I’m still convinced that Trump never wanted to win, he just wanted his own network to sell fascism and steaks to rubes.
I think he probably wanted to win after he started winning primaries when he realized he could win.
Also, he’s never voted for a Democratic candidate for President in his life. That’s a strange thing to be proud of. That, and believing any of the horseshit that comes out of Trump’s mouth (saving coal jobs, yeah, that’s the ticket). I’ve never heard of this guy before, but reading the quotes from him here certainly doesn’t endear me to him in the slightest.
Important distinction: Trump didn’t want to actually be the President. He wanted to win, because it was a competition. If he could figure out a way to win without being the President, he’d take it.
Of course, that’s harder now, since being President is all that’s keeping him winning the other game, the one whose object is staying out of prison.
It can be pretty safely assumed that anyone declaring this far in advance is a crank candidate. I mean, the game basically starts now that the midterms are over and serious people are quietly gauging and building their support and resources.
BTW Hillary officially declared in April 2015.
And?
April is just an example of when a serious candidate officially got into the race last time. Which means that time frame could be when candidates get in next year.
Well, I suppose but no reason to choose that for a benchmark. Her other run officially started January 2007.
What I’m curious about is how the Dem rule changes on Superdelegates will affect the “silent primary”. Endorsements still matter but will some be a little slower to announce them in deference to the new concept? Probably not, I guess.
For the Democrats to win in 2020 the key will be to put up a candidate who can bring Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania back to their side without losing any other states. Any candidate unsuited to do that will lose against Trump. I doubt Warren or Harris would have much appeal in those states.
And all the Beto fantasies are equally hopeless. Sure, he has charisma and he’s handsome but he has very little experience and may well be as much of an empty suit as Bill McKay. Of course, McKay won so there is that I guess.
Hillary was running before she could walk.
Castro appears to be in:
Man, this is going to be a crowded debate field. Given that almost ALL the candidates will be inexperienced or relatively unknown, how will they determine who is on the main debate stage? Seems like there will be about 5-6 that will be above 5% in the polls, but everyone else will be around 1%.
It’s not the Democrats fault the the Republicans offer up such a target rich environment. Who doesn’t want to be the hero who unseats Trump?
Don’t get me wrong, the more the merrier. It just creates problems for deciding who will be on the main debate stage and that in turn leads to a lot of hard feelings. I’m pretty sure Democrats don’t want a coronation, they probably would love to have 5-6 viable candidates. But if it’s 20, then things get a little wild. Plus it creates an opening for a crazy celebrity like Kanye West.
The field will winnow fast.
Not too hard to be able to afford to compete in Iowa and NH. Get there early and meet everyone. But those who are not already with sizable funding won’t get much farther unless they’ve cracked the top levels in one or the other of those.
But before NH and IA there will be quite a few debates. That’s where candidates will be crying, “the DNC is fixing the race! I’m not being heard!” It’s one thing when it’s Michael Avenatti. It’s another entirely when it’s a sitting Congressman being told he can’t be on the debate stage because some supposed “rock star” who actually LOST in a Democratic wave year gets his spot instead.
BTW, Ojeda’s getting a lot more attention than I would have thought:
This guy’s got a very interesting history:
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trump-called-him-stone-cold-crazy-now-richard-222008164.html
So what should be the method for determining who is relegated to the undercard and who not?
The GOP method was the highest on national polls got invited to the more prime time show.
Is that the fairest method?
Whoever is sponsoring the debate should decide who they’re inviting and who they’re not, on whatever criteria they choose, which need not be objective nor public. If the candidates who get left out feel that that’s unfair, they’re welcome to host their own debates, which will draw as much attention as people care to give them.
No, but that’s par for the party of “the rich get richer”.