2019-2020 US Election Megathread II: Tim Ryan's Empire

[San Lumen]

Yet Sanders has no chance apparently.

Yeah, this new poll is bullshit. Bernie definitely has a realistic shot of winning, while Bullock and Steyer don't.

polling says otherwise

[South Odreria]

Warren comes out ahead in the grassroots class of the fundraising primary

(CNN)Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign announced Monday that it raised $19.1 million in the second quarter of the year -- a powerful total that reflects the political momentum the Massachusetts senator has gained over the past few months.
Warren's fundraising haul puts her near the top of the pack of the 2020 Democratic candidates, running behind former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, but slightly ahead of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and well ahead of California Sen. Kamala Harris.
Unlike Biden and Buttigieg, however, Warren swore off fundraising events and has held no private meetings with big donors.
Earlier this month, Biden's campaign announced that it raised $21.5 million in the second quarter, while Buttigieg's team disclosed raising $24.8 million. Both candidates participate in high-dollar fundraisers. Meanwhile, Sanders' campaign -- which does not participate in high-dollar fundraisers -- disclosed raising $18 million, while Harris' campaign said it raised $12 million.

"To sum it up: We raised more money than any other 100% grassroots-funded campaign. That's big," Warren campaign manager Roger Lau wrote in an email to supporters on Monday. "You're making it possible to build a presidential campaign without catering to wealthy donors."

I still wonder if Harris and Biden will end up taking each other out putting Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren up front. But being at the front midsummer before the primaries actually start might not be the best thing. Remember the rotating cast of front runners for Republicans in 2016 and 2012. Then the question is who is the sleeper, or who won't rise and fall sharply but sustain support.

This is a good point. As Biden continues his gradual fall, Harris has been anointed the frontrunner for the moment. Rick Perry and Ben Carson are two who I remember briefly being such the summer before the election. Although Harris is much sharper on the campaign trail than either, it will still be very tough for her to solidify her status. As for the sleeper, the media is going all-out pushing the idea that Sanders is fading, but he maintains a dedicated base of support in the polls, and at the same time has the highest favorability of any candidate, making him well below his ceiling. He is deliberately playing the long game by not attacking other candidates (save an occasional swipe at Biden), and his best hope is if fighting between Biden and Harris seriously damages them both, and their supporters (especially Biden's) flee to him in the end. So overall he is in a weaker position than Harris - who, for all I dislike about her, is a very strong candidate - but in a stronger one than Warren.

Warren a major structural weaknesses in that her support is concentrated among the white middle class (though not as much as Buttigieg's). Many in other groups seem to be open to her, but so far few list her as their first choice in the polls. This would on paper make Warren a strong sleeper candidate, but it has only happened as a result of the media campaigning for her for weeks. If that's not enough to make her the frontrunner now (and she is in fourth place in the RCP mean), it may make it harder for her to catch on much later. For one thing, her fundraising may falter, since I guesstimate that her donors are more likely to skip to Harris, or maybe Buttigieg, than Sanders' are to jump to someone else. Also, despite the claims by anti-Bernie people that Warren is the "breakout star" of the campaign, she has been a major figure in the party for much longer than Sanders has, and therefore runs the same risk of sounding like old news at some later point.

[South Odreria]

Yeah, this new poll is bullshit. Bernie definitely has a realistic shot of winning, while Bullock and Steyer don't.

polling says otherwise

If you have to be polling higher than Sanders to have a chance, only Biden has a chance. Yet you think Steyer does...

[San Lumen]

polling says otherwise

If you have to be polling higher than Sanders to have a chance, only Biden has a chance. Yet you think Steyer does...

Steyer doesn't have a prayer

[South Odreria]

So if the OP in this thread abuses his powers to try to bury a certain candidate, are we going to start a new one? Valrifell would be a good OP imo.

[Shrillland]

So if the OP in this thread abuses his powers to try to bury a certain candidate, are we going to start a new one? Valrifell would be a good OP imo.

I don't think the mods would go for that, they didn't with the midterms when someone tried ahead of schedule.

[Pacomia]

I just wish that the lesser-known candidates wouldn't just be ignored. If they don't get media attention, then they'll just stay unknowns. That's sort of how I feel about candidates like Inslee who have some good ideas, but won't be heard.

[San Lumen]

I just wish that the lesser-known candidates wouldn't just be ignored. If they don't get media attention, then they'll just stay unknowns. That's sort of how I feel about candidates like Inslee who have some good ideas, but won't be heard.

With such a large field its rather hard to give equal air time to everyone.

[Pacomia]

I just wish that the lesser-known candidates wouldn't just be ignored. If they don't get media attention, then they'll just stay unknowns. That's sort of how I feel about candidates like Inslee who have some good ideas, but won't be heard.

With such a large field its rather hard to give equal air time to everyone.

But I'm not just talking about debates. I'm just saying in general. You agree that it's certainly not impossible to give candidates at least *some* media attention, right?

[Shrillland]

With such a large field its rather hard to give equal air time to everyone.

But I'm not just talking about debates. I'm just saying in general. You agree that it's certainly not impossible to give candidates at least *some* media attention, right?

Oh, absolutely. I thought some of them did fairly well at the debate, myself. Inslee in particular explained what he wanted to do in terms we could all understand. That should have made more people pay attention to his campaign, but it hasn't materialised.

[San Lumen]

With such a large field its rather hard to give equal air time to everyone.

But I'm not just talking about debates. I'm just saying in general. You agree that it's certainly not impossible to give candidates at least *some* media attention, right?

Yes but wasting their time on someone like John Delaney and taking away from Warren or Harris serves no purpose

[Telconi]

But I'm not just talking about debates. I'm just saying in general. You agree that it's certainly not impossible to give candidates at least *some* media attention, right?

Yes but wasting their time on someone like John Delaney and taking away from Warren or Harris serves no purpose

It takes away from Warren and Harris.

[Ifreann]

So if the OP in this thread abuses his powers to try to bury a certain candidate, are we going to start a new one? Valrifell would be a good OP imo.

NS polls are the epitome of irrelevance, though.

[Nakena]

I miss Tulsi on the poll.

[Bienenhalde]

Klobuchar and Yang are do not have a realistic chance of winning? Disappointing if true.

[San Lumen]

Klobuchar and Yang are do not have a realistic chance of winning? Disappointing if true.

Klobuchar has been very disappointing. I thought shed be a much stronger contender.

[Pacomia]

But I'm not just talking about debates. I'm just saying in general. You agree that it's certainly not impossible to give candidates at least *some* media attention, right?

Yes but wasting their time on someone like John Delaney and taking away from Warren or Harris serves no purpose

Sure it does. Warren and Harris get a lot of airtime, whereas many other candidates simply don’t. All it does is evens out the playing field a bit.

[Comus Eleutherios]

lmao @ the poll.

Steyer running as an environmentalist billionaire is almost hilarious.

[South Odreria]

Yes but wasting their time on someone like John Delaney and taking away from Warren or Harris serves no purpose

Sure it does. Warren and Harris get a lot of airtime, whereas many other candidates simply don’t. All it does is evens out the playing field a bit.

Warren earned her airtime by being relevant over many years. Harris was definitely helped by being anointed by the media, but on the other hand she is a good campaigner, which the boring white guys are not.

[Cynereth]

Yeah, the bussing one liner was good and all, but decades of tossing folks in prison for having a joint is probably a helluva lot more harmful to the black community than Ol' Joe swilling champagne with segregationists.

Pretty sure she already ruined her whole busing one liner by now, too.

I mean, maybe I'm just weird, but you lose a bit of luster when you take an "emotional, off-the-cuff" comment from the debate and then turn around and slap it on a t-shirt for $29.95 before tax. Put aside the fact that debates are nothing but calculated rhetoric: trying to capitalize on what was kind of a cheap shot to begin with so quickly after really soured me on her character.

[Cynereth]

I miss Tulsi on the poll.

Tulsi Gabbard would seem to have a stronger case at belonging on the poll over Booker, Bullock and Steyer. Maybe even Castro, though his debate performance probably keeps him alive longer in the race than he would have otherwise been afforded.

[Cannot think of a name]

The art of stumbling out of the gate.

A day after announcing her run to challenge Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, Democrat Amy McGrath said she would have voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a flip from previous statements in 2018.
Hours later, she changed her mind again.
In an interview published on Wednesday, McGrath told the Louisville Courier Journal she "probably" would've voted to confirm Kavanaugh. That ran contrary to what she had posted on social media following Kavanaugh's nomination in summer 2018.
"I was very concerned about Judge Kavanaugh, what I felt like were the far-right stances that he had. However, there was nothing in his record that I think would disqualify him in any way," McGrath said in Wednesday's interview. "And the fact is when you have the President and the Senate, this is our system and so I don't think there was anything that would have disqualified him in my mind."

Kavanaugh's nomination was nearly derailed following allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford. He was ultimately confirmed by Republicans in Congress in a narrow vote along party lines.
McGrath added of Ford's allegations, "I think it's credible but given the amount of time that lapsed in between and from a judicial standpoint, I don't think it would really disqualify him."
"I think that with Judge Kavanaugh, yeah, I probably would have voted for him," she said.
Hours after the interview published, McGrath backed off that answer following a backlash on social media.
"I was asked earlier today about Judge Brett Kavanaugh and I answered based upon his qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. But upon further reflection and further understanding of his record, I would have voted no," McGrath tweeted Wednesday night.
She later added, "I know I disappointed many today with my initial answer on how I would have voted on Brett Kavanaugh. I will make mistakes and always own up to them. The priority is defeating Mitch McConnell."
Before either statement Wednesday -- that she "probably would have voted for" Kavanaugh and later "I would have voted no" -- McGrath wrote a deeply critical 2018 Facebook post about the then-nominee, saying she echoes "so many of the concerns that others have articulated."
"Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed and we are starkly reminded, again, that elections have consequences, and this consequence will be with us for an entire generation," she said.
McGrath's multiple stances on Kavanagh's confirmation -- first critical in 2018, then saying Wednesday that she would "probably" have voted to confirm him, followed by a terse "I would have voted no" statement later Wednesday -- lay bare the challenges that face a Democrat trying to unseat McConnell in a state President Donald Trump won by 30 points in 2016.

[Blargoblarg]

The art of stumbling out of the gate.

A day after announcing her run to challenge Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, Democrat Amy McGrath said she would have voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a flip from previous statements in 2018.
Hours later, she changed her mind again.
In an interview published on Wednesday, McGrath told the Louisville Courier Journal she "probably" would've voted to confirm Kavanaugh. That ran contrary to what she had posted on social media following Kavanaugh's nomination in summer 2018.
"I was very concerned about Judge Kavanaugh, what I felt like were the far-right stances that he had. However, there was nothing in his record that I think would disqualify him in any way," McGrath said in Wednesday's interview. "And the fact is when you have the President and the Senate, this is our system and so I don't think there was anything that would have disqualified him in my mind."

Kavanaugh's nomination was nearly derailed following allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford. He was ultimately confirmed by Republicans in Congress in a narrow vote along party lines.
McGrath added of Ford's allegations, "I think it's credible but given the amount of time that lapsed in between and from a judicial standpoint, I don't think it would really disqualify him."
"I think that with Judge Kavanaugh, yeah, I probably would have voted for him," she said.
Hours after the interview published, McGrath backed off that answer following a backlash on social media.
"I was asked earlier today about Judge Brett Kavanaugh and I answered based upon his qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. But upon further reflection and further understanding of his record, I would have voted no," McGrath tweeted Wednesday night.
She later added, "I know I disappointed many today with my initial answer on how I would have voted on Brett Kavanaugh. I will make mistakes and always own up to them. The priority is defeating Mitch McConnell."
Before either statement Wednesday -- that she "probably would have voted for" Kavanaugh and later "I would have voted no" -- McGrath wrote a deeply critical 2018 Facebook post about the then-nominee, saying she echoes "so many of the concerns that others have articulated."
"Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed and we are starkly reminded, again, that elections have consequences, and this consequence will be with us for an entire generation," she said.
McGrath's multiple stances on Kavanagh's confirmation -- first critical in 2018, then saying Wednesday that she would "probably" have voted to confirm him, followed by a terse "I would have voted no" statement later Wednesday -- lay bare the challenges that face a Democrat trying to unseat McConnell in a state President Donald Trump won by 30 points in 2016.

Ugh, she sounds terrible. I prefer Steven Cox, a more progressive Democrat who's also running to unseat McConnell.

[San Lumen]

The art of stumbling out of the gate.

Ugh, she sounds terrible. I prefer Steven Cox, a more progressive Democrat who's also running to unseat McConnell.

and he will likely lose the general election should he get the nod. You can't just run a progressive everywhere and expect to win. By your logic Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams should be governor right now.

[Ngelmish]

The art of stumbling out of the gate.

A day after announcing her run to challenge Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, Democrat Amy McGrath said she would have voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a flip from previous statements in 2018.
Hours later, she changed her mind again.
In an interview published on Wednesday, McGrath told the Louisville Courier Journal she "probably" would've voted to confirm Kavanaugh. That ran contrary to what she had posted on social media following Kavanaugh's nomination in summer 2018.
"I was very concerned about Judge Kavanaugh, what I felt like were the far-right stances that he had. However, there was nothing in his record that I think would disqualify him in any way," McGrath said in Wednesday's interview. "And the fact is when you have the President and the Senate, this is our system and so I don't think there was anything that would have disqualified him in my mind."

Kavanaugh's nomination was nearly derailed following allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford. He was ultimately confirmed by Republicans in Congress in a narrow vote along party lines.
McGrath added of Ford's allegations, "I think it's credible but given the amount of time that lapsed in between and from a judicial standpoint, I don't think it would really disqualify him."
"I think that with Judge Kavanaugh, yeah, I probably would have voted for him," she said.
Hours after the interview published, McGrath backed off that answer following a backlash on social media.
"I was asked earlier today about Judge Brett Kavanaugh and I answered based upon his qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. But upon further reflection and further understanding of his record, I would have voted no," McGrath tweeted Wednesday night.
She later added, "I know I disappointed many today with my initial answer on how I would have voted on Brett Kavanaugh. I will make mistakes and always own up to them. The priority is defeating Mitch McConnell."
Before either statement Wednesday -- that she "probably would have voted for" Kavanaugh and later "I would have voted no" -- McGrath wrote a deeply critical 2018 Facebook post about the then-nominee, saying she echoes "so many of the concerns that others have articulated."
"Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed and we are starkly reminded, again, that elections have consequences, and this consequence will be with us for an entire generation," she said.
McGrath's multiple stances on Kavanagh's confirmation -- first critical in 2018, then saying Wednesday that she would "probably" have voted to confirm him, followed by a terse "I would have voted no" statement later Wednesday -- lay bare the challenges that face a Democrat trying to unseat McConnell in a state President Donald Trump won by 30 points in 2016.

I understand recruiting McGrath, but Jones was always the inside play