Thank You CNN

[_EAllusion]

I find the list here interesting inasmuch as it reflects an unimaginative DNC that seems to think their old way is still the good way. Odd strategy, but a certain victory for any Republican in 2020.
Do Democrats currently have no one bona fide candidate for 2020?

The only way for you to accept a Democratic candidate is "bona fide" is for them to be a Republican, so I'm guessing that no, they won't have a "bona fide" candidate for 2020 in your eyes.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

“I don’t play off American workers against Mexican workers," Brown told POLITICO, even as he touted his ability to draw support from “a lot of Trump voters.”

"I don’t inject race in it,” he added. “I don’t inject anti-foreigner sentiment in it.”

I like that outlook and the implied positive political governance.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

I see Senator Sherrod Brown as someone who could bridge the two wings of the party, focus the discussion on economic issues that unite both urban and rural voters, and has a record on key progressive issues that should keep the Bernie burnout types from revolting. Plus, he'd help bring home Ohio.

ETA: found an article that helps articulate why.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/ ... mp-1012151

Ohio is probably lost to the Democrats even if Brown runs. They're that far gone. If Democrats are winning Ohio, they are winning states that already won them the presidency before it in a very commanding victory.

[_EAllusion]

she is popular in California

The first Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom survey before the 2020 caucuses shows Biden beginning a potential bid at 32 percent in Iowa, more than a dozen points ahead of the second-place candidate, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. The 2016 runner-up for the nomination is at 19 percent.

Outgoing Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who lost a Senate race last month, is in third place, at 11 percent. Slightly behind him are Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 8 percent, and California Sen. Kamala Harris at 5 percent

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/ ... ts-1066661

I don't see Kamala Harris as the front runner.

I thought you didn't like CNN's horserace coverage? Now you are citing it in your defense? Polls this far out aren't very predictive. If they were, they'd have been no point in anyone running against Hillary Clinton in 2008.

[_honorentheos]

I see Senator Sherrod Brown as someone who could bridge the two wings of the party, focus the discussion on economic issues that unite both urban and rural voters, and has a record on key progressive issues that should keep the Bernie burnout types from revolting. Plus, he'd help bring home Ohio.

ETA: found an article that helps articulate why.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/ ... mp-1012151

Ohio is probably lost to the Democrats even if Brown runs. They're that far gone. If Democrats are winning Ohio, they are winning states that already won them the presidency before it in a very commanding victory.

Could be. But there is a lot that is going to happen between now and November 2020. Having a candidate from the state is good for a few points compared to a generic candidate as we all know, so that's a plus. Really for me it comes down to Brown hitting on the message I think is the right one...so far. My guess is for you there he would normally be a mix bag, plus on the social issues and minus on the economic ones. I'm sure it's a no brainer in a race between him and Trump or Pence. Right now I like the look of that race much more than any other candidate who appears to be on the long list.

[_honorentheos]

“I don’t play off American workers against Mexican workers," Brown told POLITICO, even as he touted his ability to draw support from “a lot of Trump voters.”

"I don’t inject race in it,” he added. “I don’t inject anti-foreigner sentiment in it.”

I like that outlook and the implied positive political governance.

- Doc

Like everyone, he has his downsides. And he was vulnerable in 2018. Maybe even too progressive to win barely purplish states like Arizona. But in an election where the party is almost certainly at risk of getting lost in niche or unrealistically grandiose progressive eddies vs. Clinton/Biden era Democrat-atives, his platform might strike the right balance needed to both keep the lefty-est of Democrats on the bus while bringing back voters who really don't care about party so much as wanting Washington to seem like it's working for them.

Here's another one:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/us/p ... ident.html

[_subgenius]

I find the list here interesting inasmuch as it reflects an unimaginative DNC that seems to think their old way is still the good way. Odd strategy, but a certain victory for any Republican in 2020.
Do Democrats currently have no one bona fide candidate for 2020?

The only way for you to accept a Democratic candidate is "bona fide" is for them to be a Republican, so I'm guessing that no, they won't have a "bona fide" candidate for 2020 in your eyes.

Nope, but i understand why you might think that.
But the real show is the looming showdown between DNC and States over this whole voter data issue.

[Guest]

I thought you didn't like CNN's horserace coverage? Now you are citing it in your defense? Polls this far out aren't very predictive. If they were, they'd have been no point in anyone running against Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Right, but the only available data doesn't show her as the front runner. False and misleading headlines do make an impact.

[_DoubtingThomas]

EAllusion I know you are smarter and better than this.

"CNN Completely & Shamelessly Makes Up 2020 Democrat Frontrunner"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bulE-ncl9cA

[_EAllusion]

EAllusion I know you are smarter and better than this.

"CNN Completely & Shamelessly Makes Up 2020 Democrat Frontrunner"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bulE-ncl9cA

I'm not sure why you expected me to listen to that 14 minute youtube video of someone ranting about Harris. If you accept the premise that it's Ok for CNN (really, Harry Enten) to power-rank Democratic candidates, then picking Harris as the top one becomes very reasonable because she hits a lot of key factors you'd look at when predicting who would be successful in a Democrat primary. Again, she's the top pick in betting markets for this same reason. She is a forecasting darling. It's not a reach. She naturally appeals to key Democratic constituencies, has a strong fundraising base, and hails from one of the two or three most important states in the primary process. She's also been using her Senate time to build up a voting record that coheres perfectly with what mainstream Democrats want. It makes sense. She already dominates minority women polls and they are a very powerful voting bloc in the Democratic primary process. It's like finding out a Republican is dominating evangelicals. That's not determinate, but it's a positive sign. This doesn't mean she's an unassailable favorite or anything. Nobody has >50% odds of winning the Democrat primary at this point because the field is so split. But, again, if you're going to powerrank candidates, then someone has to be on top.