Campaign 2020

[Sabin]

Bog wrote
This must be my naïveté regarding what the hell constitutes a "winner", per se, because I come away from both sets of debates (all 4 nights) thinking Cory Booker made zero missteps, always kept his composure, debated amongst fellow candidates without failure, and succeeded with the likability factor more than anyone...sans probably Liz...

I am admittedly a fan, and even moreso post both debates...the fact he isn't gaining ground and also doesn't really have a shot to even be on the ticket outside of a Warren/Booker 2020 run continues to baffle me...if the objective is win at all costs.

Allow me to elaborate.

Cory Booker is a very talented politician. Check out the Oscar-nominated Street Fight to learn more about his first run for Mayor in 2002. He strikes me as someone who probably missed his moment due to timing. He was running for Mayor when he should have been running for Governor. He was running for Senate, when he should have been in his second term. It feels like Cory Booker has been around forever but he's only been in the Senate since 2013 (it would've been 2014 if Lautenberg hadn't died in office). And because Chris Christie was Governor during his term, he wasn't able to fulfill his God-given destiny of becoming Hillary Clinton's running mate. I've said this before but Cory Booker was designed in a lab to be Hillary Clinton's Vice President. He's a good attack dog and cheerleader. I also think he would have been useful to have him on their team when it came to reading the tea leaves about which communities weren't being sufficiently galvanized. I know running mates don't change anything but this election was so close that someone like Cory Booker could've made a difference.

But there are a lot of things about him that scream "Lifestyle Left." He's a vegan. He's a bachelor. He's dating a celebrity. And he doesn't really have a driving personal message. There's nothing like Obama's 2004 DNC speech or Hillary Clinton's drive for healthcare and family care for example. I would even say that Joe Biden's "Fighting for the Soul of America" line comes across as more genuine. For Cory Booker, he's a "Why not?" candidate in a crowded field.

Now that the party has moved into three different directions (Moderates, Progressives, Representation), it's hard to see where Cory Booker fits. Nobody can really pick him as a running mate because they need a woman or a person of color. He won't be Elizabeth Warren's running mate because Progressive Dems don't trust him. Before his Presidential run, he took as much corporate money as anyone else in the party. There is video of him in 2012 defending Mitt Romney's activities with Bain Capital. If Elizabeth Warren picked Cory Booker, it would say more about the convictions of Elizabeth Warren than anything about Cory Booker. As for the other two lanes, they're currently occupied. Joe Biden is the overwhelming choice of the Moderates and Kamala Harris is the overwhelming choice of the Representation Democrats (a name I'm just using at random, but those who believe nominating somebody from a certain group is ultimately essential for protection, and they're not wrong). To some degree, Cory Booker is hanging around hoping that those lanes clear out, hoping that Joe Biden fumbles and he can present as a voice of reason, or Kamala Harris implodes and people of color need a champion. To me, it's just so unlikely that both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris exit the field.

And they would literally have to because right now Cory Booker is polling at 7th in Iowa (2.5%), 9th in New Hampshire (1.3%), 6th in South Carolina (3.3%), 8th in Nevada (2.5%), and 8th in California (1%). I know that we're half a year out from the first primary but my opinion of Cory Booker hasn't changed: I didn't totally know how he thought he could win when he first announced and I still don't, although I'm enjoying him on the stage.

Ironically, the politician he reminds me of the most? Joe Biden, someone who might do pretty well in the general if only he could get through the primary.

[Bog]

This must be my naivete regarding what the hell constitutes a "winner", per se, because I come away from both sets of debates (all 4 nights) thinking Cory Booker made zero missteps, always kept his composure, debated amongst fellow candidates without failure, and succeeded with the likability factor more than anyone...sans probably Liz.

- He is much younger than what we're talking about at the top of the polls in both parties!...but not too young!
- He looks even younger than he is...50!
- He has experience at most all levels of politics
- He speaks fluent Spanish but represents the Northeast
- He is a black man....ahem...but not too black (no good way to convey this I apologize!)
- He is dating Rosario fucking Dawson
- He will be as unfazed and composed as they come debating live v. that Orange debacle somehow running again
- He is arguably the exact antithesis of a ballot that is straight Dem down ticket and blank President vote (the HUGE problem in my state of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, maybe more...

I am admittedly a fan, and even moreso post both debates...the fact he isn't gaining ground and also doesn't really have a shot to even be on the ticket outside of a Warren/Booker 2020 run continues to baffle me...if the objective is win at all costs.

[Big Magilla]

Magilla, are you referring to the first debate or the second debate when you said that Harris was too hard on Biden?

The second.

[Okri]

re: Gillibrand

Sorry, I really wasn't clear. I really didn't think that Gillibrand would fall behind THIS early. Of the seven Sabin cited, It surprises me that Booker is on that list but she isn't.

re: Biden/Harris

Magilla, are you referring to the first debate or the second debate when you said that Harris was too hard on Biden?

[Sabin]

taki15 wrote
Not to offend Sabin's parents but they don't seem to be representative of the Democrats at large, at least according to this guy:

I'm sure they're not. My Mom is voting for Marianne Williamson.

[taki15]

Not to offend Sabin's parents but they don't seem to be representative of the Democrats at large, at least according to this guy:

https://twitter.com/dannybarefoot/statu ... 9902072832

Our focus group’s take on tonight’s debate winner:
Booker/Kamala roughly tied for 1st. Gillibrand and Castro got a handful of votes. One person said Biden.

https://twitter.com/dannybarefoot/statu ... 9691192323

86% of the focus group participants say Gillibrand won the Biden exchange. Brutal night for him.

https://twitter.com/dannybarefoot/statu ... 7117558784

Kamala wins the exchange with Tulsi 65/35.

[Big Magilla]

I never give up hope that the Democrat will win, but it was tough considering that the Republicans had a field day condemning "liberal" Dukakis' weekend furlough program that resulted in convicted killer Willie Horton killing again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton

[Sabin]

So, the big contenders were Michael Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, Paul Simon, and Richard Gephardt. Did you know you were going to lose?

[Big Magilla]

For those who remember 1988: was Michael Dukakis the safe pick?

Not really, but he was pretty dull.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Demo ... _primaries

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
Just FYI: the Russian bot farm spent the hours/days after the debate savaging Kamala. I can't speak to the political sophistication of your family, but this same process got a ton of incorrect info out there in 2016 ("Hillary thinks black people are super-predators"), and many were sure they arrived at their conclusions independently. If noting else, this concerted action certainly tells us who the candidate the Russians most fear is.

I was referring to:
My Dad, who I recently found out that Spotlight and Moonlight are two different movies.
My Mom, who is Team Williamson and describes Twitter as "the one with words, not pictures, right?"
And a few others who are of their ilk.

They're not on Twitter. It's just some unchecked biasses and, honestly, a bad look overall on the debate stage that I was initially more forgiving of than them.

That being said, I share your concerns about Twitter savaging Kamala Harris and people on the left are playing right into the bots' hands. Kamala Harris isn't my favorite candidate by far but she's a very strong contender we'd be foolish to throw away.

For those who remember 1988: was Michael Dukakis the safe pick?

[Big Magilla]

Magilla, a Biden/Klobuchar ticket would thrill Beltway pundits and never-Trumpers down to their bones -- the ultimate vanilla/don't rock any boats team -- but fail miserably at exciting turnout. I'm not saying such a ticket couldn't win -- if Trump is (correctly) seen as bad enough, he could lose to anyone. But I agree with Lichtman that the one way the out-party can influence the outcome of the election is to nominate a candidate with charisma. To my mind, three people on the Dem side have the potential to provide that: Kamala, Booker and Buttigieg.

May Dem voters seem to be buying into the idea that they need to nominate someone "safe". I remind them, the last time they did that, they rallied behind the unexciting-but-unthreatening John Kerry (as opposed to that worrisome Howard Dean). And Kerry is the one Democrat since 1988 to actually lose the popular vote. Coincidence?

As they say, Republicans don't win elections, Democrats lose them. When they lose, it's often because of an unexciting "safe" candidate. The problem with that scenario is that 2020 is not an ordinary election. Getting rid of Trump is the number one priority. The only states in the Democrat's playbook in which that may not be the top priority are the ones they shockingly lost in 2016.

As for Kamala and the Russian bots, this is the first I've heard of that, but I didn't need the bots to tell me what I could see with my own eyes on debate night. Not only did she go too far. in attacking Biden, she couldn't properly defend her own position.

[Mister Tee]

Initially I thought that the polls would all show Joe Biden as the loser. Then I started to read them and talk to people in my family and they all had the same takeaway: Kamala Harris went too far. She was too transparent in her attacks on Biden and she couldn't defend her own record sufficiently enough.

Just FYI: the Russian bot farm spent the hours/days after the debate savaging Kamala. I can't speak to the political sophistication of your family, but this same process got a ton of incorrect info out there in 2016 ("Hillary thinks black people are super-predators"), and many were sure they arrived at their conclusions independently. If noting else, this concerted action certainly tells us who the candidate the Russians most fear is.

Magilla, a Biden/Klobuchar ticket would thrill Beltway pundits and never-Trumpers down to their bones -- the ultimate vanilla/don't rock any boats team -- but fail miserably at exciting turnout. I'm not saying such a ticket couldn't win -- if Trump is (correctly) seen as bad enough, he could lose to anyone. But I agree with Lichtman that the one way the out-party can influence the outcome of the election is to nominate a candidate with charisma. To my mind, three people on the Dem side have the potential to provide that: Kamala, Booker and Buttigieg.

May Dem voters seem to be buying into the idea that they need to nominate someone "safe". I remind them, the last time they did that, they rallied behind the unexciting-but-unthreatening John Kerry (as opposed to that worrisome Howard Dean). And Kerry is the one Democrat since 1988 to actually lose the popular vote. Coincidence?

[Big Magilla]

It looks like people came away feeling bad for Joe Biden. I came away thinking "This guy's too old to be doing this."

Both are true. Sadly, if there were anyone younger with enough broad appeal, he wouldn't need to.

[Sabin]

Initially I thought that the polls would all show Joe Biden as the loser. Then I started to read them and talk to people in my family and they all had the same takeaway: Kamala Harris went too far. She was too transparent in her attacks on Biden and she couldn't defend her own record sufficiently enough. My Mom came away from the debates saying she liked Tulsi Gabbard. Then I sent her a few articles about her. When Tulsi Gabbard comes away as more likable than you in a debate, you've made a mistake.

It looks like people came away feeling bad for Joe Biden. I came away thinking "This guy's too old to be doing this."

[Big Magilla]

Gillibrand succeeded up to the point she came at Biden with the same overly aggressive feminist approach to Biden that she took against Al Franken - harping on an old opt-ed neither he nor anyone else remembered.

Overall, though, the anti-Biden stance that many on the stage took was also anti-Obama, a very foolish stance that is only going to hurt them in the short run as well as the long run. The only Democrat on the stage who refused to take the moderators' bait and speak against the others on stage was Amy Klobuchar. She may not have overwhelmed anyone, but she made a good case for being Biden's VP pick.