Democrats 2020: 50 states, 50 candidates

Kirsten Gillibrand picked St. Patrick's Day to join the party as the 12th candidate worth considering. She was not my choice to represent New York, but with Cuomo out she's the best remaining.

She had an exploratory committee going since January.
What did they tell her?
I know what they should have told her.
With 3 candidates from the northeast in the race she becomes superfluous.
With 4 women in the race she becomes superfluous.
She has no chance to win Iowa.
She has no chance to win New Hampshire.
She has no chance to win Nevada.
She has no chance to win South Carolina.
She has no chance to win super Tuesday.

Her only hope of finishing first anywhere super Tuesday comes by attrition.
If Klobuchar drops out Minnesotans might vote for the best qualified remaining woman.
If Warren drops out Massachusetts might vote for the remaining northeast woman.
If Harris drops out Californians might vote for the prettiest remaining woman.
Obviously if she outlasts all other women, she may start getting votes from voters whose biggest concern is nominating a woman.
THEY TRIED THAT. IT DIDN"T WORK!

Gillibrand is from New York.
That's the same state as the President.
If anyone thinks a candidate from the same state as the President is a good idea they need only look at the elections of 1904 and 1944 and see how badly the candidates lost.
The fact Trump lost New York might make them more hopeful that they can win New York, but that's no longer a matter the Democrats need to worry about, is it?

In addition to those elections they can look at 1960 and 1968 when someone picked a nominee for Vice President from a state the other guys had a candidate for President running. They both lost, and in 1960 a VP candidate able to deliver a tossup state might have changed the winner!
Though Gillibrand and most of the men are ideal models for figures atop a wedding cake, this is not the election for that.

My first thought is that she might be most likely to...
drop out after Iowa.
Gabbard can not expect good numbers anywhere. There's no need to drop out because it will barely matter.
Warren will rely on New Hampshire to tell her future and won't stop until they reject her fully.
Klobuchar should get good numbers in Iowa. Finishing behind Gillibrand there will finish her, but she'll have to mess up royally to lose votes to Gillibrand in a state so close to home.
Harris can't be sure what to expect but has good reason to stay in through Nevada regardless.
So Gillibrand might give up if even Klobuchar edges her out for first among women, since she won't finish ahead of Warren in New Hampshire, should be behind Harris in Nevada and has no natural constituency down south.

As far as ideology, she can be branded a waffle.
She said recently that people in her part of New York need guns to defend themselves against coyotes, but people in New York City don't need guns to defend themselves against armed robbers.
Let that sink in

Still she does have something to offer the right wing of the party.
With 10 years in the Senate she's the fifth most qualified candidate.
Though she comes from a blue state, she won House elections in the purple section of the state. She could-on ideology-peel votes from a Republican better than anyone in the race.

Her best hope is to crush Klobuchar and Warren as fast as possible. That means she must somehow finish ahead of all the women in Iowa, then beat out Warren, most likely for second place, in New Hampshire.
If she's second among the women in both states she might continue.
Then she could be second among the women behind Harris in Nevada.
If Bernie wins all 3 and the 2 top women are in the top 4 then most of the men are gone by South Carolina.
I suppose the nightmare scenario for the Democrats would be for Gillibrand to lead the women in South Carolina after the above.
That could be as low as fourth place (Booker, any white Gentile and Sanders ahead). Then we have 7 candidates (4 women) going into super Tuesday. With the other 3 women defending their home states, she might split the south with Booker, becoming the first woman with at least 2 victories.
Then she can't quit, but how can any of the others after a win?

At some point the women have to unite, and her only hope is that she'll be the one they choose, but that won't be easy and she might be a distant fourth when they happens.

 

The 2020 Democrats: Pete Buttigieg.....


Who: Pete Buttigieg

From: South Bend, IN

Current Position: Mayor of South Bend since 2012

Background: Buttigieg has been the mayor of South Bend since 2012. He was made a Naval Intelligence officer for the Navy Reserve in 2009. He was deployed to Afghanistan in 2014 for a seven-month deployment, after which he returned to South Bend. He remains a lieutenant in the Naval Reserve.

The Issues: …..snip~

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhallcomstaff/2019/03/18/the-2020-democrats-pete-buttigieg-n2540772


Oh and he is openly gay. So LGBT will be represented.

 

I actually did mention him: Mayor of a 4-bit city. I think he's still exploring and might never announce.
He represents the ant that bites.
Judy Woodruff interviewed him. His platform is, "I'm young. I'm gay. There are a lot of us. One of us should be Preident.

 

In the spirit of my wish to have all 50 states represented, Mike Gravel of Alaska announced yesterday.
My choice of course was Mark Begich, but I understand why Begich might not join the race. He has a chance to get real numbers and an early humiliation would be damaging.
Gravel has no chance.
First of all he finished eighth of 8 serious candidates in 2008 in the Iowa caucus.
Second of all, he turns 90 next year.
While Tulsi Gabbard possibly could get good numbers in her native Hawaii (what was once called "favorite son" candidates) Gravel will have no numbers of consequence in Alaska or anywhere..

Gravel is qualified.
He was in the Senate from 1969-81.
That puts him fifth in credentials of the 13, behind the 2 Governors, Sanders and Klobuchar (2 extra months each in the Senate.)

When Gravel ran the easy way to dismiss his chances was to say he's 78.
NOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE EAGERLY VOTING FOR PEOPLE THAT OLD!Gravel spent those 12 years in the Senate then returned to the private sector. That's in the spirit of the 19th century statesmen who served to get something done then retired to home business. Some returned to government service due to stress of their country or party.
Gravel may have a special message for us.
When Sanders was asked about his age he said some 90-year-olds are healthy.
Gravel-if permitted in a debate-can endorse that by doing something athletic-maybe a handstand-and demanding the others do one as well.
He could also exaggerate his own age-related maladies, be wheeled in in a wheelchair with an iv drip, fall asleep until asked a question and groan a lot.
That would be better.

 

Apparently someone of Wikipedia jumped the gun when they added Mike Gravel to the list of announced candidates.
Either that or he noticed he was the 13th, got superstitious and stepped back into a status of exploratory committee.
About that same day the Mayor of a 4-bit city also announced an exploratory committee and now he, not Gravel, joins the race as the 13th serious candidate.
No Mayor has ever been considered a serious candidate in any previous cycle. There was a Mayor from California in the 60s who used to be on the Republican ballots in New Hampshire and a few other states. Everyone ignored him because he was only a Mayor.
Though most regard Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio as a minor candidate, he remains a serious candidate in the sense that he's trying to win. The ironic thing about Castro is that the media is ignoring him after trying to make him and his brother important before they earned the right to be important.
If they'd done that with Obama he might be a former Illinois Senator joining this race as a longshot.
Lightning can strike twice, but not if you take down the lightning rod after the first time!

So the gentleman in question is Wayne Messam, mayor of Miramar, Florida.
As you recall my pick for Florida was Senator Nelson, freshly retired after 3 terms. He's too old, but younger than Gravel, Sanders and others people mention.
Messam's only 45, serving his second term.
Castro is former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, so of the 13 he was fourth from the bottom,
Messam falls behind Castro but ahead of Gabbard, Delaney and O'Rourke.
He's younger than most and probably realizes he won't win. As a black man from a swing state though he makes a plausible running mate for Sanders, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Warren or Delaney.
What he might do is drop out after gaining some attention, then work hard for one of those candidates. He fits Inslee best geographically.

A man like him should run for the House of Representatives next. Apparently his district is represented by an old black man who will not retire in 2020.
There is no Senate election in Florida in 2020. Running for the state House of Representatives is considered a step down from Mayor. There are no statewide elections next year. With a Republican Governor he can expect no appointed positions.
So he's running for President because he needs a job next year.

So what are Messam's real chances beyond mistaken identity?
In the category black man he might get as many votes as Booker in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.
In the category of pathetic longshot he might be first ahead of Gabbard, Castro and Delaney after those 3 primaries. (If he can eliminate O'Rourke too that's a bonus.)
One of those might still be in the race after super Tuesday and it might be him.

As always this comes to South Carolina.
Every candidate still standing that day will have a chance to win the state and advance to super Tuesday.
To win South Carolina Messam needs to dominate the black vote.
That means he reaches them in a way Booker can't. It means blacks there do not accept Harris even if she's coming off a win in Nevada.
Harris of course not only has to fight for southern blacks but women.
Logically Klobuchar should be first among the women in Iowa, Warren in New Hampshire and Harris in Nevada. If those 3 (plus Gillibrand) are all still in the race any of them might finish first among women in South Carolina.
That also means that at least 2 white men (Sanders and a gentile) plus Booker are still in the race.
Sanders just might take that state with 20%, completing a sweep of the first 4.

With or without Messam this creates a nightmare for the Democratic establishment.
7 candidates still trying hard on super Tuesday might mean Sanders goes to the convention first, far from 50%, and no consensus on who's in second place.
This is a greater nightmare for the news networks.
NONE OF THEM HAVE ENOUGH REPORTERS TO COVER 7 VIABLE CANDIDATES!

In Messam's case, finishing ahead of Booker through 4 primaries sends Booker back home to run for another term in the Senate.
With Harris defending California this gives Messam a chance to win up to 5 southern states with as little as 30%.
Technically that could be second behind Bernie. At least it will look that way on the map even if he's fifth in delegates.
Can Messam's message play in northern cities?
If his only rival in the minority category is Harris and she's still battling another woman he could be the last ethnic.
Where, besides the deep south, can Messam win as the last ethnic?
The answer should be nowhere but Washington, D. C., unless it remains possible to win with less than 35% of the vote after super Tuesday.
That is entirely possible.
Sanders, one white woman, one Gentile white man and one ethnic (male or female) might all go the distance. If it's Messam he might take D.C., New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, New Mexico and Arizona and 12 southern states without ever hitting 50%.
It's a remote shot but worth taking.

 

Except Crooked Hillary would have beat Jeb!

 

I don't think Vladimir Putin would have allowed that.

 

The beauty of it all. It telling that there is no clear leader of the Treasonous Democrat Party. The wonderful thing to look forward to is no clear winner of the delegates going into the convention. If this happens, it will make the 1968 DNC Convention look like a Boy Scout Jamboree.

 

Didn't you hear? Russia did not change the outcome of the election. Jeb! was planning on taking a dive for Crooked Hillary just like McCain did for Obama.

 

McCain was the best spy that Hillary and the Democrats had in Congress.

 

The Democratic race has officially reached 14.
It's Ohio Representative Tim Ryan, joining the race as the 11th most qualified candidate (between Messam and Gabbard after 16 years in the House of Representatives.
My pick for Ohio of course was Marcia Fudge, less qualified than Ryan and others but able to fill a niche in a crowded field.
We might not add any more women now, all bases being covered, but another white Irishman never hurt anyone.
Tim Ryan is only 46 but he went to Congress in 2003 at age 29.
That makes him roughly where Biden was in 1988, so get ready to consider Ryan's merits every 4 years until 2052.
When you go to Congress at age 29 people expect big things from you.
He replaced James Traficant, a big shot. That's more pressure.
Ryan's in a tough position. After 16 years in the House his constituents expect him to do something. Though Democrats have the House now he still does not chair a committee. He might as soon as 2021 so running for the Senate for instance would mean a big sacrifice. After 18 useless years in the House he might add 12 useless years in the Senate before becoming important.
Running for President will make him important, then maybe 10 more years in the House without becoming a chairman will be good enough.
Ohio should always be represented in the primaries because so many Presidents have come from there..
It includes 2 of the worst and only 2 near the top 10, so Ryan could become the best Ohio President without dazzling anyone too much.
A handsome young man from a crucial swing state is likely to be nominated for VP with most of the others in the race. He can complement and compliment all the women. He balances Booker, western candidates, Castro, Messam, almost anyone except O'Rourke and Delaney.
f the final 4 are Bernie, Booker, a woman and a gentile man he has as good a chance as most to be the winner in the latter category.
Ohio is a lot like Iowa so he can reach them almost as well as Klobuchar. The top 3 is attainable.
Delaney is the most likely dud among the white gentiles now. If Ryan finishes third among the white gentiles (likely) he might drop out before New Hampshire.
Hypothetically, if Ryan tops the white gentiles he might be almost alone in that category after Iowa.
Delaney, Inslee and Hickenlooper could all be gone after Iowa.
O'Rourke won't give up that quickly since he'll have enough money to fight, but New Hampshire demands things of its candidates.
I could see those 2 battling for 10% each behind Bernie, Warren and a third candidate.
In Nevada a distant candidate like Ryan will have little traction. He can't follow along behind someone like Inslee or Hickenlooper everywhere. He'll have to give up early. If he's a little ahead of one of those after New Hampshire Nevada will be a true test. Those 2 will need to reach the western US portion of Nevada's culture. If Inslee or Hickenlooper should not only lose that state but fall behind Ryan there they might withdraw and make him their candidate. That could help a lot, though he'll likely be fourth or fifth overall at this point.
Can Ryan reach the south in any way other than having the desired look?
If he can South Carolina looks like the place he could win, but as usual, Booker or Harris might tower over the second place candidate and getting to super Tuesday without a win (maybe without a third place finish) is not a position of strength.
It's not clear if the media will try to douse the last white gentile man at that point, but they did in 2008, so he'll get no help unless his numbers justify it.
Super Tuesday gives Ryan no likely wins. With some candidates defending their home states he can concentrate heavily on a place he likes with a message tuned to them.
If Klobuchar is out Minnesota might be attainable, otherwise Oklahoma might be his best hope..
Bernie of course is the big factor.
If Bernie wins many states with unimpressive numbers no one will be considered a frontrunner. Suppose Ryan finishes second in Bernie states and Booker states and the fourth survivor is a woman with only local victories.
He could become the Mo Udall of this race, almost never first but consistently second after the crowd is gone.
From that position he can pick the winner.

 

They won't let me rest. Eric Swalwell of California joined the race.
He's from the 15th district and looks like a movie star. That's a stretch of Democrat blue on the western side of the state near the blue Pacific.
He makes an even 16 now that Gravel has become official.
Remember I wanted one person from each state. We now have 2 Texans and 2 Californians.
Does he have anything to offer besides a face designed to be sculpted? Do any of them? Does anyone care?
Part of the reason his features are perfect is that he's only 38, 40 in 2020. Like Gabbard he'd be the youngest ever, replacing the oldest ever elected to a first term.
Why are these terribly young and terribly old people joining the race at the same time?
Can't these children wait their turn?
Can't these oldsters accept they missed their chance?
America is full of spoiled brats that want their cake immediately.
This guy wants a 50-year retirement at our expense.
In his time in Congress (since 2013 like Gabbard, Delaney and O'Rourke) he's done nothing, and he could easily do nothing for 20 more years before chairing a committee.
If he wants a real job, he might find one. The economy is good.
First of all, this is an insult to Harris. She can take it, but if they're both still active when California votes they'll both lose the state.
O'Rourke versus Castro is also in that category. The difference is that they're both pathetic and underqualified.
Harris is on the high side of the qualified threshold and Swalwell is pathetic.
If he gets more votes than she anywhere it can only be for the worst possible reasons.

If Swalwell finishes first it's because of his looks.
Still that's what Democrats wanted in some elections.
The difference was that Kennedy had 14 years in Congress behind him, Clinton 12 years as Governor and Obama...would have ranked ahead of Harris in this crowd.

 

The Democratic race hit 17 yesterday with the Mayor of 4-bit city South Bend, Indiana Pete Butigieg joining after a 3-month exploratory committee.

Obviously I'm unhappy that Evan Bayh is not representing Indiana, as I was in 2016 and 2008.
As Mayor of South Bend since 2012 Butigieg joins the race as the 11th most qualified candidate, between Castro and Messam.
He picked the anniversary of the shooting of Abraham Lincoln to join the race, an implicit antidote for the second most hated Republican President.

When interviewed by Judy Woodruff he said, basically, there are a lot of young gay men and one of them should be President.
That makes sense.
There are lots of crazy old men. We just elected one.
There are a lot of handsome black men. We elected one.
There are a lot of dumb southerners. We elected one.
There are a lot of lying womanizers. We elected one.
HW Bush was a rare treasure. We didn't appreciate him.

With 17 candidates you can win with 6% of the vote. He's counting on the statistic that 6% of Americans are gay.
Since almost none are Republicans he might be able to count on 12% and that can win with as few as 9 candidates.
Is there any minority group in the US that will vote for anyone just because he's in the same category?
Sadly, there are some.

He did correctly tell Woodruff that the Democratic Party has been ignoring his part of the country.
That's true, but he doesn't speak for it. Ryan and Klobuchar do.

Without listing this man's liabilities, let's be objective.
The bottom 7 candidates in this race would never have been mentioned on national newscasts in the past.
Governor Buddy Roemer of Louisiana was in the 2012 Republican race and ignored.
Governor Gary Johnson was in the 2012 Republican race. When they started leaving him out of debates he turned Libertarian.
As a Libertarian he was kept out of the public eye in 2016 as well.
THAT MADE TRUMP THE WINNER!

 

Monday Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton joined the race. He's the 18th candidate and 18th most qualified.
That's true, Moulton is only in his third term in the House, the others completed 3, so he's last among the 18 with a political job on the resume.
Like some others, this is his plan to keep his House seat or eventually move up.
In 1858 when Lincoln debated Douglas, a cartoonist drew them in a boxing ring with the White House in the background.
Most interpret that as predicting the rivals for Senator would meet again for President.
The cartoonist might have meant only that the winner might run for President next.
When Warren challenged Brown in 2012 I saw it the same way.
In this case the rematch will be for her Senate seat in the 2024 primary.
That could be the situation for Castro and O'Rourke also.

I want 50 candidates, but one state each. It's likely Idaho, South Dakota and Oklahoma will not find a candidate, but 47 is almost as good as 50. We now have 3 states with 2 people.
That's bad.
California has the most people, so 2 candidates is easy to accept.
Not only that, Swalwell and Harris are appealing to different elements of the party. If they somehow both make the final 4 I can't picture anyone flipping a coin between the 2 of them.
The problem with those 2 is that Harris has a legitimate chance to win.
Swalwell can only contend by literally winning a beauty contest among the white men.
If he had joined the race first she would represent an upgrade.
He represents nothing.

Castro and O'Rourke are both pathetic. They too are not mainly opposing each other, though neither seem likely to last long and both cannot. Texas is the second largest and second most populous state and the pair don't overlap.
Massachusetts is different.
Moulton and Warren have no real hope except for southern New Hampshire.
Hillary is hoping Sanders will get about 50%, she 20% second place. (Second place is first anywhere Bernie wins).
Moulton can barely get beyond that same 20%
Moulton was a soldier, so maybe he can find some life in the south. Warren can not.
He's more likely to make it to South Carolina.

Politicians from Massachusetts always start thinking about the Presidency because Massachusetts borders New Hampshire and they might win that first primary. Politicians in places like Oregon and Kentucky have to earn national attention first and some never get enough to beat the home field advantage.
Dukakis, Tsongas and Kerry went a long way because of that head start.
None of them had any real strength in the south and not much in the west, but when the best candidates gave up, someone had to win.

Warren might have thought Sanders could not run at his age, and figured when the primary arrived they'd pick the nearest candidate. Obviously Biden is also too old and has only familiarity on his side. She probably thought the women would unite and drop out in her favor.
That leaves the usual situation (Massachusetts, southern charmer, aging Governor, upstart Senator, black guy, weirdo and 2 guys you never heard of).
With 2 black guys, 2 southern charmers, 2 aging Governors and lots of weirdos she should win New Hampshire.
She forgets perhaps that if she'd stayed in Oklahoma she'd be on the weirdos and guys you never heard of list.
In a smaller crowd minus Bernie and Biden she could get the local votes, the feminist votes, and the familiarity votes in New Hampshire.
The only people voting against her would be the ones who want a good President. (We know how small that percentage is.)

On the other hand, maybe she was depending on Bernie to join the race and take 50%.
Then that 20% from the southeast corner (liberal former Massachusettians) would be all hers. That 20% might be second place, making her the frontrunner because Sanders can't win.
Of course there's still no reason for southerners or westerners to vote for her, but when the good candidates are gone, what do you do?
Now she and Moulton will fight for that 20% and the winner keeps going.
If they split it 10-10 maybe neither continues, but Moulton could take it 18-2.
At least he'd be a giant killer, ready to challenge her for the 2024 Senate primary.
If she somehow wins the nomination, look for him to pressure her to resign from the Senate so he can run for her seat.
If she somehow wins President, VP, cabinet job, he'll be tops to take her place-his real goal.
No matter who wins, he's better off.

That's the best hope for some of these candidates.
Let's pick Inslee for example.
Suppose Booker takes about 10% in Iowa, Inslee far ahead but behind Bernie and Klobuchar. Bernie wins but far below the 46% from 2016.
Then in New Hampshire Inslee shows strength, behind only Bernie and Moulton. Booker finishes ahead of Hickenlooper, Swalwell and Harris so they all founder.
In Nevada Harris pulls a small win over Inslee, Booker behind, Moulton out, Sanders somehow barely over 10%. Klobuchar continues but looks elsewhere for a big boost.
Next Booker clobbers Harris in South Carolina. Bernie falls to single digits. Inslee finishes off the rest of the white gentile men. Klobuchar eliminates Gillibrand and Warren.
Then on super Tuesday Booker wins only in the south. Klobuchar defends Minnesota. Bernie defends Vermont. In absolute chaos Bernie takes Massachusetts with Moulton and Warren still combining for 30% even after dropping out, Inslee ahead of Booker among active candidates.
In that mess Booker realizes he can't count on the northeast and can't catch up just winning the south, so he drops out the following Monday (after getting lots of votes that weekend).
From there Inslee sweeps the west and northeast with a few narrow defeats in Bernie's favorite caucus states. Klobuchar goes the distance, usually third.
That could work for most of the white men but Inslee has the best chance to win the northeast cities with Booker out prematurely.

 

Biden might be the last new entry worth mentioning, not because he towers over other candidates, but because any new entry will have to find a whole category of voters not yet represented. There's plenty of time for anyone to drop out before the primaries, even Bernie and Biden, creating new possibilities, but with the field as it is new entries need to be big names, maybe even qualified. Most of the qualified people have said they will not run.
The one person who could have an impact is Maggie Hassan, not because she's a huge name, but because she'll make New Hampshire a race that can not be interpreted for anyone below third place.



The first candidate we lose is Delaney. He's just like Biden, just 20 years younger.
If longshots like Swalwell, Ryan and O'Rourke keep going they'll find little attention, and none of them have a record or platform.
There's really no reason Buttigieg or Messam should even be mentioned, but Biden won't make them change anything.



Castro's situation may be impacted. As Obama's HUD Secretary Obama might have endorsed him. Now he has to compete with Biden for that honor.
Ideologically Bernie may still be closest to Obama, biologically Booker. Which of those 4 will he favor?



The Obama administration was not a disaster in the same sense that the W and Clinton administrations were disasters. His weaknesses were matters of degree or implementation, not personal decadence and pointless meandering.
Still, Hillary did not run on the joys of drone strikes. She ran on the premise a woman should be President, but since the country isn't quite ready it has to be a wife of a President so her husband can still run the country.
Trust me, Hillary planned to actually work no harder as President than she did for the Rose Law Firm.



In this case the Obama administration can be the issue that will divide the Democratic field.
You can ignore Castro if you want to. He might get few votes no matter how aggressively he campaigns.
Castro might get votes from Hispanics. If that remains his niche he could get some big numbers, starting in Nevada. Still he needs to monopolize that vote and it won't be enough.
Bill Richardson did not mention his race and got nowhere in 2008. Castro can't hide it. He alone has to sound less Communist because of his name.
As HUD Secretary being his biggest credential, he has to support the Obama administration as a huge success. That could remove even a good chance. Which candidates will dare say Obama was not an overwhelming success, and with what consequences?
Biden as VP has to speak on behalf of Obama at every step. That will be his undoing if someone dares say otherwise.
Saying Obama was less than perfect is dangerous, but half the candidates have nothing to lose. They can gain a lot if they put Biden on the run.
Obama took him so Biden could run the country for 8 years, but will he admit Biden did run the country for 8 years?
If you knew that to be essentially true, would you vote for or against him now?

Biden was first mentioned as a likely future President about 1982. He joined the likes of Robb, Nunn, Kennedy, Mondale and Glenn. Of course he didn't join the 84 race.
In 87 he did join the race, but withdrew quickly over allegations of plagiarism.
Is that the action of a weak man or a wise man?
I think it was wise, but for the immediate years following it looked weak.

In 2016 it was rigged.
Biden knew he was too old. The death of his son had him upset.
An old man should retire, with no apology and limited fadeout. He should be seldom seen thereafter.
The fact anyone is seriously thinking about him proves the Democratic Party has no forward thrust. Voting for Hillary was nostalgia. That can't continue, but the new ideas are not American ideas. Even Democrats have to renounce a whole wing of their party as anti-American.
As in 1860, they might have to pick 2 people and run them in their better regions.

 

In the 2016 election the Republicans had a debate where the major candidates were in primetime and the ones further down in the polls were on earlier at what was termed the "The Children's Table."

The Democrats have so many candidates they'll need a third earlier group, "The Crib."

The only intelligent thing I've heard a candidate say is when Bernie Sanders stated that we needed to find and solve the reasons for gun violence rather than just yelling for gun control. Sadly the Democratic attendees immediately started a tantrum against him.

 

To qualify for the debate you need at least one percent in 3 polls (either in one of the first 4 states or 3 national polls, 6500 individual donors or a lot of donors from the first 4 states. If the list that meet one of those exceeds 20 they drop people out if they meet only one of the 3 criteria.
What they should do is pick the 10 for each debate and their placement relative to each other at random.
No one from the undercard debates made it past New Hampshire, including those who started with the top debate.
Mostly they used that to chase people like Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum out of the race.
In the upper debate they still squeezed people out with offbeat questions that no one would react to, a signal for viewers to go to the bathroom.
Other past offenses were letting candidates ask each other questions. A 1999 debate got so dull the moderator apologized.

 

Michael Bennet of Colorado joined the Democratic race this morning.
Though born in India while his father was ambassador he's whiter than most of us and the legality of his run is a minor point.
My blood is boiling about several implications I could mention, but I won't now.
He's the right age (56 next year). He's been in the Senate since 2009.
That makes him the 7th most qualified behind Sanders, Biden, Gravel, Hickenlooper, Inslee and Klobuchar.
He joined the Senate 5 days before Gillibrand or he'd be behind her.

The most interesting thing about Bennet is that he was Superintendent of schools in Denver when Hickenlooper was Mayor, so this is a personal grudge of some kind.

Bennet represents the right edge of the party.
How many votes is that worth if he's there alone?
In 2016 the exit of Jim Webb deprived Democrats of a chance to vote for a right winger, so they defaulted to Hillary.
In 2008 there is no obvious right winger, so I'm guessing they divided between Edwards, Dodd and Biden. That's a lot of votes in Iowa, but mixed in were the votes for best candidate (divided Biden and Dodd). Those same people ended up with Hillary in the second half.
Clark and Lieberman probably split the right wing votes in 2004.
In this crowd a man like Bennet could hang around a long time with Lieberman's 10% everywhere.

 

For the Democrats, Sanders and Biden are the odds on favorites. Two old white guys; one a socialist, and the other a walking mishap. Everything beyond that is just identity politics, sort of like choosing the color of a package instead of the contents within. That's the problem with identity politics, it's so shallow and void of content.

The anti-Trump sentiment is very strong, with most all Dem potentials currently leading against Trump, but it won't last, because it has no foundation to stand on.

 

One wonders how something seemingly so strong can have no real foundation.

It's like they're just looking for a reason to hate him, and desperately so.
Each thing good he does just makes them more angry.

 

Thoughtful thread but I didn't read everything,

Right about Kamala's smile, It grows on a person quickly.

 

For Dems, it's all about power, their power. How to get it, how to maintain it, and how to use it against anyone that threatens it. That's why they hate Trump so much, not because of anything he does, but because he stands in the way of their thirst for power.

For the general population, mostly the millenials, it's all about the indoctrination they've been receiving in K-12 and so-called "higher" education. They've been trained to think one way, and have become blind to anything that exists outside of the liberal dogma they've been taught. "Orange man is bad" is about the limit of their political acumen.

 

I see that the NYC Mayor got in.

Another waste of money

 

Montana: Steve Bullock

While Montana's Jon Tester is fighting for his life for another term in the Senate, the Democrats have another man in that state who has won the hearts of a very different kind of Democrat and many Republicans.

That was edited for content because I figured he would not join the race. The second-term Governor, age 53, joined on Tuesday, 21st politician in the race and qualified.
The fact people are still joining the race shows that no one is afraid of Joe Biden.
Governors of course have less time to run so Bullock needs fast results in Iowa or New Hampshire, then Nevada. He might get good numbers if he plays his cards right.
Bullock may attempt to reach Republicans and Independents as well as the Democrats furthest to the right. No one really likes the President, but Democratic policies are so repulsive you can't vote for them, unless someone seems so much like a Republican it becomes like a good Republican or Independent. Bullock can seek that angle and get good numbers in Iowa and/or New Hampshire.
He should divide his time evenly over the 2 states, since a near win in Iowa is worth little in New Hampshire, but a poor Iowa finish is instantly forgotten with good New Hampshire numbers.
What has to happen is for him to eliminate Bennet, Hickenlooper and Inslee right away, getting perhaps a total of 30 of 200 out of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Then in Nevada maybe Harris does not dominate and Castro can't flourish within his ethnic niche. That leaves him fighting Bernie and Biden for the top.
If he finishes ahead of either of them once in the first 3 contests Bullock can then attempt to charm the south. We don't know what method he may use, but guns and hate might make him the top white vote getter. If he can stay ahead of Booker overall and overtake Biden before super Tuesday he might emerge as the leader and coast to victory. (Biden surely will not keep fighting from behind and the younger candidates probably won't.
Bullock can win and I thank him for giving Montana a voice in the race.

 

Before I confirmed Bullock's entry New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio joined the race Thursday.
He joins Swalwell, Moulton, O'Rourke and Bennet in the bad taste candidacy category. He starts as the worst of the 5 because Kirsten Gillibrand is more likely to win than any of the other candidates whose states are doubly represented.
Winning is not likely, but eliminating some big names is possible.
Most importantly, he'll be an automatic favorite for Governor next time and then for President. He has a long way to go but all the media centers are at his fingertips and that's a head start some of the best will never have.
There's a compelling family story that reaches a lot of hearts. There's a culture somehow not represented among the other 21 candidates.
He certainly outranks the other 3 Mayors and New York City has a population close to Colorado and Washington state, so in executive ability he can claim he's at the top. You can't beat NYC for diversity.
No one has ever gone direct from Mayor to President and Grover Cleveland was Mayor of Buffalo not New York City, but this race has much in common with 1972 when Mayor Lindsay was on some ballots and got few votes and another New Yorker did better but came in far from first.
It may play out the same.
DeBlasio has no natural constituency in Iowa or New Hampshire, not much in Nevada and will have a lot of work to do to get anything from the south or west. Can he even outflank Booker for urban cities, and if so where does he think that will get him an early victory? Massachusetts is possible only if Moulton and Warren both flop immediately. California is in play only if Swalwell and Harris both fail horribly.
The date of New York's primary is still in doubt, but even a solitary win in early March in your home state does not make you a contender.
I can predict only a hasty exit, maybe before the first vote.