Don't Underestimate This Democratic Governor In The 2028 Presidential Race

There's been a lot of talk already about who could headline the Democratic ticket in 2028. The most mentioned candidates are governors - Newsom of California, Pritzker of Illinois, and Shapiro of Pennsylvania. 

But there is another Democratic governor who is quietly planning on running for president - Andy Beshear of Kentucky. Beshear has been elected governor twice in a bright red state. That's a pretty remarkable feat - and means he should get at least some consideration from Democratic voters.

Here are some quotes from Beshear from Politico.com:

“I wouldn’t underestimate me. If people want to underestimate me, I’m used to it, and it drives me.”

“Democratic primary voters are going to be, number one, focused on electability. Who do we believe has the best chance of beating J.D. Vance?”

“I’m a guy who has won three straight statewide elections in a Trump plus-30 state. I think it’s a mixture of both electability and the idea that, here’s somebody that not only could win in a purple state, he wins in a red state.”

“You both want somebody who’s electable, but then somebody who can deliver.”

“Democrats and a lot of Republicans are going to look for someone who can right the ship, hopefully who can heal the country and who can get us past our McCarthyism moment and back to a more stable time.”

“See, I think by the time that we reach 2028, the country is going to be tired. And they’re going to be so tired of what Trump has done, the idea of having a Democratic version of Trump is more than that — it’s exhausting.”

“I’m a pro-business, pro-union Democrat that vetoed an anti-trans bill. So you know, I believe in standing up for people’s rights. I believe strongly in them. At the same time, I spent 80 percent of my time on jobs, infrastructure, healthcare, public safety and public education.”

“As we look at our future energy needs, we need a more realistic approach. And that realistic approach is that older forms of energy production aren’t going to go offline as quickly as some Democrats wanted them.”

“We can’t be preachy Democrats that say: ‘You might not feel safe, but look at the statistics.’”

“I describe myself as pragmatic.”

“I think when we look, especially at the federal government, which [Trump is] decimating, he’s burning to the ground, you don’t just say, we’re going to rebuild it all back as it was before. You build something more efficient, you build something more effective."

“Part of working with the African American community is the recognition that I will never be able to feel the weight of racism, of Jim Crow, the scars that are still carried. And I think if you admit that, and you’re willing to have these conversations, that you can build trust.”

Democratic Candidates Being Considered By Race/Ethnicity

The chart above reflects the results of the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between May 12th and 14th of a national sample of 1,500 adults, with a margin of error of 2.8 points.

The poll asked Democrats and Independents who say they will vote in a Democratic primary/caucus who they are considering supporting next year. Each respondent was allowed to pick as many candidates as they wanted (as many as they are considering supporting).

In the past, I have just included the views of Democrats and Independents. But minorities make up a significant portion of the Democratic Party, so this time I show how much each candidate is being considered by Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.

Joe Biden is doing well among all three groups. He's being considered by a majority of Whites (51%) and Blacks (65%), and a plurality of Hispanics (37%).

Leading Candidates For The 2020 Democratic Nomination

This chart reflects the results contained in a recent CNN / SSRS Poll. The poll was done between March 22nd and 25th of a random national sample of 1,014 respondents. This chart only shows the responses of Democrats and Independents, and the margin of error for those groups in 8.5 points.

The respondents were asked whether they could see themselves possibly supporting each of six possible candidates -- Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Joe Biden continues to be the leading candidate, followed closely by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand have a lot of work to do if they are going to be serious contenders. But it's still early. There's a couple of years to go before voters have to choose their favorite, and things could easily change.

One thing I found interesting is the choice of Independents. Sanders supporters claim that he could do something other candidates could not do -- bring Independents around to supporting Democrats. But this poll shows that Biden actually does as well (maybe slightly better) than Sanders among Independents.

I would like to see a poll that pitted Biden and Sanders head-to-head. I think Biden would easily eclipse him.

My Thoughts On Bernie Sanders' Presidential Candidacy

(This caricature of Senator Bernie Sanders is by DonkeyHotey.)

Let me preface my remarks here by saying that I love Senator Bernie Sanders. I think he is one of the two best senators in Washington (with the other being Elizabeth Warren). Bernie understands the problems of this country as well, if not better, than any other politician -- and he understands how those problems can be solved.

Many of my brothers and sisters on the left are celebrating the news that Bernie will announce today that he is a candidate for the presidency -- and will be running in the Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton. I have to admit that my first thought on hearing this news was to be against it. I din't like Bernie abandoning his independent status, and I thought his candidacy could split the party and give a Republican a better chance at winning the White House. But upon further thought, I have changed my mind. I now think his candidacy could be a good thing.

Some on the left believe Bernie's candidacy will force Hillary Clinton to the left. But that is not going to happen. Hillary has overwhelming support among rank-and-file Democrats. Bernie;s support has been around 6% in almost every poll. Even if you add in the Warren supporters, he doesn't top 20% -- and that is a long way from being a threat to Clinton's nomination. And Clinton will not be pressured to move further to the left until someone on the left has a much higher percentage of support than 20% (something approaching 50%).

But Bernie's candidacy could be advantageous in another way. It will show most Americans that she is not as far left as others in the Democratic Party -- and that will make her look even more like a moderate than she already looks. Whether those of us on the left (or our counterparts on the right) like it or not, most American voters are neither left nor right. They are moderates, and they want a president who is a moderate -- and it is those voters who will decide who wins the White House in 2016.

For me, the most important thing is to make sure a Republican extremist (and they are all extremists) doesn't win the presidency in 2016, and the second most important thing is to elect more Democrats to Congress. Hillary Clinton is the candidate who can most easily defeat the Republicans, and the candidate with the longest coattails.

To sum up, I love Bernie Sanders, and I welcome his entrance to the Democratic race for the nomination. But I will not vote for him. My support and my vote will go to Hillary Clinton -- and I urge others to do the same.

Public Television Excludes Public Candidates

I find this to be a rather shocking development -- a public television station that thinks it knows better than the voters who should be elected governor of Texas. There are seven people who have paid their fees and will be on the statewide Democratic primary ballot in the race for governor. But the Dallas public television station (KERA) has decided that only two of them are worthy of support and votes.

The seven candidates are educator Felix Alvarado (pictured), doctor Alma Aguado, professor Clement Glenn, home builder Star Locke, private investigator Bill Dear, ex-Houston mayor Bill White and hair-care magnate Farouk Shami. But in their infinite wisdom, KERA has decided that Texas Democratic voters only need to hear from the two richest candidates. Evidently, they subscribe to the modern notion that only rich men are qualified to run for public office in Texas.

The two candidates who are rich enough to run for public office in KERA's opinion are Farouk Shami and Bill White. Farouk Shami is a Houston businessman who made a fortune selling hair care products. He's willing to spend $10 million of his own money to buy his way into the governor's mansion, but refuses to tell Texas voters what religion he follows (if any). I guess he thinks it will cost him votes.

Bill White is a Houston businessman and ex-mayor, who is the "anointed" candidate of the party leadership (who tried to get all other candidates to drop out of the race so he could have an easy path to the nomination, and were successful in getting rid of progressive candidates). Sadly, White is a conservative "blue dog" Democrat who shares none of the ideas or ideals of the national party. But the state party leadership is willing to sacrifice those ideals to elect a candidate with the label "Democrat" (even if he is a DINO).

I would have expected this kind of slanted-opinion behavior from a privately-owned television station or network (like Fox News), but it is very disappointing when it comes from a station supposedly owned by the people. After all, KERA is supported by federal funds (that is, taxes paid by all of us) and donations from ordinary citizens. It seems traitorous for them to only allow the rich candidates to debate on their station (the candidates who already have the money to buy all the publicity they need).

Public television advertises itself as the station and network that brings the people programming they can't get on other privately-owned networks and stations -- quality programming that may appeal to only a minority of television viewers. Why then, do they change that mission when it comes to politics? Why do they allow in their debate only the rich candidates declared to be frontrunners by the privately-owned media?

It may be true that the other five candidates don't have nearly the funds of the two rich candidates, but does that mean they would have nothing to offer the people of Texas? In fact, their lack of funds makes it even more important for the people's public television to give them the opportunity to show they are (or aren't) a quality candidate, possibly with more to offer the voters than the rich "anointed" or self-funded candidates.

I think when the next fund-raising period comes around for the station the people of the Dallas-Fort Worth area need to ask themselves a couple of questions. Does KERA public television really deserve a contribution? Doesn't this terrible decision to limit their debate to only the richest candidates show they have failed their mission and the voters?

Only Richardson Promises To End Iraq War

Bill Richardson has been telling us for weeks that he is the only one of the major candidates that pledges to end the Iraq war and bring all of our troops home. It looks like he was right.

Last night, all three of the other major candidates refused to guarantee that they would have all our troops home by the end of their first term if elected. I was shocked to learn that they might continue the war for ANOTHER FOUR YEARS!

Obama said, "I think it's hard to project four years from now."

Edwards said, "I cannot make that commitment."

Clinton said, "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting"

Clinton went on to say that she would leave some "counterterrorist" troops over there. Obama has said in the past that he would do the same. What is wrong with these people? Can they not hear what the American people are saying?

Frankly, it is pretty obvious what they will be inheriting. They will be inheriting the same mess that exists right now. Bush has made it clear that he will not change course or make any substantial withdrawal.

The American people have made it clear that they do not support the war, and they want it ended. There is no way they're going to put up with four more years of war -- from a Democrat or a Republican.

Last night re-affirmed my belief that Richardson is the only viable candidate for those of us who oppose the war. He has made it very clear that ALL U.S. troops will be out of Iraq no later than the end of his first year in office. He does not waver or mince words.

If you truly oppose this disastrous war, it is time to seriously consider the candidacy of Bill Richardson.

U.S. To Stay In Iraq Until 2009

The truth is being revealed about the war in Iraq. A new military report reveals that Bush expects to still have a large U.S. military presence in the summer of 2009. Even then, it is not known if the Iraqis will be able to take over their own defense of the current puppet government.

The summer of 2009 is the optimistic view in the military report. It could take much longer. It looks like Bush really is planning a never-ending war! I guess Halliburton and its subsidiaries haven't made enough money yet off their no-bid contracts, and the big oil companies haven't finished putting in place their theft of Iraqi oil reserves.

Halliburton and the oil companies are the only ones who will benefit from extending the war. The Iraqi people won't, and the American people won't.

Some say that it would be bad for the Iraqi people if we were to leave. But the fact is that we're currently doing nothing to protect the Iraqi people. Our soldiers are having a hard enough time protecting themselves. Extending the war just means that more Iraqis and Americans will die before Iraq can work their way to a settlement of the issues (which they can only do after we leave and our puppet government is replaced).

We have already lost 3,637 U.S. soldiers in the Iraqi war, and are currently averaging the death of 3 U.S. soldiers each day. Spending another two years in Iraq means the U.S. death toll would approach, if not pass 6,000 deaths. It really seems like Bush doesn't care how many Americans die as long as his buddies at Halliburton and big oil get their windfall profits.

If we cannot withdraw our soldiers now (as we should), at least let us elect a president who will remove ALL of our troops. We should not leave a single American soldier in Iraq. Some of the Democratic candidates would do this (Richardson, Kucinich, Gravel, Edwards). But there are some who want to leave some soldiers there indefinitely (Clinton, Obama). We must make it clear to these candidates that this is unacceptable.

ALL American soldiers should be brought home, and it should be done as soon as possible.