Running List of Declared 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates

[Alpha Echo]

My plan is to research the hell out of people during the primaries, and vote for who I personally would like to see win.

And then when a candidate is chosen, I'll vote for them. Even Bernie Sanders.

This is our plan as well.

I wish more people paid attention to primaries. That's really where you can "make a difference." No one votes in the primaries and then people complaint that there are no good choices. The party hacks with the most money win the primaries because no one promotes them.

Agreed. It's rather frustrating.

How many billions do you think those candidates will collectively spend on the campaign trail for the next year or so?

Heck, might as well give Trump his damned wall...

-cb

Oh my gosh, that's so true. I didn't even think about that...and now that I am thinking about it, I realize how gross it is...all the money spent on campaigns. Now I'm interested in what the GOP candidates in 2016 spent collectively. There were quite a few of them for awhile.

 

[lizmonster]

I realize how gross it is...all the money spent on campaigns.

There are countries that strictly limit the campaigning season. I'd love to see that here, but you know the super-rich folks would find ways around it, and then anybody who wanted to have a chance would have to follow suit.

 

[cornflake]

Eh, enjoy the billionaires wasting their money on a run and putting it into the economy, like Meg Whitman, potentially Michael Bloomberg, and the hilarious Howard Schultz (seriously, he's been theoretically studying this for like a year or two and comes out of the gate THAT badly?)

 

[Introversion]

I’ll enjoy watching Schultz waste his money so long as he burns out quickly, and doesn’t wind up fragmenting Democratic votes.

(Agree about the astounding incompetency of his “campaign” efforts thus far. Bodes well for an early flameout if he does run.)

 

[nighttimer]

Not gonna post rando scuttlebutt tweets, but sounds like it's already starting. I'm sure there will also be pearl-clutching over a bachelor in the White House. ('He's unmarried!? That degrades the dignity of the office!')

I like Cory. Still wish Duckworth would run, waiting on the Klob and sorta wouldn't hate Jeff Merkley or Sheldon Whitehouse in the mix. And I doubt I'll be voting for Buttigieg this time around, but dude's playing the long game and I am hella digging him.

I love me some Tammy Duckworth and if I could have a ticket with her and Amy Kloubuchar, I'd be pretty happy throwing that Dynamic Duo against Trump/Pence.

But then I can live with most of the Dem candidates so far. I'm sure Liz Warren is a little distressed by her slow start and Kirsten Gillebrand even more so. Too soon to tell, but she has NO buzz so far. Tulsi Gabbard has already lost her campaign manager before the campaign has started.

And Howard Schultz is just another rich White guy who's bored and thinks he can buy his way to the White House. Maybe if Starbucks drinkers are also Schultz voters, there's a way forward for him. Otherwise, he's wasting his damn time and ours.

Oh, and can't Marianne Williamson get no love? Better her than Schultz...

Eh, enjoy the billionaires wasting their money on a run and putting it into the economy, like Meg Whitman, potentially Michael Bloomberg, and the hilarious Howard Schultz (seriously, he's been theoretically studying this for like a year or two and comes out of the gate THAT badly?)

Yeah, Schultz needs to take a seat...

Let me get my licks in on Howard Schultz because everyone online is already trashing him, and I see no reason why I can’t also join in on the fun. Anyway, the billionaire CEO of Starbucks—a joint where I’ve had to wait as long for a cup of tap water as long as you have to wait for a flat white—is giving double top secret consideration to running for president as an (ugh) independent in 2020. From the looks of things, Schultz is just another bored rich guy who can’t even guess the price of a box of cereal. He has no ideas of any sort, and he’s already limply waved off GOOD ideas that a majority of Americans support.

Has any of that stopped the DC political media from taking Schultz seriously and giving him airtime anywhere on every network? Of course not. Howard Schultz is a public billionaire, and thus an officially Important Person who gets to grace your television no matter how big of doofus he happens to be. I am hardly the first person to notice that, just a couple years ago, the mainstream media gave undue airtime to another seemingly hopeless vanity candidate. That candidate is now president. He also just put the government out of work for over a month and oversees juvenile immigrant concentration camps near our border. The election of Trump served as an ominous portent that we’ll be reliving 2016 for the rest of our lives, and America’s modern political machinery—both in terms of function and coverage—is giving him a big assist in making it a certainty.

Here is another fact: future generations should endeavor to make sure a man of President Trump's ilk never ascends to power again, and yet that won’t happen because our media and most of our politicians treat him very much like a normal president. They do this because they don’t want to alienate Trump’s ever-shrinking base, but also because they believe covering him as a traditional leader and not a deranged 72-year-old seems like the proper and objective thing to do. It is not. Trump’s ascension is an emergency and a global catastrophe waiting to happen, and yet here’s Chuck Todd welcoming the president’s grotesque sycophants onto his show like they’re esteemed intellectuals. And here’s Twitter taking what is clearly a joking tweet about billionaires never cleaning toilets and framing it as a neutral “debate” people out there are having.

...in fact, take two seats, Howie. The absolutely last thing Amurica-Fuck Yeah! needs is another bored rich White guy with zero political experience, no base of support, no ideas, not even an used clue on how to run anything more important than overpriced coffee shops, but because he's a bored, rich White guy, attention must be paid!

That's how we got in this mess in the first place. No more guys who don't know how to buy a box of cereal at the grocery store. Later for that.

 

[cbenoi1]

Now I'm interested in what the GOP candidates in 2016 spent collectively.

A total of US$6.5B was spent in the US 2016 election cycle ( link ).

-cb

 

[AW Admin]

There are countries that strictly limit the campaigning season. I'd love to see that here, but you know the super-rich folks would find ways around it, and then anybody who wanted to have a chance would have to follow suit.

I wish it were limited by both time and finance.

 

[Chris P]

I wish more people paid attention to primaries. That's really where you can "make a difference." No one votes in the primaries and then people complaint that there are no good choices. The party hacks with the most money win the primaries because no one promotes them.

Complicating that issue, though, are the states with open primaries, where people get the opposing side's ballot and vote for a loser their party's candidate could easily beat (I think it's stinky, but . . . I've done it). In such cases, you don't know who the Dems or GOPs really want to win, but who their opponenets want to see lose. Closed primaries would fix that, but on the other hand would restrict primary voting to those who are registered for a party with a candidate on their ticket. So, which problem would you rather have?

 

[Kjbartolotta]

I wish it were limited by both time and finance.

Right before the election, I remember reading a few thoughtful pieces in defense of the US's long election cycle, as well as the Electoral College. Felt convinced both were a good thing at the time.

Then it was November.

 

[darkprincealain]

Complicating that issue, though, are the states with open primaries, where people get the opposing side's ballot and vote for a loser their party's candidate could easily beat (I think it's stinky, but . . . I've done it). In such cases, you don't know who the Dems or GOPs really want to win, but who their opponenets want to see lose. Closed primaries would fix that, but on the other hand would restrict primary voting to those who are registered for a party with a candidate on their ticket. So, which problem would you rather have?

I live in a state with open primaries and have asked for the GOP ballot a number of times, but not in 2016. I guess it depends on your perspective. I hope they don’t change it here in Missouri, because it’s a lot of fun in the more boring years. I quite miss when politics was boring and there wasn’t so much bad news after bad news.

 

[Roxxsmom]

I am heartily sick of the notion that billionaires and CEOs possess some magical insight about the inner workings of government and the economy that will somehow fix everything. You's think that all the spectacular failures, including our own fiasco, would kill that notion in a fire by now, but nooooooo. We love to worship the ultra rich and desperately want to believe they got where they are through merit and hard work alone.

As an independent candidate, Schultz has no chance, even if his campaign had opened with a bang and he had ideas as new and refreshing as a Starbuck's violet drink. My main concern is that third party candidates can channel more votes away from one party than another. Will Schultz tempt some moderate voters who hate Trump and want to salve their conscience by insisting they didn't vote for him, voters who otherwise would have gone for whoever the Democratic candidate ends up being? This is one scenario that could allow a wildly unpopular incumbent (outside of his base) to be re-elected with less than half the popular vote. Or will he pull away some fiscally conservative voters who might otherwise have gone for Trump, thus helping the Democrats?

I've no idea. I don't know where the voters who might actually support Schultz might break. I suspect either way there is a Starbuck's boycott on the horizon.

 

[Introversion]

The zombie notion That Will Not Die is that government ought be run like a business. Ergo, CEOs make good presidents.

I’d like to think that Fat Orange Nixon’s example would drive a stake through that idea, but until/unless his approval ratings hit single digits, I don’t see it happening. Is our children learning?

 

[Kjbartolotta]

I feel like Schultz's cardinal sin is being boring. He's a billionaire, so he's got people he can pay to tell him running is smart, and media venues that are prepared to swoon over him and give him as much airtime as he requires. But Trump's early candidacy was basically a Don Rickles act, and even Ross Perot was irascible enough that people would give him a chance. I 'd kind of like Schutlz better if he dressed like an emo teen while whining about how nobody likes him and he's so smart.

I remember there were some rumors in the Nineties Ted Turner might run (or maybe I'm just thinking of The Critic). If I had to pick a crazy billionaire I would vote for, he's as close as you're gonna get.

The 'Government Should Be Run Like a Business' meme seems to be part of the larger push to convince people that the worst way to run a government is like a government. There's this habit of ascribing venality and self-interest to institutions that exist only to serve, and it becomes a justification for cutting back any service that keeps our society livable in the name of Individual Responsibility :cue booming echo noise: .Makes me think of Margaret Thatcher's 'There is no such thing as society' speech. But maintaining the idea that 'government doesn't work' and 'it's all corrupt, anyhow' is clearly part of how we got here.

 

[frimble3]

Does the billionaire have to be crazy? Or is it that only the crazy ones that go into politics?
Bill Gates seems sane enough, and he's worked with a cross-section of people. He's the 'malaria nets' guy, isn't he? That's more good than most presidents have done before being elected, and most billionaires have done before they were his age. And, he's likely to know people who can handle the Russian hackers and bot-farms.

 

[cbenoi1]

Does the billionaire have to be crazy?

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. They should be called "people of means" now. ( link )

-cb

 

[Tazlima]

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. They should be called "people of means" now. ( link )

-cb

Holy crap. That isn't satire?!

 

[cornflake]

I feel like Schultz's cardinal sin is being boring. He's a billionaire, so he's got people he can pay to tell him running is smart, and media venues that are prepared to swoon over him and give him as much airtime as he requires. But Trump's early candidacy was basically a Don Rickles act, and even Ross Perot was irascible enough that people would give him a chance. I 'd kind of like Schutlz better if he dressed like an emo teen while whining about how nobody likes him and he's so smart.

I remember there were some rumors in the Nineties Ted Turner might run (or maybe I'm just thinking of The Critic). If I had to pick a crazy billionaire I would vote for, he's as close as you're gonna get.

The 'Government Should Be Run Like a Business' meme seems to be part of the larger push to convince people that the worst way to run a government is like a government. There's this habit of ascribing venality and self-interest to institutions that exist only to serve, and it becomes a justification for cutting back any service that keeps our society livable in the name of Individual Responsibility :cue booming echo noise: .Makes me think of Margaret Thatcher's 'There is no such thing as society' speech. But maintaining the idea that 'government doesn't work' and 'it's all corrupt, anyhow' is clearly part of how we got here.

I think it's that he's an idiot. Being dumb isn't a sin, or a problem, unless you're dumb and trying to, I dunno, be president of the country.

It's kind of stunning how someone with what appears to be his somewhat limited ability to ... think about things, got to the job level he has without his father leaving it to him, but I've stopped underestimating the ability of mediocre white men to succeed for no reason.

He didn't want to explain what he'd do if he were president, while... running for president.

Asked what he thought the corporate tax rate should be, he said, “I don’t want to talk in the hypothetical about what I would do if I was president.”

When he finally started talking, he made quite clear that despite "studying" the whole 'run for president' thing for like two years, he appears to have zero idea how anything in government works, or what people want, on a very basic level --

“When I hear people espousing free government-paid college, free government-paid health care and a free government job for everyone — on top of a $21 trillion debt — the question is, how are we paying for all this and not bankrupting the country?” Mr. Schultz said.

“It’s as big of a false narrative as the wall,” he added. “Doesn’t someone have to speak the truth about what we can afford while maintaining a deep level of compassion and empathy for the American people?”

And

“Let's take a centrist approach about getting ideology out,” Schultz said in the CNBC interview. “We can get the 4 percent growth, we can go after entitlements, and we can do the right thing — if we have the right people in place.”

But

What I believe is that every American has the right to affordable health care as a statement," Schultz said

So he wants to cut Medicare, SS, entitlements across the board, NOT put in a higher marginal tax rate for the rich, or a flat tax over a certain amount (like the proposals of 2% over 10 mil or whatever), also cut the deficit AND give everyone affordable health care! Sure. Makes total sense.

Maybe my fave, he didn't know what Cheerios might cost, and when told a box is around $4, said "that's a lot." The guy who was in charge of Starbucks, where pay $4 for a medium cappucino made with $.02 of coffee and a few oz. of milk thinks the Cheerios are expensive.

 

[Kjbartolotta]

I think it's that he's an idiot.

Hard lack of disagreement here. Though if he was making fun of disabled reporters and claiming Mexicans are rapists, I'm unsure it would be a problem. I guess that corner is already taken.

He didn't want to explain what he'd do if he were president, while... running for president.

I feel he's been very clear. He's going to sit everyone down at the table together. Centrism!

Does the billionaire have to be crazy? Or is it that only the crazy ones that go into politics?
Bill Gates seems sane enough, and he's worked with a cross-section of people.

I'm Gates-skeptical, but he puts his money behind good causes. And he's not a politician, and therefore stays out of politics. So points (but I'll never vote for a billionaire; Schultz, Gates, Trump, Buffet, Soros, Turner, and so on).

Final thoughts (until a mod or someone splits this off into a Schultz thread): Really hard to avoid Starbucks and I feel kinda guilty for the nice peeps who work there. Gonna be embarrassing when I amble back in once Coffee Guy's hellrun is over. But no.

 

[Kjbartolotta]

In other news, Amy Klobuchar hasn't declared yet, but it sounds all but assured that she will. And guess what? She already has a likability problem.

Sen. Klobuchar's Mistreatment of Her Staff Scared Off Candidates to Manage Her Presidential Bid.

I'd quote from the article, but for me it amounts to one big, long, wet fart noise. So what? Staffers seem to recall mixed experiences, some people had a better time with her than others. And I don't doubt these stories much, sounds like she's a bit of a martinet, hates people coming in late, and has a habit of referring to things as 'The Worst x Ever'. Is this supposed to tarnish her sterling reputation as a politician and public servant? Because it doesn't, except for maybe sending staffers to pick up her dry cleaning. Which is a no-no. So get ready for lots of "But her dry cleaning!"

Kinda mad.

 

[William Haskins]

list updated to include specifics on those who have formed exploratory committees and to note ojeda's withdrawal.

 

[lizmonster]

Kinda mad.

Someday women will be judged for their actual accomplishments.

But not in my lifetime.

 

[darkprincealain]

I realized tonight I made a really dumb decision, limiting myself from visiting here very often over recent years, because I worry about having my feelings hurt. This place is full of awfully smart people, and I sure could use some learning right now.

The field is a bit crowded already. There are probably a few others who’ll announce over the coming weeks and months. I feel like my two preferred candidates disagree on a awful lot. Is there any chance that our individual behavior could help bridge what seemed to be an extremely vicious 2016 within the Democratic Party? I don’t want whoever is the nominee to suffer the kind of bruising that took place in 2016 if I can help it.

 

[ElaineA]

God, Trump is a stain. I've seen several prominent "voices" (Rob Lowe, in particular) make the most racist comments...for laughs, I guess?...about Warren's candidacy. The GOP and its supporters have wholesale given in on trying to appeal to policy. It's all dig-dirt, cast aspersions and slurs, divide and conquer (with the help of bad actors and foreign agents). Which leads to this:

The field is a bit crowded already. There are probably a few others who’ll announce over the coming weeks and months. I feel like my two preferred candidates disagree on a awful lot. Is there any chance that our individual behavior could help bridge what seemed to be an extremely vicious 2016 within the Democratic Party? I don’t want whoever is the nominee to suffer the kind of bruising that took place in 2016 if I can help it.

Personally, I've decided not to attack any of the D candidates. I'm not even talking about the things I object to in their platforms. I have a clear favorite I will talk UP, but she might not be the candidate at the end, and I'm committed to backing whomever that is going to be, even if it's my *least* favorite.

I see a lot of troll-army activity online already, and the effort to divide will only get more intense. The bad actors are out in force, and based on 2016, logic, truth, and facts won't be getting in the way of a good conspiracy theory (or even a bad one). Facts and truth certainly can't compete with salacious gossip that comes Tweet-sized. I guess all we can do is realize where these things are coming from, vote your heart in the primary, and promise not to sit out just because your preferred candidate didn't win.

I don't know what else to do in the face of concerted efforts to create a civil war among the left. It's hold your nose and all hands on deck if we want to get this country back from people who seem to be determined to stomp toward a Christo-oligarchic state.

 

[ap123]

Personally, I've decided not to attack any of the D candidates. I'm not even talking about the things I object to in their platforms. I have a clear favorite I will talk UP, but she might not be the candidate at the end, and I'm committed to backing whomever that is going to be, even if it's my *least* favorite. THIS


I don't know what else to do in the face of concerted efforts to create a civil war among the left. It's hold your nose and all hands on deck if we want to get this country back from people who seem to be determined to stomp toward a Christo-oligarchic state.

And this. Honestly, the above approach is the only one that makes sense to me. We've seen what happens in these days of social media warfare when old approaches are used. I want the orange stain gone, the current iteration of the GOP minimized, and the extremists who call themselves left but are actually just the flip side of faux news conspiracy theorists and populists made irrelevant.

 

[William Haskins]

updated to add klobachar