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

[Defiant]

Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire founder of a business news empire, is preparing to run for president as a Democrat, The Times understands.

Mr Bloomberg, 76, a former mayor of New York with a personal fortune of more than $50 billion, has previously considered running as an independent but decided against it in 2012 for fear of splitting the Democratic vote.

link

[Holman]

Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire founder of a business news empire, is preparing to run for president as a Democrat, The Times understands.

Mr Bloomberg, 76, a former mayor of New York with a personal fortune of more than $50 billion, has previously considered running as an independent but decided against it in 2012 for fear of splitting the Democratic vote.

link

"Billionaire center-right businessman" isn't what the Dems are looking for.

He wouldn't even win New York. This is a Lincoln Chafee or Jim Webb fantasy.

[Max Peck]

On the other hand, it would be novel to see an actual billionaire run for President.

[Defiant]

On the other hand, it would be novel to see an actual billionaire run for President.

[Max Peck]

[Fireball]

Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire founder of a business news empire, is preparing to run for president as a Democrat, The Times understands.

Mr Bloomberg, 76, a former mayor of New York with a personal fortune of more than $50 billion, has previously considered running as an independent but decided against it in 2012 for fear of splitting the Democratic vote.

link

Hard pass.

[El Guapo]

Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire founder of a business news empire, is preparing to run for president as a Democrat, The Times understands.

Mr Bloomberg, 76, a former mayor of New York with a personal fortune of more than $50 billion, has previously considered running as an independent but decided against it in 2012 for fear of splitting the Democratic vote.

link

Hard pass.

Yeah, I don't think Bloomberg is going to get anywhere.

[Carpet_pissr]

As much as I love Joe Biden, IMO the D's really need a hungry, angry (hangry?) youngblood here to stir up the base and get people motivated. One would think liberals AND independents would be highly motivated to vote already given the daily Trump shitshow playing out in front of them (IF they're paying attention, a big 'if'), but why take chances.

I personally think Uncle Joe would be great for the country after 4 years of Trump divisiveness and trash-talking rhetoric, but I've read enough of his writing and heard enough about his character that he's a lock for me. I fully get that most Americans are not that interested in politics, either due to self-comfort, or complete disillusionment.

[Holman]

Biden would be older at his first inauguration than Reagan at his retirement. That's too old.

Sanders is even older.

[GreenGoo]

Biden would be older at his first inauguration than Reagan at his retirement. That's too old.

Sanders is even older.

+1.

Just a reminder that I don't get a vote. Just voicing an opinion.

[Carpet_pissr]

Biden would be older at his first inauguration than Reagan at his retirement. That's too old.

Sanders is even older.

You're throwing the precedent argument out there after the past two years?

Technically, he's not too old:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

Currently there is no max age, but maybe there should be. Would love to hear the AARP lobby go ape shit when THAT bill is introduced.

[Rip]

Biden would be older at his first inauguration than Reagan at his retirement. That's too old.

Sanders is even older.

+1.

Just a reminder that I don't get a vote. Just voicing an opinion.

Thank god.

[El Guapo]

Biden would be older at his first inauguration than Reagan at his retirement. That's too old.

Sanders is even older.

+1.

Just a reminder that I don't get a vote. Just voicing an opinion.

You could lead a collusion conspiracy, though. As far as I know Canadian collusion in U.S. elections is an unclaimed corner so far.

[GreenGoo]

Thank god.

I don't get it.

Are you saying you like Biden for President, or Sanders for President?

I never took you for a socialist.

[Rip]

Thank god.

I don't get it.

Are you saying you like Biden for President, or Sanders for President?

I never took you for a socialist.

No, I was thanking god that you don't get a vote..........

[GreenGoo]

No, I was thanking god that you don't get a vote..........

Oh. See I thought it was because you liked the guys I was speaking against.

[Defiant]

[GreenGoo]

What does "potential candidates" mean? Who decides who's a potential candidate? Are these candidates asked if they are running and they answer noncommittally?

I guess I don't understand what makes a potential candidate in this context, the implication of which is that lots = bad. I understand lots of candidates = bad, I'm just not sure how lots of potential candidates = bad, or even what makes a potential candidate.

How many "potential candidates" did the Dems have in 2014?

You know what, ignore all that. I don't even care. Sorry for the distraction.

[LordMortis]

He's my early favorite. I've been hoping he'd run. I still don't know enough about him but I've yet to see one something I don't like about him ever since I first paid attention to his existence.... OO tells me what was June 4th of this year, in the very thread.

[Defiant]

Seems pretty clear Warren will be running:

Elizabeth Warren releases DNA test with 'strong evidence' of Native American ancestry

[Skinypupy]

Seems pretty clear Warren will be running:

Elizabeth Warren releases DNA test with 'strong evidence' of Native American ancestry

Can't say I'm a fan of doing this. Just ignore the jabs from DOLTUS, don't give them more attention by releasing this info.

It's not like a) he's suddenly going to stop making his stupid comments or b) releasing these details are going to make a lick of difference to the Red Hats.

[Isgrimnur]

As with everything, there is a silent group to whom this might actually move the needle.

[Skinypupy]

As with everything, there is a silent group to whom this might actually move the needle.

Is there though?

My guess is that if you weren't already at Trump's continual "Pocahontas" jabs, then having this sort of DNA evidence wouldn't make much difference.

[Holman]

Trump can keep saying it, but now Warren has a solid and swift rebuttal.

It also supplies the media with an easy correction whenever Trump goes there in a speech.

And of course this is fun:

[El Guapo]

Seems pretty clear Warren will be running:

Elizabeth Warren releases DNA test with 'strong evidence' of Native American ancestry

Can't say I'm a fan of doing this. Just ignore the jabs from DOLTUS, don't give them more attention by releasing this info.

It's not like a) he's suddenly going to stop making his stupid comments or b) releasing these details are going to make a lick of difference to the Red Hats.

No, I'm pretty sure that additional data and evidence will sway any doubters here. After all, who can argue with compelling data? No doubt Trump supporters are, even as we speak, flooding Warren's office with calls to apologize for doubting her on this.

[Unagi]

Lock Her Up!

[Kraken]

Seems pretty clear Warren will be running:

Elizabeth Warren releases DNA test with 'strong evidence' of Native American ancestry

Can't say I'm a fan of doing this. Just ignore the jabs from DOLTUS, don't give them more attention by releasing this info.

It's not like a) he's suddenly going to stop making his stupid comments or b) releasing these details are going to make a lick of difference to the Red Hats.

No, I'm pretty sure that additional data and evidence will sway any doubters here. After all, who can argue with compelling data? No doubt Trump supporters are, even as we speak, flooding Warren's office with calls to apologize for doubting her on this.

Aw, you guys beat me to it. I was going to open a "Go Lizzie!" thread today. (She hates when I call her Lizzie.) It is probably prudent to wait until she wins reelection, though.

1. She's trying to tamp this down the same way Obama took the wind out of Trump's birther sails by releasing his birth cert. The wingnuts still weren't swayed, but birtherism sputtered out after that.

2. I wish she had held off and used it as leverage: "I'll take a DNA test when you release your tax returns" would have been nice turnabout.

3. Trumpsters are never swayed by mere facts, but I think everybody's written them off as hopeless anyway. She did need to swat this down definitively at some point, so maybe it's better to do it before her campaign officially begins.

4. Lizzie doesn't think it's too early to start thinking about 2020.

Naturally, the Colluder-in-Chief has already denied making his $1 million challenge.

[El Guapo]

Seems pretty clear Warren will be running:

Elizabeth Warren releases DNA test with 'strong evidence' of Native American ancestry

Can't say I'm a fan of doing this. Just ignore the jabs from DOLTUS, don't give them more attention by releasing this info.

It's not like a) he's suddenly going to stop making his stupid comments or b) releasing these details are going to make a lick of difference to the Red Hats.

No, I'm pretty sure that additional data and evidence will sway any doubters here. After all, who can argue with compelling data? No doubt Trump supporters are, even as we speak, flooding Warren's office with calls to apologize for doubting her on this.

Aw, you guys beat me to it. I was going to open a "Go Lizzie!" thread today. (She hates when I call her Lizzie.) It is probably prudent to wait until she wins reelection, though.

1. She's trying to tamp this down the same way Obama took the wind out of Trump's birther sails by releasing his birth cert. The wingnuts still weren't swayed, but birtherism sputtered out after that.

2. I wish she had held off and used it as leverage: "I'll take a DNA test when you release your tax returns" would have been nice turnabout.

3. Trumpsters are never swayed by mere facts, but I think everybody's written them off as hopeless anyway. She did need to swat this down definitively at some point, so maybe it's better to do it before her campaign officially begins.

4. Lizzie doesn't think it's too early to start thinking about 2020.

Naturally, the Colluder-in-Chief has already denied making his $1 million challenge.

In general I'm skeptical that anything that Warren does will matter too much on the Pocahontas thing. Trump's base isn't going to vote for Warren regardless, and I suspect that low-information voters outside of his base are mostly just going to be confused about why he's calling this white lady Pocahontas.

Maybe it's best to get as much of it out as early as possible, so that it's an old issue by the time that the campaign starts.

She's 1,000% running, though. Kind of surprised because I had been assuming that she wouldn't run against Bernie, and it seems like Bernie is also running. Maybe by making her ambitions clear early, she can see if she can get Bernie to decline to run against her (in the 'progressive' lane of the primary, anyway).

[hepcat]

Trump can keep saying it, but now Warren has a solid and swift rebuttal.

I can't stand Trump, and I hate that he made this an issue, but I do have to say that Warren is one of those annoying people I've mentioned in the past.

[YellowKing]

There is a certain segment of the population that I call "dumb but persuadable."

IE - if Warren had never released her DNA results, and Trump kept pressing, they might be inclined to believe she's a fraud. But since she released them, they're now inclined to believe she's not a fraud.

They're like sheep, following the herd whichever way the wind blows. I'm guessing Warren wants the wind blowing her way just to be on the safe side.

[LordMortis]

In general I'm skeptical that anything that Warren does will matter too much on the Pocahontas thing. Trump's base isn't going to vote for Warren regardless, and I suspect that low-information voters outside of his base are mostly just going to be confused about why he's calling this white lady Pocahontas.

Maybe it's best to get as much of it out as early as possible, so that it's an old issue by the time that the campaign starts.

She's 1,000% running, though. Kind of surprised because I had been assuming that she wouldn't run against Bernie, and it seems like Bernie is also running. Maybe by making her ambitions clear early, she can see if she can get Bernie to decline to run against her (in the 'progressive' lane of the primary, anyway).

Bernie could not defeat HRC and since had enough exposure on the negative front that he should go.

I like Warren a lot and would support her bid, even with many things I dislike. I wanted her to run 2016. I'm not so sure in 2020. I want a candidate with mass appeal to disillusioned GOPs looking for 100% back turn on the party.

I'm holding hope for wide appeal (and not having skeletons or outrageous policy desires I am unaware of) from Merkley. He remains my early image of what I want to begin the process of putting the pieces back together while not giving an inch to the ongoing GOP government hijack.

[El Guapo]

In general I'm skeptical that anything that Warren does will matter too much on the Pocahontas thing. Trump's base isn't going to vote for Warren regardless, and I suspect that low-information voters outside of his base are mostly just going to be confused about why he's calling this white lady Pocahontas.

Maybe it's best to get as much of it out as early as possible, so that it's an old issue by the time that the campaign starts.

She's 1,000% running, though. Kind of surprised because I had been assuming that she wouldn't run against Bernie, and it seems like Bernie is also running. Maybe by making her ambitions clear early, she can see if she can get Bernie to decline to run against her (in the 'progressive' lane of the primary, anyway).

Bernie could not defeat HRC and since had enough exposure on the negative front that he should go.

I like Warren a lot and would support her bid, even with many things I dislike. I wanted her to run 2016. I'm not so sure in 2020. I want a candidate with mass appeal to disillusioned GOPs looking for 100% back turn on the party.

I'm holding hope for wide appeal (and not having skeletons or outrageous policy desires I am unaware of) from Merkley. He remains my early image of what I want to begin the process of putting the pieces back together while not giving an inch to the ongoing GOP government hijack.

I would prefer Warren to Sanders, although I think Sanders is probably the better campaigner.

[LordMortis]

I would prefer Warren to Sanders, although I think Sanders is probably the better campaigner.

Bernie has had a lot of exposure in the last four years, and too much of it is bad. He'll get out the young vote, which is good but he won't be winning hearts and minds of non voters and fence sitters and GOP voters pleading for and excuse to defect.

I would have happily voted for him based on who he was in my view in 2016. Seeing his inconsistencies through media lens in the last three years, my vote for him 2020 wouldn't be so happy. The makes is hard for me to see how those to the right of me, and more sensitive to word "socialism" would use move his direction.

Warren has a wisdom, is a bulldog, the ability to recall with specificity, and is consistent. They won't use her words against her and will have to actually build a case and in doing so, deny the immense good she's done as a lawmaker and guardian for justice. You would know her campaigning ability, which I do not know at all. That said, I want her in my corner. I just don't know that I want her as the head of executive office at this exact moment in history. Still, while she's not my choice. She's not a bad choice. She was the perfect choice for 2016 but I think the climate is better suited "speak softly with a big stick" and aggressively progressive but not that[/] aggressively progressive. It's hard to express, especially as I really really really wanted her as my president in 2016 before all this shit was exposed and I learned how well the GOP plays the electorate fiddle.

[YellowKing]

I've never liked Sanders and never felt the Bern. So it would be REALLY easy for me to pull the level for Warren over Bernie.

That said, she suffers some of the same problems as Hillary. She's got the "Washington insider" baggage that Trump would exploit to the nines. And while I hate to say it, she's female. While I think a female President is absolutely what this country needs right now, I think there are a lot of otherwise rational folks out there who still don't like the idea of a female in that position of power.

I wish Biden wasn't so old. He'd be perfect. He'd bring back Obama nostalgia, and he's got the wit and tenacity to take down Trump in the debates.

[El Guapo]

I've never liked Sanders and never felt the Bern. So it would be REALLY easy for me to pull the level for Warren over Bernie.

That said, she suffers some of the same problems as Hillary. She's got the "Washington insider" baggage that Trump would exploit to the nines. And while I hate to say it, she's female. While I think a female President is absolutely what this country needs right now, I think there are a lot of otherwise rational folks out there who still don't like the idea of a female in that position of power.

I wish Biden wasn't so old. He'd be perfect. He'd bring back Obama nostalgia, and he's got the wit and tenacity to take down Trump in the debates.

I do worry about running another smart woman politician with limited charisma.

On Biden, though, he's 100% going to run, so you'll very likely have the opportunity to vote for him. His age concerns me, but...as long as he picks a reasonably young competent VP (Booker seems young-ish), I think that's fine.

[El Guapo]

You're not going to believe this, but the conservative media bubble has a take on the DNA test that is not friendly to Warren:



This is part of what makes me skeptical that releasing any data / information on this is going to actually change anything.

[Captain Caveman]

Evidence doesn't stop bad faith arguments. It just makes more of them.

[Kraken]

I still think Bernie would've beaten Trump in 2016, but that's spilt milk not worth rehashing. He is not the right man for '20. Sanders is a pedantic progressive. Warren is a pragmatic progressive who doesn't have the old-man-yelling-at-cloud thing going against her. Warren's politics align closely with mine (she's a little too conservative, but one must adapt) and I hope she goes all the way.

That said, she's the presumptive front-runner before campaigning even begins, and having that target on one's back is not an enviable position. There's only one way she can go from there, and she's got to spend two years preventing it. I hope she spends a year just building her organization and sniping from the sidelines. Let someone else be the lightning rod for awhile.

[LordMortis]

Evidence doesn't stop bad faith arguments. It just makes more of them.

This is my experience. Or more specifically, evidence doesn't stop those bad faith arguers. It just make the louder and will force them to eventually resort to insults with the mistaken self esteem boost that they are somehow clever and funny.

[LordMortis]

(she's a little too conservative, but one must adapt)

We're on opposite sides of Warren. LOL. Her business acumen and in depth understanding of the numbers and the laws around them for which she is engaging is in the midst of her often way over there on resetting the table on college funding are why I don't walk away from the table when she's talking.