Hee-haw, y'all. The 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

[SlackerInc]

She was a “tough prosecutor”, which means she would not be accepted by most self-styled progressives as one of their own.

[DrDeth]

@SlackerInc

She was a “tough prosecutor”, which means she would not be accepted by most self-styled progressives as one of their own.

True, but the rest of her politics are far left, and she was part of the SF progressive movement, along with Newsome.

[DSeid]

@SlackerInc

She was a “tough prosecutor”, which means she would not be accepted by most self-styled progressives as one of their own.

Again with lumping all progressives as one thing.

Do some progressives find her making prostitution harder to practice using the net (targeting child trafficking but impacting many) to be a horrible strike against her? Yes. Some on this forum in fact. Is making prostitution safer the big issue for most progressives, even the hard line group? I doubt it. Progressive is not the same as being against rule of law. Tough prosecutor is not disqualifying to most and appeals to many others who support many, even most, progressive positions.

[septimus]

Here are the percentage chances to win the Dem nomination currently shown at Predictwise. (Yang is not shown at that site, but has 3% chance per Betfair. Otherwise the Betfair numbers are rather close to the Predictwise numbers.)

Biden 22
Harris 20
Sanders 19
O’Rourke 13
[del]Warren 4[/del]
Booker 4
Klobuchar 4
[del]Gillibrand 3[/del]
Gabbard 3
(Yang 3)
Hickenlooper 2
Castro 1
Buttigieg 1

I’ve crossed out two who, according to Betfair, are likely to lose in November if nominated. I’ve boldfaced the two I’d feel most confident might win in November.

The chance of Dems winning back the White House are shown as 58% versus 42% for the GOP*. But this bookie offers 4-5 You Pick.

(The GOP will probably renominate the Trump-Putin ticket, with Pence, Haley and Kasich as longshots.)

[DSeid]

@Gyrate

Nng. Firing harassers is good, but only doing so for self-serving reasons rather than because of the actual harassment is not exactly praiseworthy.

Given that she is already perceived as being insincere and extreme in the self serving spectrum by many, and is felt to advocate the banish first investigate later side of #metoo at least when it might benefit herself this may hurt her more than it would many others. Not that she ever had a chance.

[SlackerInc]

Indeed she did not.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@jsc1953

This is what’s known as an “unforced error.” I could’ve answered this question without spending any time on debate prep: “Yes, I’m a capitalist - but I can be a capitalist and be for consumer protection and against corporate welfare and greed.” Done…

Right on.

[asahi]

@ITR_champion

Oh dear.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), one of the most outspoken advocates of the #MeToo movement who has made fighting sexual misconduct a centerpiece of her presidential campaign, spent last summer pressing legislators to update Congress’ “broken” system of handling sexual harassment.

At the same time, a mid-20s female aide to Gillibrand resigned in protest over the handling of her sexual harassment complaint by Gillibrand‘s office, and criticized the senator for failing to abide by her own public standards.

In July, the female staffer alleged one of Gillibrand’s closest aides — who was a decade her senior and married — repeatedly made unwelcome advances after the senator had told him he would be promoted to a supervisory role over her. She also said the male aide regularly made crude, misogynistic remarks in the office about his female colleagues and potential female hires.
…
Since she left last summer, the woman has been doing part-time contract work. The male aide, Abbas Malik, kept his job.

Two weeks ago, however, POLITICO presented the office with its own findings of additional allegations of inappropriate workplace conduct by Malik. Among the claims were that he made a “joke” about rape to a female colleague — a person whom the office had failed to contact last summer despite repeated urgings by Malik’s accuser to reach out to the person.

Gillibrand’s office opened a new investigation and dismissed Malik last week.
…
POLITICO reached out to more than 20 former Gillibrand staffers to see if there was a pattern of behavior by Malik, including the two aides the woman specifically asked the office to contact.

One of those two former staffers said Malik often called her fat and unattractive to her face and made light of sexual abuse. She recalled one instance in which Malik remarked that a particular woman they were talking about “couldn’t get laid unless she was raped.”
Things are not looking too good for the Gillibrand campaign if any of this is true.

Right now, Gillibrand’s at 1% in the polls, so it’s not like she can get much lower.

[RTFirefly]

@ITR_champion

Things are not looking too good for the Gillibrand campaign if any of this is true.

What asahi said. Gillibrand’s campaign was already looking ready to sink even if it didn’t hit an iceberg.

[RTFirefly]

@DrDeth

True, but the rest of her politics are far left

You have a way of saying things like that. What does “far left” mean to you in terms of the issues?

[RTFirefly]

nm

[RTFirefly]

Let’s try this again:

This is prospective Dem caucus voters’ first and second choices, and the total

Joe Biden       27 19 46
Bernie Sanders  25 13 38
Elizabeth Warren 9 12 21
Kamala Harris    7 11 18
Beto O’Rourke    5  6 11
Amy Klobuchar    3  3  6
Cory Booker      3  3  6

Biden and Sanders are obviously still way up there, but Bernie’s second-choice numbers are a pretty big drop-off from his first-choice numbers. He’s got a high floor, but this does kinda suggest a low ceiling.

[RTFirefly]

Forgot the link.

I omitted all those that had 1% support or less.

[asahi]

If I had to guess which candidates have staying power I’m guessing Biden, Harris, and Sanders. It’ll be interesting to see if O’Rourke decides to jump in.

[SlackerInc]

I will be shocked if Beto doesn’t run. And I would add him and Booker to your list. (I hope I’m wrong and Inslee is a contender.)

[iiandyiiii]

He’s not my first choice, but I think there might be a decent chance that since Biden is acceptable to the great majority of Democrats, and since most seem to believe that he’d be a very strong candidate against Trump, there could be some rallying to him once he declares, and there could be a lot less drama than we might expect.

But I’m not going to make a prediction, because I don’t do that any more (unless I’m just repeating Nate Silver). Just a possibility. We’ll see.

[digs]

B I D E N [FONT=“Arial”]+ B E T O
[SIZE=“3”]Never Forgetto![/FONT][/SIZE]

I think a number of Dems aren’t Presidential Run Material, but would be good for supporting/balancing out the ticket.

[DrDeth]

@digs

B I D E N [FONT=“Arial”]+ B E T O
[SIZE=“3”]Never Forgetto![/FONT][/SIZE]

I think a number of Dems aren’t Presidential Run Material, but would be good for supporting/balancing out the ticket.

That would be fun!

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@DrDeth

That would be fun!

That would be a fun ticket, but could their individual strengths overcome the fact that they’re two white guys?

In other words: Those two bring a lot of good balance to a ticket (fundraising + name recognition, Millenial excitement + governing experience, charisma, blue-collar cred, decency, outsider status + insider knowledge, a return to normalcy + a move toward the future, etc). But there’s this expectation that the ticket will include a person of color and/or a woman. Would voters be willing to overlook a lack of diversity on the ticket with these two? Do their combined strengths supercede diversity needs?

[SlackerInc]

Agreed. I wish there were more Latinos running. I felt Hillary should have picked a Latino running mate last time.