Get the Party Started

There was an interesting article in the New York Times, written by Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin. The headline reads, "Warren Is Preparing for 2020. So are Biden, Booker, Harris and Sanders." Of course, we haven't even reached the mid-terms yet, but the jockeying has begun.

There are likely be a horde of Democrats running in 2020. But as of now, the only Democrat to announce their candidacy is the quixotic John Delaney, congressman from Maryland. There are many bigger names lying in the weeds, especially the five mentioned in the article, who have made moves that suggest they are running or strongly thinking about it.

Most polls show Joe Biden, former Vice President, and Bernie Sanders, bridesmaid during the last race, as the front-runners, but this early in a campaign it's all about name recognition. Both men, most assuredly Biden, would likely have beaten Trump last time (if the Russians didn't prevent it), but they are now both in their late 70s. This may sound ageist, but I do not relish the idea of an octogenarian in the White House. If they served two terms, they would be 86 when they were done. Biden, the article states, is still unsure of running. I say take it easy, Uncle Joe, and let the young'uns take over.

I love Joe Biden, and think he would make a good president. I like Sanders, too, but he can come off as strident. It will be interesting to see if this perceived movement to the left by voting Democrats will be widespread. But Democrats usually don't play "who's next?" (though they did with Hillary Clinton) and usually choose someone who was completely obscure just a few years ago, like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Elizabeth Warren, who previously indicated she had no interest in running, would be 70 if elected at her inauguration, making her the second oldest, after Trump, to take office, but she's a spring chicken compared to Biden and Sanders. I don't think she's too old to be president, and has been a firebrand in opposition to Trump. Her only baggage, so far, is whether she has American Indian blood in her, which is hardly an issue (only to Trump, who doesn't like Indians because they opened casinos in Connecticut and hurt his business in Atlantic City). She's an expert on banking regulations and consumer law, and has been a reliable liberal (except she did vote against a banking regulation that needs some explaining.

The younger names in the article are Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. I think if I had the choice of these five, I would vote for Harris. She's a woman, she's mixed race, and she's impressive. I follow Facebook groups of far-left progressives who consider her a "faux progressive"--she is getting a lot of money from Clinton supporters, but progressives who want Tulsi Gabbard to win are living in a fantasy world. I hope I'm proven wrong.

Booker, while also checking many liberal boxes, concerns me. I didn't like his vote on a fund for patients to buy cheap drugs from Canada. He made a shaky argument about it being a safety issue, but many suspect it had to do from being from New Jersey, where there is a large presence of pharmaceutical companies.

Any of these five would be infinitely better than President Tangelo, but then again I would be an improvement. Certainly many more names will pop up in the next year, but it has already started.