Sign up here to get On Politics in your inbox.
We asked. You answered!
There’s been a lot of debate within political circles over whether Democrats are calling out for a savior to enter the 2020 primary, or whether they’re just fine with who they’ve got, thank you very much.
Names have been floated: Clinton and Bloomberg and Obama, oh my! And the clapping back from those in the field has been, well, not very subtle.
“Look no further,” Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey announced last week.
Well, we put the question to you, dear readers. And so many of you wrote back — both with candidate suggestions and with pleas to stop all the madness. (You’re a well-read — and awfully creative — bunch of engaged readers!)
Here’s what some of you had to say about the Democrats. (Republicans, of course, still largely back President Trump.)
Eighteen is enough!
Kathleen Jordan, of Pleasantville, Iowa, says she doesn’t want any more candidates jumping into the race.
“I believe that would be unfair to the candidates who declared months ago,” she said. “Those who are having Maalox moments would have them even if Hillary were to enter now. They also are likely to be the same people who would criticize her for waiting so long. There are ‘mouths’ that are never satisfied.”
Fiona Taylor of New York City agrees, telling us that the current field is just fine.
“We have a lot of smart and ethical candidates. However, the operative words are ‘a lot.’ I think a lot of the discomfort people are feeling stems from having too wide a field at the start. It seems overwhelming to educate yourself about every candidate,” she said. “The Democrats need to stop slitting each other’s throats and emphasize their own strengths, rather than going for each other’s weaknesses.”
‘For God’s sake, Hillary, go home’
Anne Ellis, of Cookeville, Tenn., has a simple message for Hillary Clinton: “For God’s sake, Hillary, go home,” she said. “Watch this whole episode on TV.”
“We were loyal Bill & Hill fans for many years, starting when Bill was governor of Arkansas, where my husband had his roots,” she added. “But your time has come and gone. Please don’t get involved with this important election as a potential candidate. Too much is at stake.”
Robin MacDonald, of Ann Arbor, Mich., says she loves Mrs. Clinton but has no desire for her to mount a third presidential bid.
“I do think her time has passed,” she said. “Not in terms of age but in terms of timing. Too bad. I think we have to go with one from the list of those currently running.”
And Dr. Mario Milch of Los Angeles has his prescription pad ready for those who want Mrs. Clinton to enter the race.
“The Democrats who want Hillary (or Michelle or Bloomberg) to run need to take an anti-anxiety medication,” he said. “It is ridiculous to think that Hillary, who heavily contributed to her defeat, should try it again. The present lineup is fine!”
Or not …
Sam Yankovich, from Sonoma, Calif., sees a third campaign by Mrs. Clinton as the only way for the country to move past the 2016 election.
“A Clinton/Trump 2020 general election is perhaps the only closing chapter of a three-year ordeal that has baffled the country,” he said. “It would be symbolic: a rematch between these titans who each seem determined to re-litigate 2016. The fact that the 2016 election continues to occupy so much of the country’s public consciousness — and that Trump continues to poke at Clinton even as she attempts to remain above the fray — make the prospects of a rematch feel simultaneously inevitable and impossible.”
And there was plenty of wishful thinking
Larry Abbott of Asheville, N.C., wants Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio to jump into the race.
“I’m from the Rust Belt and still believe some of those swing voters who voted twice for Obama then decided to give Trump a try must be experiencing Buyer’s Remorse,” he said.
Eric Nodiff of Boca Raton, Fla., says he’s been disappointed by the Democratic field and worries that none of them can beat Mr. Trump. His answer? “Abrams for President in 2020!”
“We need a high-integrity candidate who can mobilize not only the Democrats, but the independents, particularly those D’s and I’s who voted for Trump. The answer, I believe, is Stacey Abrams,” he says. “She will be a strong candidate against Trump, garnering support from a broad coalition of voters not limited to women and blacks (which itself is critical to a victory) but also to those Dems and independents who think Sanders and Warren are pulling the party too far to the left. I had never heard of Abrams prior to her race for governor, but every time I heard her speak I was so impressed.”
Samuel J.M. Greeley of Grover Beach, Calif., went to Hollywood to find a fresh political face.
“I propose Tom Hanks. He is intelligent, widely read in American history, universally loved by Americans, has a high profile, is articulate, and, if Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump can govern, he would be a quick study in the art,” he said. “Of course, he would never run — that’s why he is smart.”
And Phil Stevenson, of Jackson, Wyo., posed a “crazy” question:
“I know a president is limited to two consecutive terms, but could a two-term president serve again if the third term were nonconsecutive?” he said. “If so, then….”
(Sorry, Phil, the answer is no.)
Thanks so much to everyone who wrote us — I loved reading all your comments. Keep them coming!
Drop us a line!
We want to hear from our readers. Have a question? We’ll try to answer it. Have a comment? We’re all ears. Email us at email@example.com.
The week in impeachment
With the impeachment inquiry racing ahead, it can be hard to keep track of the stream of new developments. So our colleagues from the Impeachment Briefing newsletter have generously volunteered to catch us up every Thursday on what has happened during the week.
The House voted on impeachment. The House approved a measure that officially set the rules and procedures for the impeachment investigation. Only two Democrats voted against it — a sign of how unified the party has become just in the last few weeks. The measure was also an unofficial affirmation that the inquiry had started, calling the bluff of Republicans in Congress and the White House who said the proceedings were not legitimate without a vote.
We learned what the public phase of impeachment will look like. With the rules in place, public hearings are expected to begin as soon as mid-November, led by the House Intelligence Committee and its chairman, Representative Adam Schiff. The committee will also produce a public report on its findings and release transcripts of witness interviews before handing the case to the Judiciary Committee, which would then consider recommending articles of impeachment.
New details emerged about the infamous phone call. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Purple Heart recipient and the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, was the first witness to have listened in on the July 25 call between President Trump and the president of Ukraine. He said that he had heard Mr. Trump ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, and told investigators that the White House transcript had omitted a few key words.
Investigators requested testimony from some major figures. They called on John Bolton, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, and John Eisenberg, the top lawyer on the National Security Council, to appear before investigators next week. A lawyer for Mr. Bolton said he would not appear voluntarily.
You can sign up for the Impeachment Briefing newsletter here.
I’m pleased to announce the winners of our political Halloween costume contest. There were so many awesome entries, we couldn’t pick just one.
(Drum roll, please.)
Justice Pooch Bader Ginsburg
(Otherwise known as Springer.) Thank you so much for sending, Helen Ippolito from Seattle.
And here’s Quid Pro Quo — er, Squid Go Pro — as portrayed by Michael J. Petrilli of Washington, D.C.
A big thank you to everyone who sent in photos. You all made a rainy Halloween in Washington much brighter.
Were you forwarded this newsletter? Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox.
Thanks for reading. Politics is more than what goes on inside the White House. On Politics brings you the people, issues and ideas reshaping our world.
Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.