BREAKING: Sen. Booker says he is ending his presidential campaign. https://t.co/DhlTLnyqUy
— NBC News (@NBCNews) January 13, 2020
by David Anderson| 160 Comments
This post is in: 2020 Elections
BREAKING: Sen. Booker says he is ending his presidential campaign. https://t.co/DhlTLnyqUy
— NBC News (@NBCNews) January 13, 2020
Comments are closed.
He was in our work building a few months ago. A co-worker was next to Booker in line at Starbucks. Booker was extremely proficient at grabbing my friend’s phone to take the obligatory selfie. Hey, it’s a skill.
Is Yang the only person of color left in the primaries?
Never at the top of my list, but would have voted for him happily.
Be nice to see one of the clueless, well-backed preeners get kicked to the curb instead of another qualified candidate. Guess today isn’t that day.
I’m surprised at how little support Booker got. I wasn’t expecting him to win or even do particularly well, but he just went nowhere.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Felanius Kootea: Charlie Pierce reported a Deval Patrick ad from the greater Boston area this morning
@Felanius Kootea: Patrick Deval is still out there somewhere, isn’t he?
Well, technically maybe Duval Patrick. Did he actually get in or just toy with the notion that what we were missing was a black private equity executive in the race?
@daveNYC: Same here.
ETA: He was consistently good in the debates.
@daveNYC: I wasn’t super surprised – the progressive left HATES him for “selling out to pharmaceutical companies”, and he hadn’t made a large impression nationwide.
But he’s a good, likeable person. I thought he’d top out around 5% or so. Maybe he’d have had a chance in a less crowded field.
He’s 1000 times the person The Unmentionable will ever be.
I think the purity bots went hard against Booker and Harris from the get-go. And we haven’t learned much from 2016.
This makes me very sad. I really like him. Anybody from Jersey want to trade Toomey for him?
@MisterForkbeard: Teachers disliked him for selling out to the charter school grifters in NJ and playing into all the right-wing public education narratives. Teachers make up a large percentage of the primary state shock troops.
Cue the wails of, “But why are the FSB psyops operations masquerading as presidential campaigns still in the race?”
I wonder if Stacy Abrams sat out this cycle knowing full well that the nation would decide only a white dude could beat Trump.
@zhena gogolia: I don’t know. If your career and biggest issue is support for public education, do you pick the candidate who actually was a public school teacher and educator most of her life, or do you pick the candidate who played footsie with “education expert” Mark Zuckerberg and turned NJ cities over to the charter school scammers?
It isn’t always about bots. Sometimes there are indeed real issues and policy choices. As a teacher I think Obama’s weakest legacy was in education with his appointment of Duncan and the “race to the top” nonsense. And Booker was even more Obama than Obama when it came to education.
@Martin: Or, unlike other candidates, she has some self-awareness and realized she doesn’t have the requisite experience.
All I know is that here in South Carolina the Democratic field has been narrowed down to Tom Steyer and only Tom Steyer. That’s an assessment based entirely on the 24/7 wall-to-frickin’-wall advertising he’s got rolling down here >:(
@PsiFighter37: This. To my knowledge, no one has ever made the leap from the state legislature to white house in one jump. Buttigieg not withstanding.
@zhena gogolia: The left wing wasn’t going to support Booker or Harris when they’ve got Warren and Sanders pitching wealth taxes, free college, and massive funding for climate change.
I think the fact that everyone who wasn’t into that scene nooooped out all the way over to Biden’s camp is really what killed Booker and Harris (and basically everyone else).
@PsiFighter37: I’ve seen this before, and remain perplexed. What, in 2020, is “the requisite experience” required to be President?
In my opinion, she decided to make fighting voter suppression her first priority. Once she’s satisfied progress has been made, she’ll run again. Also, she has said she’s open to being a vice president, if asked.
Phew, thank god all those people of color are leaving the race! Long live the rich old white guy!
Agree with both of these sentiments.
You are applying to run the entire executive branch of the Federal government with over 2 million civilian employees and 1.3 million military. Perhaps a little bit of actual experience with the workings of the Federal government and Federal policy?
I agree that Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Steyer are also unqualified. Governors, of which there are currently none in the race are a bit more of a grey area.
Anyone who didn’t take on Sanders when they had the chance is going nowhere. One by one they’re learning that, so go get him Amy. Biden has the bulk of the black vote but he’d better get his knives out too. Unfortunately Warren is learning the only way Sanders and his cult will get behind her is with a knife.
@the Conster: Sanders is going to be the Trump of 2020. Everyone looks like they are afraid to take him on until it is too fucking late. Just like all the GOP candidates in 2016 basically ignored Trump, thinking that he was going to eventually go away and the serious Republicans would finally be left.
Only hope is that Dem primary voters are more discerning than GOP primary voters and that Sanders has a lower ceiling than Trump did.
I’ve always liked Booker even when he was considered a corporatist publicity hound on this very blog years ago, so I think it’s a shame he never did better either. And I also think if we don’t stop relitigating decisions from decades ago made under other circumstances we may never have a candidate that can appeal to everyone because they’re all flawed.
J R in WV
That’s too bad. I like Sen Booker, don’t know why he never took off.
@Kent: This exactly. Remember how yesterday there was a lot of attention paid to whether we should forgive and forget Biden’s AUMF vote? I can not f&f Booker sucking up to the charter school parasites.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@the Conster: @Kent: I would love it if Klobuchar used her alleged mean streak to go after Sanders. Of course, the cultists will shriek, but they are what they are and the only way around them is to outnumber them in the GE with sane voters. Both cults
@satby: It’s not about litigating old stuff. It’s about picking from the 10+ primary choices. If we don’t use policy and accomplishments to do this, what else are we supposed to use? Which one would be the best one to have a beer with?
The problem with this fucking race is not people like us litigating old stuff. It is that we have two geriatric old white guys sucking up all the oxygen in the race.
I am extremely glad he is gone. I’m a resident of New Jersey, my son was lead poisoned in Newark, and I can tell you that there is a time bomb attached to Booker that is steadily ticking down called the Newark Lead Water Crisis. Booker has managed to dodge any questions about what he knew and when he knew it by running for President and avoiding ever being in any situation where anyone would ask a question about local Newark politics, but it will catch up to him eventually and the farther away he is from any levers of power when it happens the better. It’s going to ruin him when the truth comes out, we don’t want the party going down with him.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: This upcoming debate is Klobuchar’s last chance to make an impact before Iowa. I suspect she’ll be torn between “Iowa nice” and going for the jugular. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. I think it will be the most consequential debate so far.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Kent: well, there’s also that one of those geriatric white guys figured out that chasing the other old white guy’s ideas played better on twitter than among actual voters, and not many others did.
@Felanius Kootea: Tulsi Gabbard?
We pick based on who can win Pennsylvania. I think that’s Biden. I don’t care about policy. This isn’t a policy election, because we can’t count on the Senate for anything, even if it flips. We can get Stephen Miller out of the White House and babies out of cages on day one. The path to that goes through Pennsylvania and Michigan. I don’t see Warren, Sanders or Mayo Pete adding to Hillary’s EC vote count.
@Kent: Bloomberg ran NYC, which is way larger than the majority of states in this country. I think that’s one of the only cities where I think it’s meaningful. The other city would be Los Angeles, but that is further behind given it’s a much different city vs. NYC.
@Baud: I think Booker was the only candidate for me that I grew to like more as I watched the debates.
Sorry to see him out. One by one, the ones I like the best are dropping out.
Come sit by me.
@dr. bloor: Was Deval Patrick ever really there? He announced late, in the shadow of Bloomberg’s announcement As the 26th or 27th candidate of the year. I think he’s still in it, but I haven’t heard of him since.
@Martin: According to Stacey Abrams, she looked at the field, saw a lot of good candidates and decided they had it covered.
She made it clear that she had no interest in running for 2nd place, right out of the gate, so she put her focus on “Fair Fight” and is making a huge difference there.
In an interview several weeks ago, she made it clear that she would definitely consider the VP role once we have a candidate. I very much hope our candidate chooses her. She brings a lot to the table.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I don’t know why she’s not doing that. It’s not like his stans will support her. I don’t believe they’ll support any dem nominee who’s not Sanders but she can peel off regular dem supporters.
@PsiFighter37: Bloomberg is unqualified because he isn’t a Democrat and is utterly out of touch
@WaterGirl: I expect Biden will ask him to join the ticket if he’s the nominee. It was would be a tribute in reflection of his years with Obama.
@the Conster: I would actually get behind a Biden/Klobuchar ticket. I think that would be very strong in PA, MI, and WI. And I want a competent non-bullshit knife fighter like Klobuchar working to clean out the stench of Trump in every Federal agency across the government. That is going to be an enormous job.
Trump got impeached because of the threat he perceives Biden to be. Trump’s an idiot, but he has a feral animal’s ability to sense where the threat to his survival is coming from. He left communist dictator loving socialist Sanders and Crooked Jane the college bankrupter alone last time, because of the damage he knew Sanders would inflict on Hillary. He doesn’t need to solicit damaging info on Sanders, BECAUSE HE ALREADY HAS ALL OF IT.
I can believe that. Charter schools were the Shiny Thing to Save Education for awhile and many folks who should have dug deeper first, jumped in with both feet. Oops, just get a load of all these grifters!
And in CA at least, teachers and SEIU are the big union cohorts that one is well advised to bring into their network. I would imagine NJ may be similar.
Agreed. Biden/Harris or Biden/Klobuchar would be formidable.
Is it likely Stacey Abrams will try for for one of the two GA Senate seats in play this fall (Perdue’s reelection and the “confirmation” race for Isaakson’s old seat – currently occupied by a hack crony of Gov. Kemp’s)?
@trollhattan: Booker was bought and paid for by Facebook. That might have been a good look in 2010. Not so much today.
Or if that is too conservative of a source, here’s a teacher site: https://www.ewa.org/ewa-radio/booker-zuckerberg-and-newark-schools-experiment
He did well in that format (which I hate, but it is the chosen format and the candidates have to adjust to it). Klobuchar has improved her status of “who?” in them for me as well.
Politics ain’t beanbag…or bean soup or bean casserole or bean dip or something. With more than twenty entrants there are more than twenty losers. It’s cruel and it’s what’s for dinner.
Some folks here frame every negative comment here about “their” candidates as attacks from trolls and bots, to the extent that Biden is now off limits for criticism. Yet the exact opposite was true here when Harris went after him during the first debate.
Of course that rule is highly selective. Gabbard, Sanders and the billionaires are still dragged through the mud at every opportunity by some.
If I were in the position a lower tier candidate is in (like Klobuchar and Booker) and I had one debate, one shot left, I’d pick the top tier candidate I liked the least and unleash the best attacks I could on that candidate.
@Kent: The Federalist isn’t exactly a trustworthy source. Is there another verification?
@trollhattan: I have come to like Amy K. less and less as this season has gone one. I originally liked her, after first coming to my attention when she and Claire Mc both came out for Barack very early in 2007 when Clinton was still considered the shoe-in.
She’s too conservative for me now, and the stories of her management style make a difference to me. i will, of course, vote for her if she is the nominee.
@Cluttered Mind: Tons of them. I added another link from an education site. Or just google Booker and Zuckerberg. The Washington Post covered it for years.
Gee…it’s almost like we want actual Democrats in the Democratic primary. Who woulda thunk it?
Not that it looks good for Booker but I also can’t take anything from The Federalist at face value. Do they publish similar pieces on Republicans?
I’m still sad about Harris because I think I liked her health care plan best. But she took a wandering path to get there, including a stroll through Wilmerland, and that hurt her.
Booker is young yet. Plenty of time for him to do many good things.
Yeah, its all going to Deval Patrick. right? ;)
Early on, most people here were hoping Biden would crash, but now there’s a good chance he’ll be the nominee. It’s a more sensitive situation.
@WaterGirl: Klobuchar’s management style is exactly what we need in the executive branch as a VP. I have no real hope that we will see much meaningful legislation out of the 2020 Congress where Rand Paul or Pat Toomey will be the likely 60th vote on anything of substance. Therefore the main tasks of any Dem president will be: (1) repairing our international standing and alliances overseas, (2) de-Trumping the Federal bureaucracy and regulatory state.
The international side of things is mainly going to fall to the president and secretary of state. VPs traditionally don’t take the lead in foreign affairs. That leaves riding herd on the executive branch. In every single agency from the EPA to the FDA we are going to need to root out Trump’s legacy of vandalism and deregulation. That is going to take a lot of stepping on toes and just “getting shit done”. If I were Biden, I’d assign my VP to that task. Someone who can walk into any Federal agency and make sure shit happens now and doesn’t get mired in 8-years of “consensus building with stakeholders” [corporate lobbyists] to get just half way back to where we were at the end of 2016. That is essentially the role that Al Gore had in the Clinton administration. They called it ‘reinventing government’ but he did a lot. I was in a Federal agency writing regulations during those days and I remember it well. Gore shook shit up.
@Yutsano: What annoys me about the rest of the construction is that Biden is now “immune from criticism”. Sigh.
It’s more that as Biden becomes the more likely nominee, people are pushing back on ridiculous hitjobs. Like the guy yesterday who derailed a good thread with lines like how Biden “fantasized about running with a republican” and freaking out about a bad vote in 2003 while ignoring subsequent good votes. Or ignoring bad votes from their chosen candidate on similar issues.
@trollhattan: It was just the first link that popped up. There are a bazillion articles on the topic from lots of mainstream sources including the Washington Post.
Xactly. “Hey, we have a big
tenthouse with lots of windows here and plenty of room, so let’s invite in all those neighbor kids outside, the ones carrying armloads of rocks.”
@Kent: Fair enough. I already dislike Booker for his role in the lead water issue that poisoned my son. I just get a little nervous when The Federalist is linked!
It is not a good sign when the responsible GOP senators, calling out the lies ( but just barely) of the trump admin,
over the assassination of Suleimani, are Rand Paul and Mike Lee.
Klobuchar had a really strong debate last time by playing exasperated mom-style referee to feuding contenders and using the moderators as a foil. I expect she’ll stick with that format tomorrow.
If she rips Sanders’ face off, that’ll be super-satisfying to folks who hate the old coot, but as a savvy politician, Klobuchar knows we need a coalition to win, so she won’t want to alienate Democrats who like Sanders, of which there are many. Therefore, I’ll be surprised if she goes medieval on Sanders.
@MisterForkbeard: Honestly I think we really need to distinguish between one-off votes and deeply held policy positions.
The AUMF vote, for example, was a one-time vote engineered by the GOP to put maximum pressure on Dems 3 weeks before the 2012 mid-terms. Obviously Clinton and Biden were wrong and lacked the courage of their convictions to vote against it. And it probably cost Clinton the nomination in 2008. But no one in their right minds thinks that a president Clinton or president Biden would have been rushing to war in Iraq in 2012 had they been in charge.
On the other hand, Bloomberg has spent considerable time and money promoting the Simpson/Bowles grand bargain of cutting social security and medicare to keep taxes low on billionaires. He really believes it. No one forced him to take an uncomfortable vote on the topic. It is a fundamental policy belief of his.
I see these things as fundamentally different. I’m willing to forgive on-time votes from a certain time and place like the AUMF and 1990s crime bill. I’m less willing to forgive long-held policy positions that candidates have pushed over long periods of time. Like Booker with charter schools. Or Bloomberg with “entitlement reform” Or honestly, Klobuchar with “means testing” because it shows who they are.
@germy: I promise to not go there, but Rosario Dawson is still persona non grata with me. I do like Booker and I was willing to forgive his questionable romantic choice.
@PsiFighter37: Well, in her (should have been successful) run for governor, she sure as shit got more votes than Trump, Pete, Yang, and Steyer. Combined.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
not a Booker fan, but it’s hard to argue with this, although I do think Harris and Booker both flirted with Bernie-ism early on, as did Buttigieg
As well you should. It’s basically Breitbart without the hood.
@Jinchi: Biden/Booker would be an interesting choice, but geographically it has doom written all over it – DE and NJ are neighbors.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
The Harris campaign organization evidently attained dumpster fire status and so, the collapse of those impressive early poll numbers were in part an own goal.
IMO the whole Dem campaign kicked off way too early and too many jumped in so as to not lose out. The Biden wait-and-see approach may prove the winning strategy, but he had a unique ability to do so due to his vast name recognition. Only Sanders was close to that status and there was never any doubt he was going to run his sorry ass again. (Oops, is my prejudice showing?)
Unlike most people here I like Sanders. My preferences are Warren, then Sanders. But I would like to see Amy and others get on him hard, same with Biden and to Biden. Now is the time to see who can respond to the most common attacks well. Not two months before the Presidential election.
@Cluttered Mind: Yikes. I hope your kid is doing OK? As I live in an old, albeit well-maintained place with two small children, I’m always worried about lead poisoning.
@Baud: Klobuchar’s instinct for most social programs like free higher education or health care or whatever is to pull the “fiscally responsible” card that we “can’t pay for it, at least not for everyone”
In the recent debate over free college education she strongly criticized Warren and the others saying we can’t afford to extend these programs to the wealthy. That is means testing. And anyone with a child in college who has had to deal with the absurdly intrusive FAFSA knows what a PITA it is. We build these immense complicated structures to make sure that no one “undeserving” gets any Federal benefits. The GOP does it with stuff like drug testing and work requirements. The Dems do it with all the means testing to make sure that wealthy don’t get education benefits or health care subsidies.
Atrios on his blog beats this drum frequently. Just make the damn programs universal. They will have much more support, be much easier to administer, and really not cost that much more. It is virtue signaling by both the right and left that we don’t do this. Klobuchar has a long-term tendency to do it because she thinks it makes her look more “fiscally conservative”
And honestly I’m becoming a Klobuchar fan despite this, although I think my first choice is still Warren. It is just what annoys me most about Klobuchar.
What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?
@Jinchi: He’s still in, but the only reason I know that is because I have a close personal friend who worked for him when he was Governor of Massachusetts and is working for him again (he smartly has not quit his day job to do so).
Anyway, I see occasional facebook posts about the campaign from said friend, but that’s literally the only place I see anything about Patrick, so he is still in but might as well not be, because he’s going nowhere.
@Kent: Those requirements, including your “grey area” are not only found nowhere in the Constitution, they also don’t work as a rule-of-thumb. Hence, President Trump, not President Hillary Clinton; hence Ronald Reagan, not 2nd term Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale; hence George W. Bush, not Al Gore or John Kerry. Exactly one Democratic president in the last 50 years had Federal experience when elected for the first time. While it looks like our choices will be exclusively among Senators this year, dismissing everyone who doesn’t have Federal experience ignores history and serves to severely limit future candidate pools.
Thanks for the explanation. Personally, means testing is not a deal breaker for me with respect to new programs. I’d feel different if she had a history of pushing to impose means testing on existing successful federal programs that were not means tested.
@What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?:
Actual serious candidates like Booker and Harris built up large campaign structures with lots of paid staff and rented offices and so forth. Running an actual campaign like this requires a burn rate of millions of dollars per month. And if the dollars dry up you end up with no choice but to shut things down. You can put your campain on hold like Harris did, or just flat out quit like Booker did. but if you aren’t gaining traction and can’t pay the bills there is an eventual end point that you are going to reach.
Patrick doesn’t seem to be doing any of this. He seems to have just tossed his hat in the ring and is more or less just waiting around for people to come to him. This isn’t a campaign. So there isn’t any actual end-point. 2020 will just go by and no one will ever remember that Patrick was actually in the race at some point, at least on paper.
There is the whole other issue of getting your name on the ballot on all the various states. I don’t know what, if anything, he has done to do that.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
IOWA DEM CAUCUS POLL:
#2020Dem preference: 1st choice (1st+2nd combined)
I don’t understand why this isn’t clear to everyone. I thought the impeachment hearings would really help Biden. (I think they did to some extent, but not as much as they should have.)
HE’S THE ONE TRUMP IS AFRAID OF!
Bernie’s in it in order to lose to Trump.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Oh wow. That’s very different than the other recent Iowa poll. I thought Joe had essentially given up on Iowa.
@Kent: Bloomberg was mayor of New York city which is bigger than some states. I don’t like him, but I would consider that relevant experience. Governors are better though because they have to co govern with a state legislature.
@MJS: I’m not arguing with you. Just giving my opinion. Clinton, Carter, and Bush 43 were the most recent governors. So we had some mixed results there. I’m of the opinion that experience really matters. Or you end up with rookie mistakes like Carter made and Bush made (turning foreign policy over to Cheney).
Governors in our modern age do an immense amount of interaction with the Federal government in pretty much every policy arena from education to transportation to the environment. And they do run mini-versions of the executive branch.
Obviously the American people don’t agree with me as we got Trump. I’d feel the same if the Dems were going to nominate a celebrity with no Federal government experience like say Oprah.
@zhena gogolia: I agree. Biden should be chomping at the bit to testify.
Well, I don’t agree with that, because that would be dignifying the very slander that Trump tried to extort Zelenskyy for. Biden’s testimony is irrelevant to the impeachment trial.
@Kent: I don’t like this instinctive response from Klobuchar either. To me, it just suggests a kind of half-baked thinking about things, to say, oh this is really important but we can’t just give it away! Primary education is free no matter how wealthy you are because we long ago decided it was necessary. We can make other decisions about other things in terms of how much anyone should be expected to pay, but this schtick of saying “we’re broke, we can’t give anything away” tells me that someone has not applied reasoned analysis to whatever good that is at issue, whether health care or education.
@gvg: Bloomberg was a REPUBLICAN governor. That’s not the experience I’m looking for in a Democratic primary. But I will concede your point. Mayor of NYC is a pretty big government job. I dislike Bloomberg for other reasons that I find disqualifying.
I don’t want to give it too much credence, but it is somewhat cheering. I wish it went Biden-Warren-Klobuchar-Buttigieg-Sanders instead, but you take what you can get.
When was Bloomberg a governor?
He was a Republican mayor but then didn’t he switch to Independent or something?
He did trumpily change the rules so he could have a third term.
@zhena gogolia: I don’t think I would give any poll credence at this point, especially when it comes to caucuses.
I also saw over at TPM that Sanders campaign staff are denying any official intent to smear Warren. What that says to me, whether any or all or part of it is true, is that they might be sensing blow back from the perception that they are sowing discord.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Baud: yeah, the DMR polls is generally considered the best one, and some people on twitter are questioning this one, but it’s the first one I’ve seen in a while that discusses second-choices, which is especially important in a caucus, if I understand them correctly (which is not a given)
@zhena gogolia: I agree to a point. But Biden agreeing to testify when Trump, Mulvaney, Pence, and Bolton refuse is a pretty damning and bad look. He would have plenty of opportunity to answer softball questions from the House Democratic Impeachment Managers and command the stage. And then do the “have you no shame? At long last, have you no shame?.” thing with whoever the Trump puts up in defense.
If Biden can’t use the opportunity to crucify Trump on national TV in an impeachment hearing then maybe he doesn’t have the chops to take him on in the general election
It would certainly push him to the top of the conversation in all the Dem primaries, especially if he does well.
John Lindsay is trending! Heck, Teddy Roosevelt was NYC Police Commissioner. The machine cranks out a lot of politicians (of all kinds, too).
@Yutsano: I know, right?
It’ll be interesting in a place like Iowa where the votes of candidates below the threshold (15%) move to. I wish that we actually had IRV or Single Transferable Vote (or something similar) for primaries.
What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?
@Kent: Yes it has been a non-campaign campaign. I texted my friend the day he announced to find out if he’d had any advanced warning. My friend said he started hearing rumors a day or two before the announcement and to tell you how connected my friend was he said he was “working on Patrick’s FEC filings”. The guy working on your FEC filings is a part timer who had no advanced knowledge that you were running? That’s no way to run a campaign.
He has some people canvassing for him in NH but as far as I can tell has not tried to build a true campaign organization, isn’t working that hard, and I doubt he’s raising much money. I really don’t get why he even bothered to enter the race. Only thing I can think is some finance bro Wall Street types told him they’d bankroll the whole thing because they’re afraid of the liberal wing, but then when Bloomberg got in at roughly the same time they decided not to bother.
Relatedly, CalculatedRisk from 2018:
Preaching to the choir here, but Bill McBride is about as calm and level-headed as anyone you could find who has a blog. He’ll be posting more about politics this year. He’s always worth reading.
@PsiFighter37: This! Her decision to not even run for Senate while focusing on voter registration and mobilization has left me more impressed with her – she’s not scrambling for a seat, any seat. She’s a very seriously lady with her own plans, and when she’s ready, she’s going to be formidable. She kind of reminds me of Nancy in that way.
@Kent: Fair enough. For what it’s worth, provided she has a strong showing in Iowa, I agree with your take on a Biden/Klobuchar ticket. I really believe Obama locked up PA when he selected Biden, and I think choosing Klobuchar does the same for the states you mention. As much as I like Harris, she won’t provide an electoral boost.
nobody in US Politic’s ever says that about outgoing Tomahawk Missiles.
” Oh, they are $1.8 million dollars a piece. We can’t afford to just “give them away” to any tom, dick or harry. Think of the deficit. We need to bring in some kind of means testing .”
@Kent: Reagan had also been Governor of California.
@Barbara: If that poll holds up, it means a great deal in Iowa because of the caucus format – those below 15% fall out and their supporters move on to other candidates. If Warren is doing that well in 2nd, then she could very well win.
We’ll have to wait and see…
@Crashman06: He is not. The special needs are all encompassing and have consumed my life and that of my wife since it happened.I appreciate the thoughts but things are pretty miserable. If you google Danielle Fienberg you can see a bit about what my wife has been up to politically as we try to deal with the wreckage. As I write this my son is behind me being violently disruptive, telling me he’s going to kill me, throwing things at my wife, etc etc. He’s 5. He’s home right now because the local public school system decided they won’t take him for more than a few hours every day (totally illegal but Elizabeth NJ does whatever they want) and so we just have to deal.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: That is interesting. Good work, Warren!
@Cluttered Mind: I am so sorry to hear that. How heartbreaking, and how difficult for you and your wife. I guess there aren’t many medical interventions that can help at that point? Ugh, how awful. Good luck to you both.
Sounds like a circle jerk, only with more testosterone and fewer brain cells
Not that I am going to vote for him in the primaries, but why is Bloomberg, three-time mayor of NYC which is bigger than many states, unqualified? Late to the party? Yes. A little too happy with capitalist solutions (at least he recognizes the problem), Yes. Unqualified? I don’t think so.
There are plenty if you’re rich. If you’re not rich though? Good luck to you. Waiting lists are miles long and everyone is always looking for a reason to push you through a crack.
@Kent: I agree, in general. Bloomberg would be a bad choice, as would a few of the others.
That said, I agree with the previous poster who said that legislative policy is mostly dead after the election due to the Senate. So if Bloomberg somehow got the nod, I’d still vote for the guy with no regrets. Legislative differences between him and even Sanders are going to be pretty minimal, though at least Sanders wouldn’t propose cutting Social Security.
@Cluttered Mind: I don’t know what to say except I’m sorry you have to deal with so much.
@Jay: Biden, like a lot of Dems, has been really shitty about how they have explained and defended their AUMF votes. But do you honestly think that if we were in the 2nd year of the Gore Administration in 2012 that Biden or Clinton or Kerry would have been beating the drums for a unnecessary war with Iraq based on lies and fake intelligence?
Does anyone here seriously think that Biden would have pursued the same policies as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. had he been in power in 2012?
Be as critical as you want about Biden’s AUMF vote and subsequent defense of it. I agree 100%, it was shitty. And perhaps a reflection of his courage. But don’t try to convince me that it means his foreign policy would be Bush/Cheney rather than something closer to Obama if even less interventionist.
@patrick II: There sure are a lot of Bloomberg supporters here. OK fine. Bloomberg has lots of experience. I’ll grant you that. Perhaps he’s not inexperienced like Buttigieg. But in my opinion he is unqualified for the same reasons that Sanders is unqualified. He’s not a real Democrat and he is completely out of touch. Does that make you happy?
@Jay: I take some issue with this kind of framing, to be honest.
Biden and others knew Bush was gunning for a war and that the intelligence was weak. They ALSO knew that voting against it would be really bad for Democrats politically in the near term and wouldn’t stop the AUMF from happening.
Instead, they voted for something with the understand that Bush would try diplomacy first. Basically, it would be a “if diplomacy works, we don’t go to war. If it doesn’t, war.”
What they didn’t foresee was that diplomacy WOULD work, but Bush would go to war anyway. That was basically insane, but it happened and the media didn’t care. Which ultimately validated the opinion that voting against the AUMF would have slagged Democrats pretty hard.
Calling the above calculation “cowardice” strikes me as extremely reductive.
No, they were right if you consider the context made clear during Clinton’s floor speech on the vote. The AUMF gave us the leverage we needed to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq. If the AUMF had gone down in flames, W, Cheney and their flying monkeys would have found (ie, made up) a pretext for invading Iraq AND we wouldn’t have gotten the counterfactuals provided by the inspections. Sadly, W pulled the inspectors when it became clear they weren’t finding weapons, but that isn’t the fault of anyone who voted yes.
There is zero chance W was not going to find a way to invade Iraq.
@MJS: I think very few VPs provide an electoral boost, outside of a unity-type ticket. Biden choosing Sanders, for example, would be a terrible idea but would bring some of his people on board.
It’s more important to me that Biden’s choice be someone he wants as President. If Joe (or Bernie, if he’s the nom) has health issues then their VP is very, VERY important. And Biden’s mostly committed to only 4 years, and his VP will have a leg up in 2024.
In that sense, I think Harris might make a good choice. Outside of her weird 2020 campaign management, she’s been well organized and has good positions. And we get a female VP, which would be a nice first.
@MisterForkbeard: The regulatory state is immensely powerful in this day and age. And it is pretty much going to be the entirety of Democratic governance in the next Democratic administration. Obama figured that out in his second term with all the executive branch policies that bypassed Congress from DACA to his Clean Power Plan to ACA implementation.
Trump has been dismantling the regulatory state tooth and nail since 2016. The next president will have an immense task just putting things back to where they were in 2016, much less making any progress. I think who we elect in 2020 will be immensely consequential in this effort, even if their legislative efforts are likely to be similar has you point out. I honestly think both Bloomberg and Sanders are unsuited to this task but for different reasons. Bloomberg because he is too much of a pro-business Republican. Sanders, because he is a demagogue. Although Sanders would probably be the better of the two.
@Cluttered Mind: You have my deepest sympathies. I just wish there were more I could do.
@Kent: Wilmer actually can’t win this time any more than he could have won last time. Nobody can win the Democratic nomination without major support from Black voters, especially Black women, and Wilmer is doing worse in that demographic this time than last time. It’s why Biden is now the only candidate with a viable path to the nomination.
What he can and absolutely will do, however, is cause as much chaos as he can. That’s the only reason he’s running, really, that and grifting. (Well, also ego.)
But yeah, it’s time to break out that oppo research. Play the video of him calling Fidel Castro his political hero. Play the videos of him praising Daniel Ortega and trashing the US. Play the videos of him in Moscow, praising their system.
That outta do it. I’m kinda counting on Bloomberg for that.
@Kent: All good points, though I think Sanders will dive right back into this wholeheartedly. He might not be up to it, but he recognizes its importance.
Most of his “How will you actually accomplish things” responses boil down to “The people will rise up” or “I’ll do it unilaterally”, and the regulatory state is how you do it unilaterally.
Booker was never my first choice, but always in my top 5. I always thought he was the candidate most likely to make Small Hands shit himself in a debate – a rather large black man who shows a moderate amount of (controlled) anger. Not like taking shots at Pres Obama from a distance. There would be no stalking the opponent on that stage
@Baud: This morning, the journalists on Morning Joe cited the one I think your referring to, the Des Moines Register poll, as the gold standard for Iowa, and they were excited to see a knife fight among the top four. The Register showed Sanders first, then Warren, Buttigeg and Bide, but all within the margin of error.
They were pushing the idea of Bernie winning the first three, and then, if he picked up all of the 20% he’s polling with black voters in SC, he’ll essentially be the winner.
@MisterForkbeard: I like Biden/Harris as a ticket. But from purely mercenary objectives of winning back the upper midwest then Biden/Klobuchar might be an even stronger ticket. Just send her to campaign 24/7 in MN, IA, WI, MI, and PA.
Either way, if it is going to be Biden, then his running mate is almost certainly going to be the most likely next Dem president. So his pick is much more consequential than it was for Clinton or Obama. Picking female VP makes a subsequent female president about 10x more likely. And honestly, we’ve never had a female VP either.
What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?
@Cluttered Mind: Jesus that’s tragic. Really feel for you and your family.
it’s a call to form armed “militias” or join other armed groups.
as QAnon perps have already engaged in murder, kidnappings and terrorist plots as “not really Lone Wolves”, it’s a troubling sign of accelerationism and further radicalization.
@Damned_at_Random: I honestly think that Trump has more problem with women than any male candidate black or white. He has been doing the macho pissing contest thing his entire life and he has it perfected. He neutered the entire GOP field in 2016. I think either Warren or Klobuchar would be able to hang him out to dry better than any of the male candidates. He just doesn’t know how to relate normally to women. And that is reflected by the utter lack of any women in any positions of authority in his administration. And no, Devos and Chao don’t count.
@Emerald: Only way that Wilmer wins this is the same way Trump won the nomination in 2016. Because all the other candidates just sit on their hands waiting for him to collapse and it never happens. Fortunately I think Dem voters are more discerning than GOP primary voters and I think Sanders has a lower ceiling than Trump. But it is worrying. Of course if Sanders wins then I’ll have a day of sad, then get out there with everyone else to beat Trump.
I’d like to see a requirement that presidents must have served at least 2 years after being elected to office at any level (state, municipal, etc). That would guarantee a public voting record or policy planks, and it would cut down on gadfly candidates who just want to buy their way in. I don’t much like business analogies for public office, but one I think is appropriate is that a CEO with no experience in their own industry is unlikely to do well.
I think mayors of large cities are sufficiently “qualified,” but it depends on who they are. If Rahm wasn’t, you know, RAHM!!!!, a person with his experience as WH COS and DCCC head while a Congressman is fairly well-qualified. Harold Washington, also a former Congressman, would have been sufficiently qualified. But not either Daley, or Eugene Sawyer or Jane Byrne or Bilandic or even Lori Lightfoot as yet. Some mayors play on a big field; some are ward healers; it just depends. Bloomberg, to me, is in the Rahm category – sufficiently “qualified” but I’m not planning on voting for him (unless against Trump) for a wide variety of reasons.
When I took the Washington Post quiz, Booker won as the candidate that shares my views the most (Klobuchar second). So he’s always been high on my list. Sad to see him go, but it’s not unexpected.
Yeah, tomorrow is Amy’s last big chance. I’m rooting for her, but not expecting a miracle. It’s coming close to the time I’m going to have to switch to Biden (bleah!) or Warren (barf!) or someone else (ugh!).
@Another Scott: Does geography really matter anymore?
a) anybody with half a brain, knew that both AUMF’s were a “blank cheque” for Infinity Wars,
b) “leaders” are supposed to lead, they are not supposed to meekly follow the bloodlusting mob, and they arn’t supposed to invite the mob, if they are “against the war”,
c) and the “correct answer” to the question now is, “I was wrong, period”. No Excuses, no waffling.
Excuses and waffling now, simply reinforce the memes that:
1) they learned nothing in the meantime,
2) they will follow the mob again,
3) their political career is always more important than anything else.
True or not, doesn’t matter, because the memes sell.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act, Busing, MeToo, LGTBQ rights, AIDs, Bank Bailouts, etc, pretty much every bad take in the past, for a politician, can be solved with a simple “I was wrong.” No excuses, no justifications, no weaseling.
(the only thing I got wrong about Afghanistan, Iraq and Infinity War, was that I had figured we would have given up and quit after a decade, not be doubling down in the third decade).
Obama, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, and Wilson all had Federal experience of the Dem presidents since 1900. Only Clinton and Carter did not.
Of the Republicans since 1900, only Trump, Reagan and Bush 43 came into office without Federal experience. I would count Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander during WW2 as having Federal experience.
I don’t think it is necessarily a required qualification. But it something that I personally look for. Governing is hard and complicated. I want to see some experience with it.
@Emerald: If I’m Bloomberg, I don’t really care about Sanders. He’s very thwartable even if he does get elected by some miracle. Warren is the one who could, potentially, implement a New Deal level of government change, and that’s what the billionaire class absolutely does not want.
Biden and many other Democratic Party Reps got “stampeded” by the mobs braying for blood and and the Chickenshits waving the flag.
Their bad defence of the vote suggests that:
– they can get fooled again,
– they can be stampeded by bloodlust and flag waving again.
Tens of millions of Americans, and people world wide were “right” about the AUMF’s and the Patriot Act(s), at all he time, and for all the right reasons.
What do you think the weak justifications for bad votes, now, given everything that has happened, means to those people and those voters?
It’s not rocket science to say “I was wrong. Period. No Excuses”.
Attempting to justify a bad vote, says that in their hearts, ( guts, cynical political calculations, etc.), they still believe the vote was/is justified.
It’s the equivalent of a “non-apology” apology.
All politicians should have learned this by now.
@Kent: I think that supports my point that gov’t experience is important. It doesn’t really matter much whether or not it’s federal experience because it still provides some kind of public record and it at least provides a minimum of public service rather than just a gigantic personal checkbook and friends in Russia.
@trnc: Every Dem we have elected since 1900 has either been a Senator, Vice President, or 2-term governor, or combination of the three. Every single one. And frankly so have all of the losing nominees to my knowledge.
We haven’t elevated one single Dem from local office to the white house ever. And certainly have never elected anyone with zero government experience at all (Hello Yang and Steyer).
@Kent: I don’t think Wilson had any federal experience – he falls in the governor camp with Carter and Clinton. But he had written a well-received book on government and was a college President. Which brings up another interesting qualification – depending on the field and the level of experience, I think academics could be requisitely qualified. A law professor like Tribe (or Brandeis or Frankfurter), while typically regarded as SCOTUS picks, could also be of Presidential timber. It just depends. In my view, I don’t think Trump (obviously), or Buttigieg or Steyer meet that minimal level. But others could…
And for losing nominees, Stevenson had only been elected as Illinois governor the first time he ran, John W. Davis was just a lawyer and William Jennings Bryan just a Congressman.
J R in WV
Actually, President Carter had a ton of “Federal” experience, starting with Annapolis, the Naval Academy, serving as an officer on a Nuclear Submarine… that’s as Federal as it gets, 24/7 under the gun to get it done right 100% of the time.
Surprised you didn’t give Jimmy that credit after granting it to Ike.
@J R in WV: Well, OK. But back then military service was pretty common. I think Reagan was the only one who didn’t have any until we got to Clinton. When we think of presidents like LBJ and Nixon we don’t think about their WW2 experience, even though they both had it. We think about their other government experience.
But serving as executive officer on a nuclear submarine isn’t quite the same thing as managing the Allied Invasion of Europe. Carter didn’t run on his war experience. He ran as a governor. Eisenhower ran as the liberator of Europe
My larger point is that Trump was uniquely unqualified for office and I don’t want to see the Dems make the same mistake by nominating Yang, Steyer or Buttigieg. I think experience matters.
@Cluttered Mind: I am sorry that you have to go through this. The first few articles that came up on the google search were horrifying.
I have worked with your father on a few occasions. He is a good dude. I think at some point I owe him a beer when I see him next.
AM in NC
@Kent: Bingo. It might not be the only problem Booker had, but it was a big problem.
Biden should be chomping at the bit to testify.
What! Biden is irrelevant to the impeachment. He has nothing to contribute, he has zero knowledge of trump’s crimes. His participation would legitimize trump’s attacks- in short, it would be a catastrophe. Were you joking? If so, apologies.
I think this is a lot of it. Stacy Abrams does not seem to be nearly as egotistical as a large percentage of national political candidates do seem to be and I think was able to make that experience quite well on her own. I do hope she runs in the future, I think she could/would make a great president.
I think the same about Kamala Harris as well. Both are people who want to do a great job for the country, not just to pad their resumes and egos.
Requisite experience would be political knowledge one would gain by at least some exposure to it, a rep or senator or even a governor. The second part would be running some sort of a large government agency, like maybe CA dept of justice.
Small/medium midwestern town mayor doesn’t really speak well about job/political experience. And very small state senator with a pretty much nothing record doesn’t either.
And deservedly so.