Kristen Gillibrand announces Presidential campaign on the Late Show.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q59SGJL3LMk

And Steven gets the scoop!

Gillibrand has got good policies positions as far as they go, some definite channeling of Bernie, and a good resume, though I find her a bit clunky and stiff as a public speaker thus far. Still, I think she'll be a good addition to the field, though my support remains with Elizabeth Warren for the time being.

Question of historical curiosity, but is this the first time we've had multiple female candidates running for a major party's nomination?

Candidates thus far:

Democrats:

Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.
Julian Castro.
Senator Kristen Gillibrand.

Republicans:

Traitor in Chief Donald Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ugg, the comments section on the Colbert video on Youtube is already full of people attacking her and saying they won't vote for her because she was mean to Al Franken. Because apparently sexually harassing women is a-okay if the offender is on "our team", but if you take a stand against him, then you're just one of those nasty women out to get men for personal advantage.

I sincerely hope that all of these posters are Russian bots/trolls or Alt. Reich trolls, because the thought of Democrats adopting the same "circle the wagons and defend the predator as long as he's on our team" mentality as the Republicans sickens me. But then, we saw the same thing with Bill Clinton, who was often vociferously defending by the very same Democrats who were rushing to brand Bernie Sanders a misogynist.

[Elfdart]

I'm pretty sure it is the first time there were multiple female candidates in the primaries.

Gillibrand is one of those establishment DNC/DLC hacks that usually flame out in the general election. There is one key difference: She is willing (almost eager) to throw anyone or anything to the sharks to help herself politically at the time. For example, if the MeToo campaign is taking down one pig after another, and the presence of Al Franken and Bill Clinton on the political stage hinders the effort to use it against Republicans, well...

So long Al and Bubba. She took a lot of shit over it, but she did the right thing and those two has-beens were no great loss anyway.

Has she spent most of her career as a centrist who courts Wall St? Yes. Does she have the good sense to try to distance herself from moneyed interests and reach out to the base of the party by (among other things) voting against Trump, his agenda and his appointments more than any of the other candidates? Damn right. She's an opportunist with good political sense, unlike Gore or Hillary.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm pretty sure it is the first time there were multiple female candidates in the primaries.

There was a female candidate running on the Republican side at the same time as Hillary in 2016, but to my knowledge this is the first time that there have been two major female candidates for the nomination of a single party.

Gillibrand is one of those establishment DNC/DLC hacks that usually flame out in the general election. There is one key difference: She is willing (almost eager) to throw anyone or anything to the sharks to help herself politically at the time. For example, if the MeToo campaign is taking down one pig after another, and the presence of Al Franken and Bill Clinton on the political stage hinders the effort to use it against Republicans, well...

So long Al and Bubba. She took a lot of shit over it, but she did the right thing and those two has-beens were no great loss anyway.

Has she spent most of her career as a centrist who courts Wall St? Yes. Does she have the good sense to try to distance herself from moneyed interests and reach out to the base of the party by (among other things) voting against Trump, his agenda and his appointments more than any of the other candidates? Damn right. She's an opportunist with good political sense, unlike Gore or Hillary.

I don't know much about her earlier career, but her positions here seem to be basically channeling MeToo meets Bernie Sanders. So yeah, she knows which way the wind is blowing.

[Gandalf]

Ugg, the comments section on the Colbert video on Youtube is already full of people attacking her and saying they won't vote for her because she was mean to Al Franken. Because apparently sexually harassing women is a-okay if the offender is on "our team", but if you take a stand against him, then you're just one of those nasty women out to get men for personal advantage.

I sincerely hope that all of these posters are Russian bots/trolls or Alt. Reich trolls, because the thought of Democrats adopting the same "circle the wagons and defend the predator as long as he's on our team" mentality as the Republicans sickens me. But then, we saw the same thing with Bill Clinton, who was often vociferously defending by the very same Democrats who were rushing to brand Bernie Sanders a misogynist.

Dude, look back on the thread here on Franken when it all happened. Some people were so locked into the "us v them" of it all that they got really defensive.

[LaCroix]

Also, Kamala Harris also made very distinct noises about entering the ring when she visited him, but it seems she's going to wait out a bit until she officially does so.

[Elfdart]

I don't much like the idea of pulling one (let alone two) senators out of the Senate. If they win, there's a chance the party might lose those seats -and I'd argue that right now, taking the Senate in 2020 is as important as the White House.

[The Romulan Republic]

Agreed that losing two Senators wouldn't be a good idea. If a Senator is on one half of the ticket, the other half should be drawn from somewhere else.

[houser2112]

New York and California are reliable enough to replace Democratic senators with more Democrats that it doesn't worry me all that much. It's people like Sherrod Brown that I don't want to pull out of the Senate. I'm not sure what Ohio's process for replacing senators is, but Republicans enjoy a trifecta in Ohio and Ohio voters aren't nearly as likely to vote Democratic, so I wouldn't want to chance it with him.

[TimothyC]

I'm not sure what Ohio's process for replacing senators is, but Republicans enjoy a trifecta in Ohio and Ohio voters aren't nearly as likely to vote Democratic, so I wouldn't want to chance it with him.

Gubernatorial appointment until the next statewide election, so if Sen. Brown were to be President, then Gov. DeWine would appoint the replacement who would be up for election in 2022, when Sen. Portman is also up for election. What would be funny is if Gov. DeWine then appoints himself, taking back the Class 1 seat that he lost in 2006.

The catch with Sen. Brown is that he did win in 2018 in Ohio, and prior to the election was the only democrat sitting in a statewide elected office in a state that has been trending republican. From that, he shows a level of cross-over appeal that individuals like Sens. Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, & Warren simply don't have.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not sure what Ohio's process for replacing senators is, but Republicans enjoy a trifecta in Ohio and Ohio voters aren't nearly as likely to vote Democratic, so I wouldn't want to chance it with him.

Gubernatorial appointment until the next statewide election, so if Sen. Brown were to be President, then Gov. DeWine would appoint the replacement who would be up for election in 2022, when Sen. Portman is also up for election. What would be funny is if Gov. DeWine then appoints himself, taking back the Class 1 seat that he lost in 2006.

The catch with Sen. Brown is that he did win in 2018 in Ohio, and prior to the election was the only democrat sitting in a statewide elected office in a state that has been trending republican. From that, he shows a level of cross-over appeal that individuals like Sens. Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, & Warren simply don't have.

I can't help but notice that each of the individuals you just listed in contrast to Brown is either female, non-white, or both.

Gee, its almost like you have to have a white penis to have "crossover appeal" to Republicans.

[Alferd Packer]

As the old saying goes, "you don't have to have a white penis to win Ohio, but it helps!" The real question is whether or not crossover appeal is necessary or even desirable. Given the margins that Trump won Ohio in 2016, it may be better to write it off as Missouri was written off by Democrats, or as Nevada and New Mexico have been by Republicans. That frees you up to choose a candidate who can galvanize your base and actually get them to vote. if that candidate happens to have a white penis, that's just a fringe benefit, rather than a hard requirement.

[TimothyC]

I can't help but notice that each of the individuals you just listed in contrast to Brown is either female, non-white, or both.

Gee, its almost like you have to have a white penis to have "crossover appeal" to Republicans.

Well, look at who is running so far.

• Sec. Castro
• Rep. Delaney
• State Sen. Ojeda (the distressed nature of his logo takes it from "This is what a coup logo looks like" to "This is a logo by a veteran who runs an online t-shirt shop")
• A number of no-name guys who have filed but have zero name recognition
• Sen. Harris
• Rep. Gabbard
• Sen. Gillibrand
• Sen. Warren.
• And a bunch of people who have expressed interest, but haven't done the paperwork yet. (yes Sen. Brown is on that list, but he's doing a multi-state 'Dignity of Work' [a phrase taken from a speech by Dr. King] tour that just so totally accidentally goes through Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.

Why, it's almost as if most of the major candidates are a woman or non-white.

As the old saying goes, "you don't have to have a white penis to win Ohio, but it helps!"

Winning more votes in total is never the goal in presidential politics. If a candidate gets an extra two million votes over the majority in California, it doesn't matter if they then loose by fifty thousand votes in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Pres. Trump used this to great effect in 2016, and the national democrats need to remember this. You play to the electoral college, not the general populace.

[Gandalf]

As the old saying goes, "you don't have to have a white penis to win Ohio, but it helps!" The real question is whether or not crossover appeal is necessary or even desirable. Given the margins that Trump won Ohio in 2016, it may be better to write it off as Missouri was written off by Democrats, or as Nevada and New Mexico have been by Republicans. That frees you up to choose a candidate who can galvanize your base and actually get them to vote. if that candidate happens to have a white penis, that's just a fringe benefit, rather than a hard requirement.

You can do that, but then you need to find another reliable set of EC votes to replace it. There's ticked off people who are fine with white supremacists (read: Republicans) in a lot of states, so I'm not sure where you'd pick up the deficit.

[Rogue 9]

[*]A number of no-name guys who have filed but have zero name recognition

It amuses me that the first one on that list was born in Britain, and is therefore ineligible.

[The Romulan Republic]

I can't help but notice that each of the individuals you just listed in contrast to Brown is either female, non-white, or both.

Gee, its almost like you have to have a white penis to have "crossover appeal" to Republicans.

Well, look at who is running so far.

• Sec. Castro
• Rep. Delaney
• State Sen. Ojeda (the distressed nature of his logo takes it from "This is what a coup logo looks like" to "This is a logo by a veteran who runs an online t-shirt shop")
• A number of no-name guys who have filed but have zero name recognition
• Sen. Harris
• Rep. Gabbard
• Sen. Gillibrand
• Sen. Warren.
• And a bunch of people who have expressed interest, but haven't done the paperwork yet. (yes Sen. Brown is on that list, but he's doing a multi-state 'Dignity of Work' [a phrase taken from a speech by Dr. King] tour that just so totally accidentally goes through Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.

Why, it's almost as if most of the major candidates are a woman or non-white.

You say that like its a bad thing. Or is this supposed to be some kind of Whataboutism, defending Republicans' rampant racism and misogyny by saying "The Democrats are mostly running women and minorities, so they're just as bad!" (ignoring that this is simply who has declared so far with literally dozens more potential nominees incoming, not an indication of party-wide bias).

As the old saying goes, "you don't have to have a white penis to win Ohio, but it helps!"

Winning more votes in total is never the goal in presidential politics. If a candidate gets an extra two million votes over the majority in California, it doesn't matter if they then loose by fifty thousand votes in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Pres. Trump used this to great effect in 2016, and the national democrats need to remember this. You play to the electoral college, not the general populace.[/quote]

Which is why the Electoral College is an archaic, oligarchic piece of shit that should be stripped from the Constitution and relegated to the dustbin of history alongside shit like the 3/5ths compromise and the Dredd Scot decision.

But what exactly is your point? That Democrats should just pander to people who will only accept a white male candidate (ie racists and misogynists), and just accept that the only people who will ever matter in America are a few tens of thousands of white voters in a few midwestern swing states? Because it sure sounds like that's what you are saying.

Either clarify what your actual views are, or admit that what you are saying is that Democrats should only run white men if they want to win (note: Obama won a bunch of those midwestern states twice).

You are also being dishonest in portraying Ohio as one of the key states that put Trump over the top. Trump won by taking Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. All states Obama won twice, IIRC. Ohio was not key to his victory.

We've heard this argument sporadically since 2016, that if the Democrats want to win they need to throw women and minorities under the bus and accept that the only people who matter in America are conservative white men. But this is not supported by facts, in addition to being morally repugnant.

[Elfdart]

[*]A number of no-name guys who have filed but have zero name recognition

It amuses me that the first one on that list was born in Britain, and is therefore ineligible.

Wrong.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not sure if it applies here, but there's pretty clear legal precedent that you are a "natural born citizen", and therefore can run, even if you were born outside the country, as long as at least one parent was American. This came up with both John McCain and Ted Cruz IIRC, and Cruz's case was of particular interest to me as he was in much the same position as me- an American born in Canada to parents from both countries (not that I have any plans to run for President, but its nice to have my status as an equal citizen confirmed by the courts). IIRC multiple courts ruled that Cruz could run for President.

Edit: this is also perhaps the only issue where I can unequivocally say that I support Ted Cruz. He's a piece of shit, but he's an American piece of shit, and while I wouldn't vote for the syphilitic scrotum under any conditions, I believe he has the right to run.

[Alferd Packer]

You can do that, but then you need to find another reliable set of EC votes to replace it. There's ticked off people who are fine with white supremacists (read: Republicans) in a lot of states, so I'm not sure where you'd pick up the deficit.

I've said as much elsewhere, but it does bear repeating: Ohio is not a bellweather state anymore. Pursuing a Midwestern strategy, a candidate can lose Ohio, if you secure Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Or, generally put, a candidate may lose any one of the aforementioned states and still win the election, assuming the "safe" states remain so on either party's side(for this example I am ignoring Florida, in the grandest of American traditions).

Given the Republican margin of victory in the four abovementioned states in the last general election, Ohio is probably a new Republican safe state. The reasons for this change are manifold, but the loss of Ohio as a swing state does not necessarily mean that the Democrats must magically find 18 EVs elsewhere. Even discounting Ohio, there are more paths to victory in 2020 for a hypothetical Democratic candidate than there are for the presumptive Republican candidate. What ultimately matters is flipping the razor-thin margins in the 5 or so extant swing states, constituting approximately 100 EVs, and that means fielding a ticket behind whom the partisans in those swing states will rally.

[TimothyC]

You say that like its a bad thing. Or is this supposed to be some kind of Whataboutism, defending Republicans' rampant racism and misogyny by saying "The Democrats are mostly running women and minorities, so they're just as bad!" (ignoring that this is simply who has declared so far with literally dozens more potential nominees incoming, not an indication of party-wide bias).

I'm saying that you don't get to complain about me listing women and non-white people on a list of drawn from a population that is mostly women and non-white people.

Which is why the Electoral College is an archaic, oligarchic piece of shit that should be stripped from the Constitution and relegated to the dustbin of history alongside shit like the 3/5ths compromise and the Dredd Scot decision.

Blah blah blah. Guess what? It's still the constitutional way of picking a president and there is no way that is going to be changed by 2020. Play the game by the rules as written, or be prepared to lose to someone who will.

But what exactly is your point? That Democrats should just pander to people who will only accept a white male candidate (ie racists and misogynists), and just accept that the only people who will ever matter in America are a few tens of thousands of white voters in a few midwestern swing states? Because it sure sounds like that's what you are saying.

You need to play the game by the rules as written, not as how you want them to be. That means having someone who can get the votes in the rustbelt. Just because you wish it were not true doesn't make it false.

Either clarify what your actual views are, or admit that what you are saying is that Democrats should only run white men if they want to win (note: Obama won a bunch of those midwestern states twice).

My stance? I'm a Republican who loathes Pres. Trump, and has a visceral distaste for Vice Pres. Pence. As I don't see Trump getting primaried in 2020, that means going for a Democrat who I think could win against him. For me, that's not a long list - Rep. Gabbard or Sen. Brown. To that end, those are the people I'd support. You also need the incoming recession to hit in 2020Q3 or earlier, because if it doesn't hit until Q4, well that's the ball game folks.

You are also being dishonest in portraying Ohio as one of the key states that put Trump over the top. Trump won by taking Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. All states Obama won twice, IIRC. Ohio was not key to his victory.

Yes, Pres. Trump won by a larger margin on Ohio than he did in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Sen. Brown has won in Ohio repeatedly, which would likely translate to an ability to win in surrounding great-lakes states.

We've heard this argument sporadically since 2016, that if the Democrats want to win they need to throw women and minorities under the bus and accept that the only people who matter in America are conservative white men. But this is not supported by facts, in addition to being morally repugnant.

I'll be honest, I've not looked at the demographic turnouts in the marginal states. Are there enough women and minorities in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that didn't turn out in 2016 for Sec. Clinton that can be brought out to the polls?

[The Romulan Republic]

There is more than one path to victory (recall that no President in recent history has won reelection with less than 50% approval ratings, and Trump's IIRC is currently hovering in the low forties to high thirties). But one very obvious way exists, based on past experience: find a candidate who can reunite the Obama coalition.

[The Romulan Republic]

The other obvious route would be to turn out enough of the growing demographics of young and minority voters in the South and South West to start flipping states like North Carolina (which Obama won in 2008), Georgia and Florida (which Republicans required massive voter suppression to hold last November), and Arizona and Texas. At which point the Midwest becomes virtually irrelevant to electoral math. This is precisely the scenario that terrifies Republicans and white nationalists to their core, hence their frantic efforts to end immigration (legal or otherwise) and disenfranchise young and minority voters.

[Alferd Packer]

I'll be honest, I've not looked at the demographic turnouts in the marginal states. Are there enough women and minorities in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that didn't turn out in 2016 for Sec. Clinton that can be brought out to the polls?

Short answer: probably. While Republicans were down across the board in the midterms, as is the norm for the party in power, the sharpest swing was with suburban white women. In the broadest of terms, they voted Republican in 2016, and Democratic in 2018. Pretty much every other demographic stayed the same, if in lesser magnitude (e.g. white men still voted Republican, just by a lesser margin than 2016).

Combine suburban white women with young persons who have now learned the painful lesson that elections have real consequences, and there may be the margin you need. It ultimately will come down to the ticket the Democrats field in 2020.

The other obvious route would be to turn out enough of the growing demographics of young and minority voters in the South and South West to start flipping states like North Carolina (which Obama won in 2008), Georgia and Florida (which Republicans required massive voter suppression to hold last November), and Arizona and Texas. At which point the Midwest becomes virtually irrelevant to electoral math. This is precisely the scenario that terrifies Republicans and white nationalists to their core, hence their frantic efforts to end immigration (legal or otherwise) and disenfranchise young and minority voters.

I don't think Texas in play in 2020. Maybe 2024 or 2028. Ted Cruz is a sentient enema, and he still won comfortably. Yes, there are a huge number of energized, passionate, young, liberal voters in Texas. There just aren't enough of them yet. Were I running a campaign next summer, I would put no effort into Texas unless someone on the ticket was from there.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would put an effort into Texas even if unlikely to win it (presuming that we keep doing well in the fundraising game, and don't have to carefully prioritize spending on only the most critical states), for three reasons:

1. It will help downballot races in Texas.

2. It will show supporters and potential supporters in Texas that they matter, that we do not just ignore them because they're in a red state. It will help build support for that swing you talk about in 2024 or 2028, to make sure it actually materializes.

3. It will force the Republicans on the defensive, forcing them to pour millions into defending what should be a "safe" state for them, instead of spending that money hitting us in swing states.

Edit: Seriously, fuck the idea that only half a dozen mostly white rural states matter. If you aren't willing to fight for the whole country, you don't deserve to be President of the country. I don't think we should cede one inch of ground to Trumpism unfought.

[Gandalf]

My stance? I'm a Republican who loathes Pres. Trump, and has a visceral distaste for Vice Pres. Pence. As I don't see Trump getting primaried in 2020, that means going for a Democrat who I think could win against him. For me, that's not a long list - Rep. Gabbard or Sen. Brown. To that end, those are the people I'd support. You also need the incoming recession to hit in 2020Q3 or earlier, because if it doesn't hit until Q4, well that's the ball game folks.

You claim to loathe Trump, but remains a Republican? How odd.