is now in as a Democrat.
It’s like whack a mole. Swalwell out Steyer in.
It will be fun to watch everybody ignore a billionaire.
Did we already do that?
Props at least to Steyer for not running as an Independent. As a Dem super donor, he must have an appreciation for the spoiler effect of third party runs. Maybe his focus on climate change and electoral reform will be good overall for the party. (With all that money to spend, he might be more effective than Gov. Inslee on pushing climate as a major issue.)
Steyer is a wildcard, the second non-politician/businessman to enter the race after Andrew Yang. It’ll be interesting to get a more granular look at his positions.
You are strawmanning me or somehow completely missing my point. I declared right at the beginning of my post that he is not a serious contender. But you had listed him as being below other non-contenders like Gabbard, Yang, and Gillibrand. That’s silly. And your counterargument is that he’s not a serious contender? 
Tru dat. 
One big difference between an outsider billionaire running for the Dem nomination v. the GOP nomination: somebody (Wiegel, maybe) was pointing out earlier this week that all the other 2016 GOP candidates had their super-PACs and their high-dollar private fundraising events. Trump stood out by being able to claim he didn’t need any of that - he wouldn’t be part of the swamp, and he was uniquely positioned to make that claim.
But on the Dem side in 2020, nobody has a super-PAC, most have said they’re not accepting PAC and lobbyist contributions, and Sanders and Warren aren’t having any private fundraisers for big-dollar donors. Steyer can say he’s not part of the swamp either, but it’s far from a unique selling point.
Also, let’s face it, businessmen are much more highly thought of on the GOP side.
That’s the danger of the far left. As Venezuela has once again demonstrated, socialism leads to raiding the zoo to fight over the iguana, donkey, and warthog for dinner. The elite might claim one thing economically and they are probably socially liberal but it would be foolish to believe they actually want economic equality.
Socialism can be done well (like active military health care, most firefighting, health care in Canada and many other countries, etc.) and it can be done badly (i.e. Venezuela). At least that’s how modern day progressives and Democratic-Socialists see it, for the most part. That you see socialism differently (and probably don’t consider all the “good” examples above I offered as real socialism) doesn’t invalidate this. This disagreement is largely about semantics, not actually about socialism.
If all public options/programs are now socialism it seems as if the word is so broad as to have lost it’s historical meaning.
So you don’t believe universal health care (aka socialized medicine) is socialism? Whatever you call it, it’s working quite well and is very popular in Canada and many other countries.
What options/programs promoted by a candidate for the Democratic primaries for president do you consider “real” socialism?
Which candidate do you see as likely to turn the US into Venezuela, and do you think it will be by Executive Orders or by making the non-socialist majority in the Senate and house magically turn into true believers?
Looks like the Democratic field may narrow a lot faster than I predicted in my earlier timeline. Today I got a Facebook ad from the Cory Booker campaign.
The DNC’s barriers may be arbitrary, but I don’t think requiring 130,000 donors for a national presidential candidate is especially strict.
Here’s a more in-depth look fromPolitico.
It wasn’t “socialism” that did that; it was having a corrupt strongman demagogue who used his office to funnel public resources to himself and his wealthy cronies to the point of bankrupting the country, persecute his political enemies and completely undermine the judicial and electoral system. Fortunately that couldn’t happen in America…
It’s good to know that conservatives are finally starting to understand what liberals have been telling them for decades now.
There’s a lesson to be taken from Venezuela, but that’s not the one I would take. If there’s a lesson from the Venezuelan experience it’s that populism run amok can destroy a democracy. A related concern is that people with authoritarian tendencies promote and employ ministers based on their loyalty, not their competence. That was one of the first problems with Hugo Chavez: he terminated his state-owned energy administrator, Luis Giusti.
It didn’t end there. This pattern of firing career officials and replacing them with blind devotees to Chavez’s revolucion is what ultimately led to Venezuela’s economic slide.
Authoritarians can be right wing or left wing - don’t fall into the trap of assuming that it’s simply socialism that embraces authoritarianism. Look objectively at the behavior of the individual or cast of characters responsible for implementing policies. Evaluate them based on their behavior. Evaluate this president based on his behavior, and what does his behavior tell you? What does it tell you when he hires people like Scott Pruitt who basically try to dismantle the agency on one hand and yet splurge for themselves on the taxpayer’s dime on the other? What does it tell you when Trump wants to fire James Comey and Jeff Sessions because they would not steer the investigations into his campaign in the direction he wanted it to go? What does it tell you when this administration openly pressures Jerome Powell because, based on his deep background knowledge of economics, he thinks it’s a bad idea to keep interest rates artificially low? It’s loyalism that’s the problem, and we have a president who is making decisions day-in and day-out that are based not on the merit of their ideas but on who’s toeing the Trump line.
History shows there are consequences for that.
The other lesson that we can take from Venezuela is that 60% percent of the country (or more) can oppose the president and desperately want him removed, but if they cannot unify as opposition, if the opposition becomes so polarized that they spend just as much time arguing with each other, then the strongman wins. The strongman stays in power. That’s the other cautionary tale from Venezuela.
Hickenlooper out
Excellent! Hopefully Bullock and Beto will follow Hick’s example and try to run for Senate.
In answer to the OP, the field has been narrowing, it’s just that the candidates are mostly staying in anyway.
But if you look at the polls, what’s happening? Nobody’s really breaking out of the 2% or lower group, and candidates who’d had more of a following are headed in that direction: Beto’s just barely above 2%, Buttigieg’s had a number of recent polls where he’s at ~3% rather than the upper single digits, and Harris has fallen out of the double digits back to around 8%. Just in the past few weeks, we’ve gone from talking about a top 5 to a top 4, and now it’s more like a top 3.