Perry Bacon Jr. has engaged in a fun exercise for us to consider as the workweek comes to an end. He’s created criteria that we can used to judge whether someone is serious about running for president in 2020. The metrics chosen make a lot of sense. Here’s the methodology, which includes writing a book, having someone write a major magazine profile including an interview, campaigning on behalf of candidates running for election this year, visiting all three of the first primary and caucus states, and being included in a poll:
Visits to Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire include formal political events only, including scheduled visits that haven’t happened yet. Candidates count as having a book out if they have published a book or are scheduled to publish a book during the 2018 election cycle. For polls, we’re counting any national, nonpartisan primary surveys that include the potential candidate. A national profile is defined as a piece in The Atlantic, New York magazine, The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine or Time that is more than 1,000 words long and includes an interview with the potential candidate. Campaigning is defined as participating in an event for a gubernatorial or Senate candidate.
The only variable I don’t agree with is the poll, because you can be quite serious about running for president and still have pollsters not understand this when they put their survey in the field. In any case, Bernie Sanders has checked off every box and Joe Biden only needs to visit Iowa to complete his list.
The are some interesting things to note, like the candidates who have already made visits to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina: Sen. Bernie Sanders, Montana Governor Steve Bullock, Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, lawyer Michael Avenatti, Sen. Jeff Merkley, 2016 candidate Martin O’Malley, and Rep. Eric Swalwell.
More commonly mentioned candidates have some work to do in this area. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris have not yet visited any of the early states and Sen. Cory Booker still hasn’t made a trip to New Hampshire or written a campaign book. Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro has not been in South Carolina and is still lacking a magazine profile.
It’s also notable that there isn’t much sign of life on the right. Ryan has visited early states in his capacity as Speaker; Sen. Jeff Flake and Ohio Governor John Kasich haven’t been in Iowa or South Carolina, and the only items Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse has checked off are a visit to neighboring Iowa and the book.
In any case, there are some names on the list that I didn’t expect and some activity I had not previously detected, so I found the article informative and interesting.
See anyone who is active that looks intriguing?
You write:
Yes.
HRC, Schumer, Pelosi, Perez and the rest of the DemRat political control system.
Not because they’ll be running, of course. But they will essentially have a very large say who is going to win the nomination…just as they did in 2016.
Why? Because if they manage to stay in control of the DNC and its monies…an open question at the moment, one that depends a great deal on the results of the November election…they will once again force another neocentrist candidate on the party. Probably Biden if he remains healthy looking. Biden and some identity politics vice-prez.
If the Dems take a licking in November…even if they just break even…things might change.
Until then?
DNC business as usual…the business of losing, ever since 2010. Even though Obama won in 2012, the Dems started their decline in that 2010 midterm.
All the “Pick ’em!!!” games in the world won’t mean a goddamned thing.
Just more of the same time-wasting media clickbait scams.
Sad…
AG
“lawyer Michael Avenatti”
“Malignant Narcissist Shyster Michael Avenatti.”
There. Fixed it for you.
Not a single one. I am not surprised that neither party has much to offer though. The GOP won’t dare challenge Trump and the Democrats haven’t nurtured a deep bench.
Is this what gerontocracy looks like?
I like Eric Swalwell. He’s intelligent, knowledgable, personable, articulate, young and good looking.
For now I’m backing Gillibrand assuming she runs. I wanted her to run in `16. I think she’s got what it takes, has great political instincts, and she responds to pressure. I opposed her appointment to the Senate because of how conservative she was in the House, but she adjusted nicely to represent statewide. She was ahead of other politicians on sexual assault issues, particularly with the military, and you can tell it’s sincere.
If you are asking me who the best candidate to run to beat Trump, I think Kamala Harris would destroy him. I think she needs more time in the Senate, though. I still think overall Obama was the best of `08, but I think he still needed more time to develop.
As far as vision, Sanders is hitting all the right notes but he’s just too old. But he’s the only one who’s really talking about the rise of authoritarianism and fascism and connecting it to global oligarchy. I hope whoever wins takes some of his advisors in their WH. We need to reorient away from the War on Terror and focus on governance. Droning terrorists isn’t making us safe, propping up dictators in the name of stability isn’t making us safe and continues to rack up hundreds of thousands in body count.
Not Warren?
Prefer her in the Senate. But yes you’re right, she’s also hitting similar notes to Bernie. Her ideas are also better. Need to hear more of her on FP.
Sanders Speech at SAIS: Building A Global Democratic Movement to Counter Authoritarianism
I’ll take Door Number Three, Monty. [DING! DING! DING!]
“Why is that?”
Because he and his entire BRP* are fully committed allies in that attack on American democracy, since their actual program consigns them to permanent minority status in a functional democracy, but they’d rather cling to power, so they cheat. And yes, the power Trump wants to illegitimately cling to is that of an autocratic dictator, à la Putin. A white supremacist fascist.
Though I think an unhealthy admixture of #2 is virtually certain (indeed, arguably already proven beyond a reasonable doubt). And certainly #1 also applies since it’s generally true wrt Trump re: everything.
*Banana Republican Party
P.S. Thx for posting that. Nice to see a fresh update on what Bernie’s saying about this stuff. I’m oaguabonita, and I approve (t)his message. Not convinced he’s the Dems’ best standard-bearer to carry it forward in 2020, but then someone else would need to adopt at least the main elements of it to be better, imo. We don’t need to lose with the right message. We need to win. We especially need to win big with the right message, then the right follow-through.
It’s not about making you safe. It’s about making money for corporations.
Hey I’m not disagreeing there, Trump continues to say the quiet parts out loud with regard to KSA. But also, notice the second part there: propping up dictators. That means Assad and apologetics for him, of which the left is chock full of lately, and you’ve spread conspiracy theories on here about. Propping them up causes the instability. We need to stop it. Same with Egypt and Sisi. We need moral clarity or the international order is going to collapse to dictators and fascists.
Respectfully, I think we should keep our nose out of other people’s governments. Giving asylum to refugees and dissidents is one thing. Bombing people because they support the “wrong” government is another. Didn’t we learn our lesson in VietNam?
If, like the pirates on the Horn of Africa, US vessels or citizens are attacked, that’s different, but “XYZ is a vicious dictator so let’s send troops and install ABC as the new dictator that, just incidentally now, gives concessions to US oil companies”. If mass massacres like Ruanda are occurring, we should join with other countries under UN auspices to stop the slaughter of civilians. Oh, wait, that didn’t happen. so sad. No oil in Ruanda.
It is absolutely our business when tyrants and dictators are oppressing the masses. You’re arguing that we shouldn’t have a foreign policy, that if we just ignore problems that they go away, or other people will take care of it. By allowing Assad to declare total war on unarmed and peaceful protestors in 2011-2012, we set the stage for the conflagration we currently see. He would have lost multiple times, but then other imperial powers intervened on his behalf.
There needs to be a balancing between imperial wars of aggression George Bush style, and responsibility to protect. We didn’t want to get involved and Obama tried keeping us out, but we will be there forever because we aren’t getting to the root of the governance problem and would prefer to focus on droning terrorists. You cite Rwanda, but hundreds of thousands of people have been exterminated in Assad’s campaign to control territory. You act like the powers that be cared about toppling Assad for resources, but it is the precise opposite, and he/his family staying in power serves our interests.
US military document reveals how the West opposed a democratic Syria
What ended up happening was even worse. Choosing to try and put pressure on regime to come to table by mildly funding rebels was the worst option, extending the war for years.
Keep in mind that my own history on this issue isn’t good, and I was with Obama in real time. I suppose that’s not totally accurate because I cheered the people of Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria when they first rose up. I wanted negotiated settlement and for the regime leaders all to step down, but I was against military means to do it since as the military assessment says, there was a risk of it spiraling out of control.
Well, it spiraled out of control anyway, and the refugee crisis that happened as a result is one of the main pressure points for rising global fascism. Hard to ignore that we are worse off for it. Just as the architects of Iraq should come to terms with their failure, so should we.
We created another pressure point with our invasion of Iraq and our presence in Afghanistan resulting in millions of refugees fleeing west. Many Iraqis ended up in Syria where the dominoes fell all the way to Scandinavia with waves of thousands of desperate refugees fleeing the Middle East violence heading to Greece, central Europe and beyond..
Yes, and Iran is taking advantage of our wars in Afghanistan and sending refugees we create (although Iran is also fighting a war on terror there as well) over to the Syrian border to fight on behalf of Assad.
The Intercept — Iran Is Sending Afghan Children to Fight for Assad in Syria
. . . Just Keeps on Giving! (See also: origins of Islamic State)
Now all she has to do is throw a couple more fellow Democrats under the bus, and she’s in like Flynn!
Thank you, no. I prefer my Madame Defarges on the other side.
Fuck Al Franken and his defenders. No one told him to play grabass. But of course, go after the woman for calling for accountability — especially when it wasn’t just Gillibrand, but a caucus-wide effort.
. . . Gillibrand attackers) are probably not representative of Franken hizownself. When it came down to it, he went on his own volition, seemingly resigned to the necessity of it. I presume he sees some unfairness to it, but he took one for the cause, which I still think was the right thing to do (and I’m guessing he’d agree).
Still guessing (trying to put myself in Franken’s head, which of course I can’t actually do) he’d view the unfairness in the relative innocuousness (stipulating: still stupid, sophomoric, offensive, and wrong) of what he did relative to vast quantities of far more severe offenses done with impunity (can you say Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief? I knew you could!) by Banana Republicans (and some Dems, though at orders-of-magnitude less frequency and severity). And also as weighed against all the good he was doing as Senator versus all the evil being done by those Banana Republicans guilty of much worse done with impunity.
But I think he knew he had to go and, for the most part, exited with grace. Which is another reason I still greatly admire him and am sorry to have lost his representation from the Senate. His replacement seems so far to be doing fine, so that helps some.
Acknowledging again, I’m doing a lot of projection here from my impression of Franken, most/all of which could be completely wrong. But I doubt jsrtheta speaks for Al. And I obviously disagree with “Fuck Al Franken”.
I’m angry at him for being so stupid and putting himself in that position. He was one of our best Senators. I’m not a believer that people are irreplaceable, but when it all came out I was distraught because I knew he had to go. He recognized that, and unlike Kavanaugh and the Republicans, he stepped down and did what was right for the rest of us. But there are a lot of people who blame Gillibrand for it, and I won’t stand for that.
We have zero evidence regarding Franken. The so-called incriminating video wasn’t. He’s a comedian. It didn’t move me. Elderly female speaking here. That he resigned without pursuing a fight isn’t in his favor. That much of his opposition could be construed as people who opposed his shake it up Senate policies, makes sense to me.
Like Mark Udall, who had no sexual harassment accusations, I think they are both out of the Senate because they opposed much of what the Democrats in the Senate were doing.
What an absolute crock of shit.
You’re reliably unreasonable and unpleasant. I stated my opinion. You don’t like it. That doesn’t make it a crock of anything.
So first there was a conspiracy to coordinate numerous women to accuse Franken of inappropriate behavior and THEN there was a conspiracy among Democrats to run him out of the Senate because Franken “opposed much of what the Democrats in the senate were doing”.
So you manage to pack two conspiracy theories and a fairly ridiculous lie into one post. Crock of shit is too charitable.
I’m pretty sure you want Defarge on your side. Or probably just not have anything to do with her at all.
It will be Biden. The nomination is fixed. We saw this 2016. Participating in the primaries is a feel good exercise that has no effect on the actual nomination.
Goldman-Sachs picks the candidates and no one, but no one, is more in the bag for the banks than Biden.
Srsly? He’s an interesting man but a no-good terrible very bad candidate. I don’t see him having the lock on traditional Democratic support that Hillary held. He’s got name recognition, but it’s not going to go well when he climbs on a stage with Harris or Gillibrand or Klobuchar, and he goes from gaffe to gaffe like most people go from dinner to dessert. I just don’t see it.
Biden far and away ahead in the polls
. . . look up all available historic polling data on Dem presidential nominee preference 2+ years out from Election; also how many of those polling ahead 2+ years out ended up the nominee.
Report back.
Pretty sure the result will be enlightening (i.e., confirming that this far out, it’s almost entirely name recognition, not preference, that’s being measured, with near-zero relevance to the actual eventual outcome).
I’ll take Biden seriously if/when he actually wins a primary.
Think Biden will step out and take the donald’s abuse for the team. If you want run, you do not want to start out on the defense. The donald is just waiting to give a Dem some catchy foul nick name. The Dem running got to be able push back effectively day one. Our candidate has got to put the donald on defense.
And I would hope it would be someone new and young and assertive. Perhaps O’Rourke if he loses in TX? He doesn’t pussyfoot around when asked questions and has the fresh, new excitement I think Democrats yearn for. Sort of a southern white version of Obama, but less “politic,” which is fine with me
I think Harris for this? At least, I find her super-appealing … long as I don’t dwell on her prosecutorial background.
In my heart I’m all Warren, but if Harris manages to beat the ‘Willie Brown’s adulterous girlfriend’ attacks, she’s what we need.
Just my opinion but I think that would be a serious defeat — like why even bother? Trump will eat him alive on day one. Whomever the Dems choose had better be prepared to take on the Orange Gibbon. I am not an Avenatti fan but he doesn’t seem,to harbor any fear of Trump and seems to enjoy the prospect of a challenge. We need something like him and frankly no one I heard about here seems able to do it. Why do you feel the fix is in for,Biden?
Not carrying any brief for Biden, but the notion that “Trump will eat him alive on day one” seems pretty close to preposterous. Trump’s deplorables will see it that way no matter what actually happens, of course. But that just means that outcome is pre-determined, hence irrelevant to the question. Dems would be fools to let it influence our choice of nominee.
Sad but true. A new generation of pro-active leadership is necessary to go on the offensive against the reactionist Republican Party. Sadly, if Dems manage to eek out a win, the pathetic leadership will pat themselves on the back and it will be back to business as usual — “bipartisanship” for the moneyed interests…. it should be clear to all that this is the only constituencys of Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer,Feinstein and the rest of the Wall Street weakling crew. What the Dem party is in this year of our devastation 2018 became undeniable to all who cared to look when Obama nominated Tim Geitner. It has all followed from that moment.
Things were simpler in 1984. All we had to do is check the hopefuls hair length to know if they were running.
Elizabeth Warren has taken a DNA test. Maybe Boo should add that to his list of signs of an intended run for the presidency.