Washington gov. Jay Inslee running for president, focusing on climate change - Polidicks

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/washington-governor-jay-inslee-running-president/579217/?utm_term=2019-01-02T10%3A00%3A08&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo&fbclid=IwAR3JFrmmmGTPqCBl3lEYf3TUYgZY0a5KYx2m0GJnzZyeQmJ8Jkc_2MxfiB4 OLYMPIA, Wash.—What if a meteor were hurtling toward the Earth, about to kill millions and reshape life on the planet as we know it? And what if all the Democrats running to beat him in the next election went on and on about how concerned they were and how it’s our most pressing problem—but none had ever done much more than talk about the problem, and for the most part only started doing that in just the past few years? That’s where Jay Inslee thinks America is when it comes to climate change. And that’s why he’s going to run for president. The question is whether he can convince anyone else that he’s a big-enough player to be a serious candidate. As he did in Washington State, Inslee would propose a mix of government investments and incentives to spur other investment, restrictions on power plants and emissions, and programs to promote R&D and job growth. An endless number of jobs can be created in the climate arena, Inslee says. It’s the way to make a real dent in income inequality and have the Democratic Party bring tangible solutions to communities in rural America that have been left behind. With his inaction, President Donald Trump—Inslee calls him “the commander in chief of delusion”—is engaged in a “disgusting selling-out of the country,” a “crime” against the aspirational optimism of America. Inslee is lining up donors and adding them to the political-action committee he launched in December. An official presidential exploratory committee is next.

Who? His platform doesn't seem like it'll be bad but honestly I've never even heard of the guy despite living in the state immediately south of him. I really doubt he'll pick up any notable overall support.

Give it time. I honestly never heard of Bernie Sanders before 2016 or Obama before 2008 so you never know what will happen.

Good luck, I guess, but you'll be a spoiler effect at best.

You realize that for the few that are supporting this guy, everyone else is a spoiler candidate, right?

Definitely gonna keep an eye on this guy. I'm not exactly a single-issue voter, but the environment is super high on my list of priorities. Back in ~2014 I initially dismissed Bernie as, "Who?" and I certainly don't plan to do that again.

Honestly though that's the thing. While I hadn't heard of Obama to my knowledge I had actually heard of Sanders before. And I keep relatively up to date on regional politics so you'd think I'd know who the governor of a state that's like 5-10 minute drive from my house is. Looking it up as a reference I've at the very least heard of all three of his predecessors, though his immediate predecessor is the only one I'm at all familiar with. (Other two were 2005 and earlier.) Considering he's been governor for 5-6 years now I should have at least heard of him if he's as good as his platform suggests.

But why? Living in NJ, I have no idea who the governor of Delaware is and the only reason I know who the governor of PA is, is from Philly news being the only local news for South New Jersey. If you are honestly up to date on regional politics, I feel that not hearing the name of the governor of your neighbor is more due to lack of diligence than him being totally unnoteworthy.

Booker and Harris are at least senators, who I think a little more national exposure than governors

I don't think that's what a spoiler candidate is defined as. Spoiler candidate I thought was always one that drew votes from a major candidate, which objectively this guy isn't.

Reminder that the point of the primaries is basically to see who has the most traction by sheer popularity, whether they are electable really depends on how their campaign progresses from there. The 2016 primary showed that Hillary and Sanders each had massive support, since they were the only two to keep their campaigns running up to the actual vote. Hillary just kind of sat on the primary win and didn't do any meaningful campaigning afterwards. The current Democrat contenders are all starting their campaigns early, and have histories of getting involved with new politics and initiatives, so they will probably all be good candidates through the primaries and beyond. The most important thing about all of them is that they all seem to actually give a shit.

We're 2 years out from the actual election. Can we stop acting like we know the outcome of any "unknown"? Bernie was a nationally unknown name. He isn't anymore. Things change. Fast.

Inslee sounds pretty great, based on his policy positions from that article.

Yea, when is funny when Mainstream media (but mostly CNN) tries treating them “as alternative Democratic candidates” when they’re aren’t running for President yet.

you can vote for sticking your dick in a hornets nest, or vote to stick your & all those minorities dicks in the hornets nest. holy shit why are voting for no dicks in hornets nests dont you know thats a spoiler option!!1!

Washington just passed some superbly idiotic gun control legislation that hijacks the term "assault rifle" to mean "all semi automatics" so this guy has already lost points in my book.

He formally entered the primary today.