The Race for the 2020 POTUS elections

[ballettmaus]

Ten years from now people will wonder how it could be that all our leaders could be so complacent and how so many commentators could puff out their chests showing how realistic they are by making the necessary statement that "we just can't do that."

There is a difference between looking at something realistically and saying "we can't do it". The Green New Deal is achievable, it's just not achievable in ten years. For one thing, the money isn't there and it certainly isn't if you also want to invest in education and proper health care.
But even if money were not an issue, I don't think that it would be possible in that time frame because it's such a huge undertaking, the little bit of infrastructure that does exist is in a horrible condition and it requires cooperation from third parties like car manufacturers. (And plane travel will never ever become unnecessary and even less so in a world that is becoming more globalized).

But just because it's not achievable in ten years doesn't mean that the candidates should not support it and see it as the ultimate goal and do everything they can to get there.

In ten years, a certain number of power plants can be replaced, a certain numbers of cars can become electrical, a certain amount of train tracks can be replaced etc. That's not saying we can't do it, that's saying this is what we can do now. I just find it more helpful to have a candidate who is aware of all the obstacles and goes in with both eyes wide open rather than just the ideology on his mind. If they are aware it's likely they have a plan for how to work around the obstacles.

I'm not. I think that the Green New Deal will happen as long as we elect a Democrat as president. The push for it is going to come from below.

Doesn't Hogan have a pretty good record on the environment, too, or am I misremembering?

I also think that a Democratic President is not enough. You either need a Democratic House and Senate as well or you need someone who can work with Republicans. It'll cost a lot of money and as soon as a Democrat is President, Republicans will become the party of "fiscal responsibility" again and it'll hurt the fossil fuel industry, Republican voters.


(And I can think for myself. I don't need the MSM to tell me what to think).

 

[BlueRidge]

What does it mean to say "the money isn't there." Where is the money?

Btw the Green new deal calls for " a new
national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on
a scale not seen since World War II"

Other than politically why is this not possible? If the Nazis were engulfing the world rather than climate change, would we not be able to do this?

Why isn't it possible in 10 years? How many years is it possible in?

Its possible, if enough people believe it is possible and demand it and work for it. Otherwise you're right its not possible. But the only thing standing in the way is a belief that its not possible. Its solely a matter of politics.

 

[Vash01]

Just watched Amy Klobuchar's announcement to run for President. Great optics, with the snow coming down, 14 deg. F temperature and a strong speech. I like ber better than Warren and Booker. She brings positive energy. She projected strength and unity, to me at least.

 

[BittyBug]

@BlueRidge what is surprising to me is how much visibility and exposure the GND is getting. All the major Democrats are talking about it. AOC retweets a lot of other people when they address the GND - you should check out her Twitter. For example, here is Corey Booker: https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/1093918574324916225 Jeff Merkley: https://twitter.com/JeffMerkley/status/1093597965426544640 Kirstenn Gillibrand: https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/1093574435896987648 Elizabeth Warren: https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1093539704622993408

You're right that nothing will happen as long as Republicans remain in power, so it will be up to the American people to bring about the change at the ballot box. But I do think that most people are smarter than the bullshit spewed on FoxNews. Floods, fires, scorching heat - the evidence is all around us and people are finally waking up.

 

[BlueRidge]

@BlueRidge what is surprising to me is how much visibility and exposure the GND is getting. All the major Democrats are talking about it. AOC retweets a lot of other people when they address the GND - you should check out her Twitter. For example, here is Corey Booker: https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/1093918574324916225 Jeff Merkley: https://twitter.com/JeffMerkley/status/1093597965426544640 Kirstenn Gillibrand: https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/1093574435896987648 Elizabeth Warren: https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1093539704622993408

You're right that nothing will happen as long as Republicans remain in power, so it will be up to the American people to bring about the change at the ballot box. But I do think that most people are smarter than the bullshit spewed on FoxNews. Floods, fires, scorching heat - the evidence is all around us and people are finally waking up.

Every poll shows great concern about climate change. And the Green New Deal is the first time anyone has come up with a comprehensive framework to address climate change and do it in a way that puts the economic fallout up front and guarantees people will have a way to thrive while we make the changes we have to make.

Its good that all the Dems are talking about it because right now it is aspirational and people need to join at that level in order to get to the point where there will be support for the actions needed.

I follow AOC on Facebook--I'm so old and also the Sunrise Movement. Its exciting.

 

[BlueRidge]

Anyway, on 2020 candidates, Amy Klobuchar's issues with her staff make her a no-go for me. High staff turnover and disarray is something that cannot work in the presidency.

 

[BittyBug]

I was surprised to read those allegations about Klobuchar and agree that it's a deal-breaker.

 

[ballettmaus]

What does it mean to say "the money isn't there." Where is the money?

Currently, in other departments, like DOD.

Btw the Green new deal calls for " a new
national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on
a scale not seen since World War II"

Other than politically why is this not possible? If the Nazis were engulfing the world rather than climate change, would we not be able to do this?

Why isn't it possible in 10 years? How many years is it possible in?

I don't know. But here are my concerns.

Power plants:
You'd have to replace every power plant in ten years. And not only that, you need to retrain the workers, too. I don't know if you have to make changes to the power lines but generally, I imagine that this is the most feasable part of the deal and that, if they really wanted to, they could have it done in ten years.

Cars:
Millions and millions of cars, trucks and busses have to be replaced. Not only that, they have to be built first. I do believe that the technology exists to build electrical cars, trucks and busses that can travel long distances and that it has simple been tucked away in some file cabinet because the fossil fuel industry has no interest in electrical cars that can compete with regular cars. But, unless car manufacturers plan to give them away for free, people have to buy them. And for that, they have to have the money to buy a new car. The way things are going economically right now, many people can't afford that. (And I say that assuming that electrical cars would be normally priced once they become mainstream).

Electrical cars also require loading stations. Basically everywhere. So, the loading stations have to be built and installed and they have to be checked/repaired regularly.

Public Transit:
The Green New Deal calls for an expansion of public transit. According to the internet, the silver line expansion took three to four years alone from the time it was green-lit to when construction began. (It's unclear if they started construction in late 2014 or early 2015). So, they are now in year 4 or 5 of construction and year 8 overall it's not even finished yet. And that's only an expansion.

But even if we speed up the bureaucracy, there is only a limited amount of workers who can do that kind of work. Both, the engineers and construction workers. I'm assuming many states don't even have that kind of construction workers or only a handful. There is a limited amount of machinery. So, even if you trained workers you also have to build new machinery. But there is probably also only a limited amount of factories that produce it and to build more, so you'd have to find someone who wants to invest in that and again, you have to train workers. It takes time and one would depend on finding enough people who'd want to do that kind of work.
There is the same issue with regards to tracks and subway cars. Only so many can be built in a year.

Plus, once it's all done, you need people who operate subways and busses. And they need to be paid.

Train:
Amtrak is in a horrible state and uses tracks that are owned by freight companies. Since that means freight companies have the right of way on those tracks, Amtrak rarely is on time. To make train travel attractive, the government has to replace the tracks they own, they have to lay thousands of miles of new tracks and they have to lay new tracks where freight companies own them so they don't have to yield to freight trains anymore.
In places, there's private property right next to the trains, so, if that's a place where tracks are owned by freight companies, they'll have to find alternative routes. If that's a place where they want a high speed train or it's single track and they need two tracks, they'll have to find an alternative route. That requires planning, probably means building new train stations and new roads leading there. That requires the cooperation from local governments.
All of it needs to be hooked up to a computer system that makes sure that there are no accidents.

As far as I know, the US currently does not produce high speed trains (which I believe they need if they want to make train travel attractive). So, they either need to make a deal overseas or they need to invest in their own. The latter requires them to train workers and do testing. The former means they're dependent on how many trains can be produced overseas.

More trains means they need more "train traffic controllers" and more train conductors and stewards and again, you need people who want the job, and you need to pay them.

Both trains and public transit also have to be built in a way that doesn't further harm the environment. That can drive up costs.

Plane travel:
Like I said, it's not going to become unnecessary, no matter how great the train system is. Flying across the country will probably be always quicker by plane than train and even if they managed to develop a train that could beat the plane, you will always need planes to travel internationally. Well, even nationally, because I just remembered Hawaii.


So, even if Congress agreed to a deal that makes it financially possible tomorrow, I think that the size of the country, the limited number of workers and work equipment and unforseen circumstances (like weather events or things like softer/harder/soggier/dryer soil than expected) don't make it possible in ten years.
But that doesn't mean that I don't want them to start. I want them to look at it and I want them to say "this is possible" (and I don't mean what Republicans think is possible but what truly is possible) and then I want them to start the day after.

 

[BlueRidge]

So you want to lay out every detail ahead of time and evaluate it before moving forward. It won't happen that way. It will move forward as demand builds for serious action. And somethings that didn't seem doable will be. No one will be able to say exactly how now. Tackling climate change is going to require taking risks and being willing to tolerate uncertainty.

 

[ballettmaus]

So you want to lay out every detail ahead of time and evaluate it before moving forward. It won't happen that way.

How do you estimate costs, manpower required and a timeline if you aren't aware of the details?

Starting without a plan (that is, be aware of what is required for the project, and how long it should take and what it should cost) is what makes projects get out of hand and blows the budget. If you change fossil fuel energy into renewable energy, for example, you need to have a rough idea of what is required to do that and how much you can do in a year. Otherwise, you end up with a mess. (If you want to install solar panels on your roof, you're not going to tell the contractor to just do it. You want them to tell you if it's possible, if not, what needs to happen to make it possible, how much it'll cost and how long it'll take and before you hire them, you'll have figured out a way to pay for it. Sure, something unforseen might happen. But my point is, we usually want to have and need to have a rough idea of what to expect beforehand so we know we can pay for it and the project doesn't get out of control).

Does the next President need to know all that before they get into office? No. But I would prefer if they had a broad plan of how to make the Green New Deal a reality. They only have so much time in office and I think that if they have a broad plan, they can go right to work and they are less vulnerable to outside influence/naysayers.
That said, I'd still take someone who is just in favor of the deal but has no idea how to make it a reality and tells his staff to figure out a way.

What I absolutely don't want is someone who says they support the deal because it plays well and nothing else.

 

[FiveRinger]

Anyway, on 2020 candidates, Amy Klobuchar's issues with her staff make her a no-go for me. High staff turnover and disarray is something that cannot work in the presidency.

I was surprised when I originally heard about this, and even more shocked when I heard to Harry Reid had actually interjected and told her to change her behavior.

ETA: There are already arguments that she would not be receiving this condemnation if she were a man.

 

[ballettmaus]

And the Green New Deal is the first time anyone has come up with a comprehensive framework to address climate change

It just sunk in that you said this and made me realize that one of the reasons that I might be less impressed by "just" framework is because I've heard it from politicians before, in Germany. We need more electrical cars, we need better and more bike paths, better public transport, better trains, renewable energy. But so far, they've been just words more than anything else. That's probably why I'm so intent on someone coming up with an actual plan because I see what's happening - or not happening - in Germany.

ETA: There are already arguments that she would not be receiving this condemnation if she were a man.

Ronny Jackson had to withdraw his nomination for head of VA because he was said to be creating a hostile work atmosphere, so I think it depends on how bad it really is. Is she really just expecting a lot, like she says? In that case, they arguments would be right. Or is she really demeaning? In which case, I tend to lean towards saying they're not right.

 

[MacMadame]

High staff turnover and disarray is something that cannot work in the presidency.

People who treat their staff poorly should not be rewarded even if it could work in the Presidency. It's a total deal-breaker for me.

 

[BlueRidge]

Everybody for President!!

Reports are that Senator Michael Bennett is considering running. Now there's a report that Rep. Seth Moulton is considering running.

What's up with everyone thinking they ought to run for president?

 

[BittyBug]

Starting without a plan (that is, be aware of what is required for the project, and how long it should take and what it should cost) is what makes projects get out of hand and blows the budget.

The GND is not a plan - it's a vision that will drive a plan. If we constrain ourselves by focusing on what is not possible or how much work will be required, we will be doomed.

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1094628470100017154

Innovation abounds. A Polish scientist just developed solar panels that are like sheets of paper and can be put anywhere - that could be a game changer.

ETA: There are already arguments that she would not be receiving this condemnation if she were a man.

Someone kindly pre-empted that thought: https://twitter.com/tim_nicolai/status/1094268386387943426

 

[Vash01]

Everybody for President!!

Reports are that Senator Michael Bennett is considering running. Now there's a report that Rep. Seth Moulton is considering running.

What's up with everyone thinking they ought to run for president?

They just want to express their dislike of Trump (my guess. I can’t read their minds).

Many will drop out after the Iowa caucus.

More after the first primary debate (do I have the order correct?)

I think the field will trim down to half a dozen candidates fairly fast.

 

[Vash01]

Currently, in other departments, like DOD.




I don't know. But here are my concerns.

Power plants:
You'd have to replace every power plant in ten years. And not only that, you need to retrain the workers, too. I don't know if you have to make changes to the power lines but generally, I imagine that this is the most feasable part of the deal and that, if they really wanted to, they could have it done in ten years.

Cars:
Millions and millions of cars, trucks and busses have to be replaced. Not only that, they have to be built first. I do believe that the technology exists to build electrical cars, trucks and busses that can travel long distances and that it has simple been tucked away in some file cabinet because the fossil fuel industry has no interest in electrical cars that can compete with regular cars. But, unless car manufacturers plan to give them away for free, people have to buy them. And for that, they have to have the money to buy a new car. The way things are going economically right now, many people can't afford that. (And I say that assuming that electrical cars would be normally priced once they become mainstream).

Electrical cars also require loading stations. Basically everywhere. So, the loading stations have to be built and installed and they have to be checked/repaired regularly.

Public Transit:
The Green New Deal calls for an expansion of public transit. According to the internet, the silver line expansion took three to four years alone from the time it was green-lit to when construction began. (It's unclear if they started construction in late 2014 or early 2015). So, they are now in year 4 or 5 of construction and year 8 overall it's not even finished yet. And that's only an expansion.

But even if we speed up the bureaucracy, there is only a limited amount of workers who can do that kind of work. Both, the engineers and construction workers. I'm assuming many states don't even have that kind of construction workers or only a handful. There is a limited amount of machinery. So, even if you trained workers you also have to build new machinery. But there is probably also only a limited amount of factories that produce it and to build more, so you'd have to find someone who wants to invest in that and again, you have to train workers. It takes time and one would depend on finding enough people who'd want to do that kind of work.
There is the same issue with regards to tracks and subway cars. Only so many can be built in a year.

Plus, once it's all done, you need people who operate subways and busses. And they need to be paid.

Train:
Amtrak is in a horrible state and uses tracks that are owned by freight companies. Since that means freight companies have the right of way on those tracks, Amtrak rarely is on time. To make train travel attractive, the government has to replace the tracks they own, they have to lay thousands of miles of new tracks and they have to lay new tracks where freight companies own them so they don't have to yield to freight trains anymore.
In places, there's private property right next to the trains, so, if that's a place where tracks are owned by freight companies, they'll have to find alternative routes. If that's a place where they want a high speed train or it's single track and they need two tracks, they'll have to find an alternative route. That requires planning, probably means building new train stations and new roads leading there. That requires the cooperation from local governments.
All of it needs to be hooked up to a computer system that makes sure that there are no accidents.

As far as I know, the US currently does not produce high speed trains (which I believe they need if they want to make train travel attractive). So, they either need to make a deal overseas or they need to invest in their own. The latter requires them to train workers and do testing. The former means they're dependent on how many trains can be produced overseas.

More trains means they need more "train traffic controllers" and more train conductors and stewards and again, you need people who want the job, and you need to pay them.

Both trains and public transit also have to be built in a way that doesn't further harm the environment. That can drive up costs.

Plane travel:
Like I said, it's not going to become unnecessary, no matter how great the train system is. Flying across the country will probably be always quicker by plane than train and even if they managed to develop a train that could beat the plane, you will always need planes to travel internationally. Well, even nationally, because I just remembered Hawaii.


So, even if Congress agreed to a deal that makes it financially possible tomorrow, I think that the size of the country, the limited number of workers and work equipment and unforseen circumstances (like weather events or things like softer/harder/soggier/dryer soil than expected) don't make it possible in ten years.
But that doesn't mean that I don't want them to start. I want them to look at it and I want them to say "this is possible" (and I don't mean what Republicans think is possible but what truly is possible) and then I want them to start the day after.

I agree with you on every point.

For the Phoenix metro area, they started building the light rail to reduce pollution due to cars. It took them 5 years to build two short routes. It could be at least another 5 years to add a segment to it.

For a country the size of the USA, plane travel is unavoidable. It is ridiculous for anyone to even think otherwise. I fly from Arizona to Texas because -1) It would take me 24 hours, including at least one overnight stay in a hotel, or 10-12 hours by bus. 2) I don’t trust Amtrak, except for very short distances (e.g. Everett to Seattle). Too many accidents, too slow and too expensive.

High speed trains are not willed out of the air. Any new system can take up to 20 years (could be longer) from idea to execution and it has to be done in short stages. I am hearing about a high speed train to connect Phoenix with Tucson for years. Distance 110 miles. There is still no plan and of course no action. Imagine doing this for the whole country? You are very realistic in your assessment but I am afraid Americans want instant results and they could be either disappointed or they may just shrug off the idea.

Climate change has to be dealt with but there is no instant solution. Actually climate change is already here. I like the idea suggested by Bloomberg in his book. Deal with it locally (major city by major city) rather than nationally. It may speed things up. They may still have to wait for federal money, and we know how slow that can be.

I am not saying we should not make a start just because the changes would take decades, but people can have unrealistic expectations. Unless a candidate gives me a detailed and realistic plan I am not going for it.

 

[ballettmaus]

The GND is not a plan - it's a vision that will drive a plan. If we constrain ourselves by focusing on what is not possible or how much work will be required, we will be doomed.

I was referring to the candidates not the actual GND. I don't want Booker or anyone else to just say I support it. I don't really care if anyone says that they do. I want them to show me, and they'd do that by saying publically what they plan to do to make it a reality once they're in office.

 

[ballettmaus]

Everybody for President!!

Reports are that Senator Michael Bennett is considering running. Now there's a report that Rep. Seth Moulton is considering running.

What's up with everyone thinking they ought to run for president?

Now or never? I don't know.

I've been trying to decide if it's a good thing or a bad thing. A lot of candidates and possibly a late conclusive primary means that Republicans/Trump have to wait to really attack. They can attack all of them but that's not as effective as if they can concentrate on one or two.
On the other hand, it also means that the eventual nominee has to unite all of the supporters once they get the nomination.

Another thing I've been wondering about is what this says about Biden's and Sanders' chances. There are already so many interesting candidates in the race. Would they still stand a chance?

 

[BlueRidge]

I don't think its a bad thing to have multiple candidates in the race. We're a long way from the first primaries and caucuses. A lot of people will test the waters and get out again.

There were three candidates of some consequence in 2016 who tried to run and ultimately didn't stay in for any of the primaries.

I just wonder why they all think they should run. I suppose partly it just looks so wide open.

Sanders has a diehard base. They will be with him no matter when he gets in. They aren't enough to win if for him though.

I think Biden will be passed by if he doesn't get in soon. He has no natural constituency.

 

[MacMadame]

I think Biden will be passed by if he doesn't get in soon. He has no natural constituency.

I think he's winning all these polls now because he isn't in. Once he gets in, he'll get scrutinized just like the rest of them and then people will remember why they didn't vote for him the last time.

 

[BlueRidge]

I think he's winning all these polls now because he isn't in. Once he gets in, he'll get scrutinized just like the rest of them and then people will remember why they didn't vote for him the last time.

I think he's winning the polls solely on name recognition. But I agree if he gets in it will be a different story.

Maybe he thinks there's a knight in shining armor story where he comes riding along when Dems realize they don't have a strong candidate who they can unite around and then he gets in and is lauded as the hero.

If he is I think he's fooling himself.

OTOH, he may be hesitating because he's more realistic about his chances.

 

[demetriosj]

The time when Warren was listing herself as Native American was a time in our history when people were making an effort to be diverse and asking about race was just becoming the norm. Universities were under pressure to show they were doing minority hiring and so were other entities were too.

I can see why Warren, who had grown up with stories of Native American ancestry, would want to put that down on one of these surveys think it would help her university and not think anything of it.

Really? I think she wanted to take advantage of whatever she could get by claiming to be Native American (acceptance into law school, free/cheap tuition, etc). I don't know, but did claiming she was Native American help her get accepted into that law school? Did she get free/a break in tuition because she claimed to be Native American?

 

[VGThuy]

Really? I think she wanted to take advantage of whatever she could get by claiming to be Native American (acceptance into law school, free/cheap tuition, etc). I don't know, but did claiming she was Native American help her get accepted into that law school? Did she get free/a break in tuition because she claimed to be Native American?

No, that never happened.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, who served as U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan and was part of the committee that put Warren in a tenure position, said in a written statement that her ethnicity never came up during the process.

Fried, who donated $250 to Warren's campaign, told the Republican, a Springfield, Mass., newspaper, in 2012, "This stuff I hear that she was an affirmative action hire, got some kind of a boost, it is so ludicrous and so desperately stupid and ignorant, it just boggles the mind."

Asked about Warren’s minority status, Robert H. Mundheim, the dean who hired Warren at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Boston Globe that summer, "‘I don't think I ever knew that she had those attributes and that would not have made much of a difference."

A number of news organizations interviewed dozens of faculty and students from the three law schools where Warren taught, and no evidence emerged that any claim about her ethnic roots played a role in the hiring process.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html

She did change her ethnicity to Native American three years after she was already hired as a white woman at UPenn Law School.

In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.

The Globe examined hundreds of documents, many of them never before available, and reached out to all 52 of the law professors who are still living and were eligible to be in that Pound Hall room at Harvard Law School. Some are Warren’s allies. Others are not. Thirty-one agreed to talk to the Globe — including the law professor who was, at the time, in charge of recruiting minority faculty. Most said they were unaware of her claims to Native American heritage and all but one of the 31 said those claims were not discussed as part of her hire. One professor told the Globe he is unsure whether her heritage came up, but is certain that, if it did, it had no bearing on his vote on Warren’s appointment.

<snip>

The Globe closely reviewed the records, verified them where possible, and conducted more than 100 interviews with her colleagues and every person who had a role in hiring decisions about Warren who could be reached. In sum, it is clear that Warren was viewed as a white woman by the hiring committees at every institution that employed her.

There's never been any accusation that she claimed to be Native American on her law school application at Rutgers Law.

The Rutgers application included a question about whether she was interested in applying for the “Program for Minority Group Students.”

Warren responded: “No.”

She probably didn't start identifying herself as Native American until some time in the mid-to-late 1980s as evidenced by her Texas Bar registration. I don't think it was to get ahead but maybe some sort of late-in-life pride over what she thought was her family's background.

 

[Peaches LaTour]

I was very impressed by the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, when he was on Chris Matthews.
Not that he has formally announced he is running.

 

[PRlady]

Anyway, on 2020 candidates, Amy Klobuchar's issues with her staff make her a no-go for me. High staff turnover and disarray is something that cannot work in the presidency.

I have to say that I have secondhand but reliable confirmation on this. It’s a shame because she’s a good candidate on paper and very smart. Staff abuse, however, indicates a huge character flaw.

 

[Peaches LaTour]

Anyway, on 2020 candidates, Amy Klobuchar's issues with her staff make her a no-go for me. High staff turnover and disarray is something that cannot work in the presidency.

As evidenced in the Trump administration. :0

 

[ballettmaus]

I just wonder why they all think they should run. I suppose partly it just looks so wide open.

Whatever the reason, De Blasio seems to think there might not be enough candidates yet. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/11/politics/bill-de-blasio-new-york-mayor-2020-new-hampshire-democrat/index.html

 

[Vash01]

Not yet announced :

Joe Biden

Beto O’Rourke

Bernie Sanders?

Bloomberg ( still considering?)

I can’t think of anyone else.

Nine have already announced, five of them women.

 

[skatingguy]

Not yet announced :

Joe Biden

Beto O’Rourke

Bernie Sanders?

Bloomberg ( still considering?)

I can’t think of anyone else.

Nine have already announced, five of them women.

Other notables who have mused about running in 2020 (not an exhaustive list):
Stacey Abrams
Jerry Brown
Sherrod Brown
Lincoln Chafee
Andrew Gillum
Eric Holder
Jay Inslee
Tim Kaine
John Kerry
Mitch Landrieu
Terry McAuliffe
Jeff Merkley
Seth Moulton
Tim Ryan
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020