Did Bernie, Biden and Beto wait too long to get in?

[EffieBlack]

Did they get caught sleeping while Kamala, Elizabeth, and Kirsten got up early and got to gittin'?

[bearsfootball516]

1. It's January 2019.

There's nothing wrong with not having declared yet. Not taking anything away from Kamala (my personal favorite) but it's still incredibly early.

[SCantiGOP]

27. It wasn't too many decades ago

That Labor Day was the traditional deadline to declare.

[EffieBlack]

38. JFK announced in January 1960. RFK announced in March 1968

[former9thward]

50. Both of them ran when there were very few primaries.

When JFK ran there were almost none. A few more by 1968. RFK only got in because he saw Johnson's weakness in New Hampshire when McCarthy took him on. In both cases the party bosses controlled the conventions not the people. The 1968 nominee, Humphrey, did not even run in any primaries.

[jodymarie aimee]

54. I agree with Effie

we didn't used to have elections that lasted 3 years...and the country fared just fine...oh yeah, the TV guys didn't make mountains of $$$

America has made these endless election cycles normal, and they are anything but...

[former9thward]

51. Primaries one year from now.

A tiny space of time to campaign in a country as big as this one.

[Sherman A1]

2. Or did the announced candidates

Enter too early?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

42. Nope, I think it's over... Kamala wins by a landslide! /sarcasm

[Sherman A1]

46. Yeah, You are probably right

The rest of us need to just achieve "proper thought".

[Wounded Bear]

3. Meh, I'm not convinced any of them could win the nomination...

[EffieBlack]

4. Any of whom?

[Wounded Bear]

6. Bernie, Biden or Beto...

It's almost too early to be a 'front runner' but we'd have to give that status to Kamala now. She and Elizabeth are defining the parameters of the race so far, and they have some great progressive issues to run with.

I guess I'm saying it doesn't matter when B,B&B enter the race, none of them would win the nomination.

[EffieBlack]

7. Got it. Thanks for clarifying

[lark]

56. You don't know that for sure.

Anyone at all (except maybe HRC) coud win, even Kristen who I don't support. I am keeping my options open and really looking forward to see who all is running and then to the debates. Let the best person win, whoever that may be.

BTW - I will vote for whoever Dems pick in the primary process, REGARDLESS. Not a one of them would be as bad as orange assmsouth - no one.

[Wounded Bear]

59. You're right, it's my opinion...

I also am open to watching the field develop and will support and vote for the Democratic nominee.

[JI7]

5. no it's very early. I actually think Biden and Beto are seeing how they could do against

Harris.

[Blue_true]

22. Joe really likes Senator Harris.

My guess is he may enter the race if he feels that it will be him versus her for the nomination, with him making her his VP pick if he wins it.

[BlueStater]

8. I'm not necessarily supporting Kamala Harris for the nomination.

But I will say that I don't think Biden and Bernie are going to come across well AT ALL standing next to her on a debate stage. It's just yet another reason why they shouldn't run.

[question everything]

9. I don't think so. I think that Warren has already faded from the news

Gillibrand came and went and this will happen with Harris, too.

[Cha]

13. I don't think it's going to happen

with Kamala.

[LuvLoogie]

15. I agree. Her kick off today was stellar. I think her kick off will give Joe the peace to let it go

I think Hillary will feel at peace, too. Kamala did that well. Beto just wouldn't have the gravitas next to Kamala.

Bernie will run though, and do nothing but attack Kamala as not strong enough against Wall Street, hers being a show candidacy based on identity politics. He won't be able to help himself.

[Cha]

21. We're gonna see..

sure bet about what BS is going to do, though.

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

36. You can take those last two sentences to the bank (Wall Street Big Bank).

Ugh. Not looking forward to it.

[JCanete]

14. the difference being though, that Harris hit the ground with a huge windfall of cash from donors,

both big and small. AND she'll be from one of the first states to make an impact on the primary, a HUGE one. I'd be shocked if California doesn't go for her overall, the way it went for Feinstein. Big money in my state, and door to door canvassing is a blip compared to big money ad campaigns and all the other backing she's expected to get from paper endorsements etc. Assuming Sanders runs, maybe he beats her there(he did get like 44 percent of the vote vs Clinton in a 1v1) but that could only happen if Harris gets serious competition from Biden. Then Sanders might slide in as the anti-establishment option of the three. That's still assuming Warren isn't a presence, though she certainly deserves to be. I'd like to say that, should Sanders not run, she has the same shot at that window, but I'm not confident of that given the kind of hohum reception. That said, this is pre debates, where I think she would absolutely shine.

[question everything]

19. Yes, but she is now a target and we've already seen a list of her past actions

Personally I want her to explain her stand on Civil Forfeiture that she supported while AG. She opposed a 2011 law restraining the practice of civil asset forfeiture. In 2015 she sponsored a bill to allow authorities to seize suspects’ assets before filing charges. That year California forfeitures totaled $50 million.

Even if here many do not care, the RW publications will sure use it as headlines.

I am not sure that a Californian (or a New Yorker) can appeal to many in the Midwest and in the South.

Yes, she is biracial like Obama, but while Obama was raised by a single mother, Harris' upbringing is quite upper middle class: a woman who was a breast cancer researcher and her father is an economic professor at Stanford.

No, I am not holding this against her, but she can hardly present herself as "every woman."

But, we will see. I don't think that she will have an easy sailing as many here hope.

And, yes, the little point of pushing Franken out.

[Blue_true]

25. My guess is Warren draws off Bernie votes.

I just don't see big Bernie support this time around. And if he tries that no show tax returns thing again, I don't see him making it past the first primary. He will need to disclose much more this time around because he won't have Hillary's emails for cover.

[FloridaBlues]

11. With 2 yrs left not to late for anyone

[elleng]

12. No, foolish question.

[qazplm135]

16. Biden still has a window maybe

But Bernie now has two progressive women ahead of him to split that vote. He has two POC already in. By the time he jumps in, he's going to be capped at his most enthusiastic supporters.

Beto I think isn't going to come in. His window was tiny to begin with.

[EffieBlack]

17. I suspect that Beto isn't going to run. Heart doesn't seem to be in it.

[Blue_true]

26. My sense also. nt

[CentralMass]

18. No.

[WeekiWater]

20. I don't think EW or Gillibrand have made their splash.

I think the only way EW is going to make noise is if Sanders endorsers her early. I could listen to her for hours. Most of us here could. She doesn’t come across as well as we like to think. She almost suffers from Kerry disease. Everything we want but not great at speaking to the lowest common denominator.

I think Gillibrand is going to shock some people with how well she does. She speaks well to our causes and does so forcefully.

I hope the three you mention stay on the sidelines.

I also think we should note what Harris did right today. I promise you that very few of our candidates are going to get the initial coverage Harris did today. I think the networks kind of like her. She brought the crowd and excitement they like. Great day for her. Great start. I was listening on Serius XM CNN and it was a two hour fish fest. A thing of beauty. Nina Turner had nothing but praise.

[ProudLib72]

23. No. They just aren't as fucking RAD as Kamala

Kamala

[madville]

24. Not even close

Biden can devote 100% of his time to running a campaign and sweeping Iowa, NH, and South Carolina right out of the gate. It's his to lose, but he needs to make a decision in the near future.

[betsuni]

28. I think getting in early was an excellent move.

A shot across the bow for any more-progressive-than-thou identity-free candidates who might be thinking of running.

[Garrett78]

29. All 3 of them are capable of raising huge sums of money very quickly.

So, I don't think it's too late for any of them. Sanders has no chance regardless. I hope Biden has enough sense to realize he shouldn't run. I wouldn't blame Beto for running. He's the right age and capitalizing on his popularity would be tempting for anyone. If nothing else, he'll further boost his public profile, further excite the electorate and put himself on Kamala's short list for VP.

The lesser-known candidates are going to have a really tough time raising enough money to compete on Super Tuesday. Even fairly well-known candidates such as Booker and Brown had better announce soon if they plan on running.

[RandySF]

30. I don't know, but Nina Turner reputedly blew a gasket in CNN today

after watching Kamala’s speech. If Bernie’s agenda not so unique this time, then what will he have to offer?

[Takket]

31. No

Only a very small percentage of people have choice their primary candidate over a year before primaries start

[Jarqui]

32. Obama announced Feb 10, 2007

This is a marathon. Not a sprint.

Kamala looks organized and ready.

I think they're better off late and come in like Kamala than rush to announce when they're not ready. First impression is important. The late comers have an advantage, among other things, of trying to pick a platform that will thread it's way through the others. They have a disadvantage, among other things, of being late to get the funding rolling in and maybe the media attention.

[Garrett78]

35. The need to raise huge sums of money early on is much greater than it was in 2008.

The 3 candidates mentioned in the OP can all raise large sums very quickly, but even so, they aren't going to want to wait much longer.

And if all 3 of them, or even just 2 of them, run, they'll be eating into one another's support in Iowa and New Hampshire. If Harris wins either of those states, she'll be in great shape. If she were to win both of those states, the race is over.

[Jarqui]

37. Obama and Sanders showed what grassroots fundraising can do

It pays off in dividends later because they're still able to chip in.

I think it is way too early for the "huge sums of money early" argument. There is a long, long way to go.

Organize a good launch that will catch the media's attention. Whether they do it now or next March - I think it is almost immaterial compared to a good kickoff.

[Garrett78]

40. California moved up to join Texas on Super Tuesday. And there will be more candidates than usual.

And the amount of money raised gets the attention of those weighing who they wish to endorse.

The fact of the matter is, money is a bigger factor than ever before, and that's saying something.

[Jarqui]

41. As states move away from caucuses, that too puts more emphasis on money

But we're more than 11 months before the first primary contest. There are a whole slew of debates and speeches, media appearances, etc to come - all that help to get folks to donate and build momentum.

Hand wringing about money at this juncture is premature. Quick start would help but it is not going to decide to issue.

[Garrett78]

43. No hand-wringing here.

I'm just saying that anyone not named Biden or Clinton had better start raising money and building an infrastructure soon. 2020 can't really be compared to previous years.

Of course, I'd prefer Biden and Clinton not run at all--we have better options, including Harris. I'd also prefer Sanders not run, even though he has no chance at winning the nomination.

[Jarqui]

44. I'm with you on your preferences

Biden, Clinton and Sanders have had their day and I like them. But it is time for new talent.

The good candidates, whether they've started or when they start, will bring in dough. The internet has changed raising dough substantially.

[ecstatic]

33. Yes. And Beto has already destroyed his momentum & chances

with the dental tour, which is unfortunate because Pres. Obama and Oprah were really interested. I doubt that's still the case.

Kamala has all the momentum now, and today's rollout shows she knows what she's doing.

[Awsi Dooger]

34. Several months from now is still not too late

Never overreact to today. I always keep that in mind. Preferable to ignore today.

Primaries are like-minded people. That dynamic can shift on a dime because everyone is prioritizing and sensing mostly the same thing. Early advantage can be blown away as if it never existed.

If the candidates were lining up to face a general election electorate, then early is important because minds are made up early and not many people shift late.

[Garrett78]

39. Several months from now *might* not be too late for Biden or Clinton. But...

...anyone hoping to compete on Super Tuesday needs to start raising large sums of money in the very near future. More money will be required in 2020 than has ever been required before. And big name endorsers are going to be looking at how much candidates are raising in the first quarter of 2019 when weighing who to endorse.

Biden, like Clinton, has enough star power and campaign infrastructure that he can afford to wait. Up to a point.

[comradebillyboy]

45. April or May might be too late but not January.

[Garrett78]

47. April or May would be too late for just about anyone not named Biden or Clinton.

Don't underestimate how important it will be to raise an enormous amount of money and a campaign infrastructure in order to make it through Super Tuesday. Those looking to back a winner will take first quarter donations into account when choosing who to endorse.

Booker, Brown, Inslee and virtually every prospective candidate will announce long before April.

The first debates will take place in June. Candidates aren't likely to wait until the month prior to join the race.

[EffieBlack]

48. It's not only about the calendar

It's also about contributor's and staff. The candidates who are getting in the race are sewing up donors and snapping up top level staff.

[Garrett78]

49. That's especially important for those not named Biden or Clinton.

Anyone who doesn't already have a national campaign infrastructure/staff is going to get in the race in the very near future. They're just trying to determine when the best time would be in terms of media coverage.

Record-setting amounts of money will be spent on the 2020 primary. Best get to raising those funds.

Ironically, the DNC's rule change may result in superdelegates being a decisive factor like never before. If there are still half a dozen candidates after Super Tuesday, it may be that no candidate gets to the requisite number of pledged delegates.

[Bradshaw3]

52. Are they too late or is it something else?

Is there something Bernie, Biden and Beto all have in common that is the problem? Besides, the B in their names.

[Renew Deal]

53. No. No one really cares right now

July might be too late. October definitely is, unless it isn't.

[Garrett78]

55. Debates start in June.

I expect virtually everyone who is going to run to make their decision known within a few weeks. Biden and Clinton are probably the only ones who can afford to wait a couple more months.

[mcar]

57. Seems like Beto is wavering

I like him, but I'd rather see him challenge Cornyn. We need D senators.

My guess is that Biden is biding his time to see what the field is like.

[LanternWaste]

58. My guess is mid-April is the cut-off date for getting early support.

The quick, confident bolt is assuring, as is stolid calm reassuring.