Democrats 2020

[Politesse]

With so many candidates competing for the nomination, the most likely Democratic candidates will be those who stand out at the beginning of the primary season. Traditionally, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have been the first states to hold primaries, so hopeful candidates tend to compete fiercely for wins in those primaries. However,  Super Tuesday primaries are increasingly more important in recent times, because they are seen as an indicator of appeal in a nationwide election, not just a small state where local issues (like corn in Iowa) get most of the attention.

The viability of Kamala Harris has been rising steadily, so she will now become the focus of Republican attacks and Russian troll farms. But she gets a much bigger boost from the fact that California (with 55 electoral votes) will now be in Super Tuesday. Since California is on the West Coast, it seldom makes a difference in presidential elections. Those are usually over by the time California's votes get counted. However, the early primary voting (ballots mailed in February & voting on March 3) seems likely to give Harris a huge boost in public perception of her viability.

Interestingly enough, her support in California is a bit lackluster. I mean, we'll probably vote for her, but it might not be the landslide endorsement you would hope for from your home state. When it comes down to it, I think a lot of Californians consider "Senator from California" to be a more important role than "POTUS", and are if nothing else a bit annoyed that she served such a short term in the former role before making a bid for the White House. I know I am.

 

[Terrell]

Not a fan of Harris.

Man behind bars 2 years after judge orders release
Daniel Larsen was found 'actually innocent' of carrying a concealed knife, but the attorney general's appeal is keeping him in prison, claiming that he missed a key deadline.
August 21, 2012|By Victoria Kim and Weston Phippen, Los Angeles Times

Daniel Larsen was in a California prison serving a life sentence when he received the news he had awaited more than a decade. A federal court in Los Angeles had thrown out his conviction for carrying a concealed knife.
Two judges concluded that jurors who convicted Larsen would never have found him guilty had they heard from additional witnesses who saw a different man with the knife. Larsen's attorney, who has since been disbarred, failed to adequately investigate the case and identify the witnesses before the trial, the judges found.
But two years after he was supposed to be released, Larsen remains behind bars while the California attorney general appeals the decision. The state's main argument: He did not file his legal paperwork seeking release on time.
California Atty. Gen.Kamala D. Harris, whose office maintains that evidence still points to Larsen's guilt, accuses him and his attorneys of filing a petition seeking his release more than six years after he was legally required to do so. Prosecutors question whether the judges had the authority to hear Larsen's petition for release.


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/21/local/la-me-innocent-20120821

IMO it shouldn't matter if you file your paperwork late, if there's evidence that you are innocent. If it results in more convicts appealing their convictions, that's too bad. Some of them might actually be innocent some not, but I think they should be allowed to submit their evidence regardless of the passage of time.

 

[poster]

Not a fan of Harris.

Man behind bars 2 years after judge orders release
Daniel Larsen was found 'actually innocent' of carrying a concealed knife, but the attorney general's appeal is keeping him in prison, claiming that he missed a key deadline.
August 21, 2012|By Victoria Kim and Weston Phippen, Los Angeles Times

Daniel Larsen was in a California prison serving a life sentence when he received the news he had awaited more than a decade. A federal court in Los Angeles had thrown out his conviction for carrying a concealed knife.
Two judges concluded that jurors who convicted Larsen would never have found him guilty had they heard from additional witnesses who saw a different man with the knife. Larsen's attorney, who has since been disbarred, failed to adequately investigate the case and identify the witnesses before the trial, the judges found.
But two years after he was supposed to be released, Larsen remains behind bars while the California attorney general appeals the decision. The state's main argument: He did not file his legal paperwork seeking release on time.
California Atty. Gen.Kamala D. Harris, whose office maintains that evidence still points to Larsen's guilt, accuses him and his attorneys of filing a petition seeking his release more than six years after he was legally required to do so. Prosecutors question whether the judges had the authority to hear Larsen's petition for release.


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/21/local/la-me-innocent-20120821

IMO it shouldn't matter if you file your paperwork late, if there's evidence that you are innocent. If it results in more convicts appealing their convictions, that's too bad. Some of them might actually be innocent some not, but I think they should be allowed to submit their evidence regardless of the passage of time.

I wouldn't want her as a mother. The same goes for Klobuchar. Too rigid.

 

[Sarpedon]

Fortunately, they are not running for mother.

 

[Politesse]

Fortunately, they are not running for mother.

Indeed, the Freudian implications of such a statement in reference to a political office are interesting.

Would you want her for a Father?

 

[Copernicus]

With so many candidates competing for the nomination, the most likely Democratic candidates will be those who stand out at the beginning of the primary season. Traditionally, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have been the first states to hold primaries, so hopeful candidates tend to compete fiercely for wins in those primaries. However,  Super Tuesday primaries are increasingly more important in recent times, because they are seen as an indicator of appeal in a nationwide election, not just a small state where local issues (like corn in Iowa) get most of the attention.

The viability of Kamala Harris has been rising steadily, so she will now become the focus of Republican attacks and Russian troll farms. But she gets a much bigger boost from the fact that California (with 55 electoral votes) will now be in Super Tuesday. Since California is on the West Coast, it seldom makes a difference in presidential elections. Those are usually over by the time California's votes get counted. However, the early primary voting (ballots mailed in February & voting on March 3) seems likely to give Harris a huge boost in public perception of her viability.

Interestingly enough, her support in California is a bit lackluster. I mean, we'll probably vote for her, but it might not be the landslide endorsement you would hope for from your home state. When it comes down to it, I think a lot of Californians consider "Senator from California" to be a more important role than "POTUS", and are if nothing else a bit annoyed that she served such a short term in the former role before making a bid for the White House. I know I am.

The article mentions this as a problem for Harris--the perception that a lackluster endorsement from the voters in her state would tend to reduce her viability for the nomination. That might be true for the Democratic nomination, but it wouldn't matter as much in the general election. Because California is so solidly blue, strong enthusiasm from California voters matters more to Democrats than to the general voting public. That said, I certainly agree with your point about not serving out at least one term as a senator. I think that Obama suffered from the same problem, but he did manage to become a pretty good President. And there is always the example of Abraham Lincoln, who only served one term in the House of Representatives before becoming one of our best Presidents.

I hadn't thought of Harris in terms of her appeal as a mother, but I suppose that some voters have a need to be mothered.

 

[poster]

I think what I hope for in our politics is a reduction of strategic, black/white mindset with fresh ideas and a fresh perspective. I'm hoping females would provide that. I'm not hopeful that soccer mom types will provide it though.

 

[poster]

I hadn't thought of Harris in terms of her appeal as a mother, but I suppose that some voters have a need to be mothered.

Haha!
Excellent! Condescension is your specialty.

 

[lpetrich]

About Kamala Harris's record as District Attorney and Attorney General, I have two thoughts as to how this could play out.

1. Kamala Harris and her defenders could do some hippie-punching, like what Bill Clinton did with Sister Souljah. Like brag about how the Democratic base hates her because she is so tough on crime.

2. Republican trolls could argue that she is dangerously tough on crime, thus denying one of their long-time positions.

 

[Politesse]

With so many candidates competing for the nomination, the most likely Democratic candidates will be those who stand out at the beginning of the primary season. Traditionally, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have been the first states to hold primaries, so hopeful candidates tend to compete fiercely for wins in those primaries. However,  Super Tuesday primaries are increasingly more important in recent times, because they are seen as an indicator of appeal in a nationwide election, not just a small state where local issues (like corn in Iowa) get most of the attention.

The viability of Kamala Harris has been rising steadily, so she will now become the focus of Republican attacks and Russian troll farms. But she gets a much bigger boost from the fact that California (with 55 electoral votes) will now be in Super Tuesday. Since California is on the West Coast, it seldom makes a difference in presidential elections. Those are usually over by the time California's votes get counted. However, the early primary voting (ballots mailed in February & voting on March 3) seems likely to give Harris a huge boost in public perception of her viability.

Interestingly enough, her support in California is a bit lackluster. I mean, we'll probably vote for her, but it might not be the landslide endorsement you would hope for from your home state. When it comes down to it, I think a lot of Californians consider "Senator from California" to be a more important role than "POTUS", and are if nothing else a bit annoyed that she served such a short term in the former role before making a bid for the White House. I know I am.

The article mentions this as a problem for Harris--the perception that a lackluster endorsement from the voters in her state would tend to reduce her viability for the nomination. That might be true for the Democratic nomination, but it wouldn't matter as much in the general election. Because California is so solidly blue, strong enthusiasm from California voters matters more to Democrats than to the general voting public. That said, I certainly agree with your point about not serving out at least one term as a senator. I think that Obama suffered from the same problem, but he did manage to become a pretty good President. And there is always the example of Abraham Lincoln, who only served one term in the House of Representatives before becoming one of our best Presidents.

I hadn't thought of Harris in terms of her appeal as a mother, but I suppose that some voters have a need to be mothered.

Oh, yeah. Should she survive the primaries, I'm certain we'll close ranks. We also have a very special interest in voting Trump out of office, given his open disdain for our state. Even his own supporters in our state; he barely managed sympathy over the catastrophic destruction of Paradise. I mean, he got the fucking name of the town wrong. These were, the dead and displaced, mostly people who had voted for him. For most of the rest of us, he hates us and the feeling is mutual. We'd vote for a baboon to avoid voting for him, let alone a capable politician who we for the most part like and voted into her current office by a comfortable margin.

The question is more how the primaries will go. I honestly have no idea what to predict, or on what basis.

 

[Copernicus]

...

The question is more how the primaries will go. I honestly have no idea what to predict, or on what basis.

Agreed. However, it does look very likely that Harris will win all 55 votes from California at a relatively early point in the competition. What it comes down to is winning delegate votes.

Right now, Biden's lead appears to be fading. If Sanders jumps in, that will likely let the air out of the campaigns of other aspirants for the so-called "socialist" wing of the Party--e.g. Warren. I can't really see Sanders as playing any role in the process other than that of a spoiler. So, at this point, I'm seeing Harris as the front runner. Of course, we have a whole year to go before the primaries start, so a lot will probably change over the next 12 months. Being the front runner now could be a disadvantage.

 

[Politesse]

...

The question is more how the primaries will go. I honestly have no idea what to predict, or on what basis.

Agreed. However, it does look very likely that Harris will win all 55 votes from California at a relatively early point in the competition. What it comes down to is winning delegate votes.

Right now, Biden's lead appears to be fading. If Sanders jumps in, that will likely let the air out of the campaigns of other aspirants for the so-called "socialist" wing of the Party--e.g. Warren. I can't really see Sanders as playing any role in the process other than that of a spoiler. So, at this point, I'm seeing Harris as the front runner. Of course, we have a whole year to go before the primaries start, so a lot will probably change over the next 12 months. Being the front runner now could be a disadvantage.

Well, "President Harris" sounds good.

 

[Terrell]

...

The question is more how the primaries will go. I honestly have no idea what to predict, or on what basis.

Agreed. However, it does look very likely that Harris will win all 55 votes from California at a relatively early point in the competition. What it comes down to is winning delegate votes.

Right now, Biden's lead appears to be fading. If Sanders jumps in, that will likely let the air out of the campaigns of other aspirants for the so-called "socialist" wing of the Party--e.g. Warren. I can't really see Sanders as playing any role in the process other than that of a spoiler. So, at this point, I'm seeing Harris as the front runner. Of course, we have a whole year to go before the primaries start, so a lot will probably change over the next 12 months. Being the front runner now could be a disadvantage.

No, she'd have to utterly destroy the other Dems in CA during the primary to get all the pledged delegates as they're awarded proportionally. It's the general election where most states (except ME & NE) are winner take all. Number of delegates to win nomination is different than number of Electors required to win the general election.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/16/democrats-have-wide-open-2020-race-partys-nominee-and-direction/2568180002/

 

[Toni]

Gabbard has no chance, not after she was painted as a russian agent.
American Establishment is hell bent on Making Cold War Great Again.

I actually hadn't heard the russian agent allegation but that doesn't even crack the top 10 reasons I'd never consider voting for her.

OK, let's hear your 10 reasons.

1. She's expressed some homophobic sentiments in the past. I'm not certain that they are 'in the past.'
2. Her prolife stances. Again: maybe they're in the past. Maybe they are just conveniently no longer important.
3. She's been endorsed by David Duke. Sure, she rejected that endorsement and sure, it could be a set up to tarnish her but still...
4. Her Islamophobia
5. She endorsed Bernie Sanders, resigning her position to do so.
6. She endorsed Keith Ellison
7. She's had some run ins with the ethics committee re: her meeting with Assad and also her self-promotion using images while in uniform.
8. Her ties with the Hare Krishnas is concerning
9. Her dedication to religious freedom/freedom from religion is.....questionable/transactional.
10. Everything in her career seems calculated and at the same time, to be indicative of sloppy thinking and a great deal of transactional positioning. I see nothing sincere or hard working or thoughtful about her.

I think she's pretty and she's pretty ambitious. I think she's very transactional and is ready to take whatever position will move her towards greater power. I think if she were not so pretty, she would never have been elected and I think she rests on her physical attributes and her military career in lieu of actual...rigor or accomplishment. I don't think she's a deep or careful thinker and she's not nearly detail oriented enough to be effective at....anything other than being a spokesperson. I think she'd make a fine spokesperson for somebody but who would that be, exactly? And why wouldn't we simply elect that person instead of the pretty girl?

I honestly don't understand why anyone takes her seriously at all. To me, she's rather the equivalent of a Democratic or 'Democratic' Sarah Palin. Blech.

 

[Copernicus]

...

The question is more how the primaries will go. I honestly have no idea what to predict, or on what basis.

Agreed. However, it does look very likely that Harris will win all 55 votes from California at a relatively early point in the competition. What it comes down to is winning delegate votes.

Right now, Biden's lead appears to be fading. If Sanders jumps in, that will likely let the air out of the campaigns of other aspirants for the so-called "socialist" wing of the Party--e.g. Warren. I can't really see Sanders as playing any role in the process other than that of a spoiler. So, at this point, I'm seeing Harris as the front runner. Of course, we have a whole year to go before the primaries start, so a lot will probably change over the next 12 months. Being the front runner now could be a disadvantage.

No, she'd have to utterly destroy the other Dems in CA during the primary to get all the pledged delegates as they're awarded proportionally. It's the general election where most states (except ME & NE) are winner take all. Number of delegates to win nomination is different than number of Electors required to win the general election.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/16/democrats-have-wide-open-2020-race-partys-nominee-and-direction/2568180002/

It is almost certain that she will win a large majority of the delegates in California, given her knowledge of statewide elections and her existing campaign machinery. Outsiders will need to set up expensive campaign organizations from scratch both there and in Texas, the two states likely to draw the most attention early on. There is no major competition from any other native Californian. Unless she suffers serious setbacks in her public image over the next 12 months--and that is a distinct possibility--I just don't see any other major candidate as getting much traction in California. But all we can do is speculate at this point. Her chance of capturing most or all of those delegates looks pretty good to me right now. She has already won a statewide general election there. None of her competitors will have that going for them.

 

[Terrell]

No, she'd have to utterly destroy the other Dems in CA during the primary to get all the pledged delegates as they're awarded proportionally. It's the general election where most states (except ME & NE) are winner take all. Number of delegates to win nomination is different than number of Electors required to win the general election.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/16/democrats-have-wide-open-2020-race-partys-nominee-and-direction/2568180002/

It is almost certain that she will win a large majority of the delegates in California, given her knowledge of statewide elections and her existing campaign machinery. Outsiders will need to set up expensive campaign organizations from scratch both there and in Texas, the two states likely to draw the most attention early on. There is no major competition from any other native Californian. Unless she suffers serious setbacks in her public image over the next 12 months--and that is a distinct possibility--I just don't see any other major candidate as getting much traction in California. But all we can do is speculate at this point. Her chance of capturing most or all of those delegates looks pretty good to me right now. She has already won a statewide general election there. None of her competitors will have that going for them.

We don't know what scrutiny will be put to her in both the traditional media & social media. We don't know how negative these things will be. We also don't know what so-called "independent" organizations are going to spend money and on whose behalf. They don't have to disclose their donors, nor do they have to coordinate with the candidate of their choice. I think we should wait & see before we give her all or even more than roughly half, of the delegates.

 

[Copernicus]

...
We don't know what scrutiny will be put to her in both the traditional media & social media. We don't know how negative these things will be. We also don't know what so-called "independent" organizations are going to spend money and on whose behalf. They don't have to disclose their donors, nor do they have to coordinate with the candidate of their choice. I think we should wait & see before we give her all or even more than roughly half, of the delegates.

I don't see myself as giving her anything, especially since I'm not a Californian. I was just talking about how things look to me at this point in time. That is, I was saying why I consider her the current front runner. I certainly agree with your other points that there are a lot of things that could go wrong for her.

 

[ZiprHead]

OK, let's hear your 10 reasons.

1. She's expressed some homophobic sentiments in the past. I'm not certain that they are 'in the past.'
2. Her prolife stances. Again: maybe they're in the past. Maybe they are just conveniently no longer important.
3. She's been endorsed by David Duke. Sure, she rejected that endorsement and sure, it could be a set up to tarnish her but still...
4. Her Islamophobia
5. She endorsed Bernie Sanders, resigning her position to do so.
6. She endorsed Keith Ellison
7. She's had some run ins with the ethics committee re: her meeting with Assad and also her self-promotion using images while in uniform.
8. Her ties with the Hare Krishnas is concerning
9. Her dedication to religious freedom/freedom from religion is.....questionable/transactional.
10. Everything in her career seems calculated and at the same time, to be indicative of sloppy thinking and a great deal of transactional positioning. I see nothing sincere or hard working or thoughtful about her.

I think she's pretty and she's pretty ambitious. I think she's very transactional and is ready to take whatever position will move her towards greater power. I think if she were not so pretty, she would never have been elected and I think she rests on her physical attributes and her military career in lieu of actual...rigor or accomplishment. I don't think she's a deep or careful thinker and she's not nearly detail oriented enough to be effective at....anything other than being a spokesperson. I think she'd make a fine spokesperson for somebody but who would that be, exactly? And why wouldn't we simply elect that person instead of the pretty girl?

I honestly don't understand why anyone takes her seriously at all. To me, she's rather the equivalent of a Democratic or 'Democratic' Sarah Palin. Blech.

I heard someone describe her as a "Glen Greenwald Libertarian".

 

[southernhybrid]

Bernie announced he's running at 7AM EST this morning.

 

[TSwizzle]

Bernie announced he's running at 7AM EST this morning.

Where, Venezuela?