• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carter is before my memories begin and possibly before the phenomenon I'm talking about began. Clinton's campaign did indeed include some moderate/conservative themes along with the mostly liberal ones, but he got 43% of the vote and was handed a "win" by Perot sapping away Bush's votes. Obama campaigned as a liberal, and can only be described as moderate based on how he governed, not how he campaigned, which made him a big disappointment to people who'd voted for him based on what he was supposed to do. Clinton II avoided issues & stances and campaigned on feelingism & platitudes, and couldn't manage better than rough parity against an inept rabid orange baboon. Polls asking about Sanders/Trump have consistently had Sanders doing around 10 points better than Clinton all along. Polls asking about the issues instead of candidates have been consistently showing that liberal stances are what the American people favor by wide margins, including smaller majorities even among Republican voters. And in both of the recent rounds of non-Presidential elections, the Democrats who lost, and lost biggest, were the ones who had campaigned the most by trying to look like Republicans, while those who won and won biggest were the ones who contrasted themselves against Republicans the most by clearly spelling out liberal stances on the issues; voters who had significant differences to choose among went with the farthest left option they had, and those who had little or no real difference to choose among didn't.

Or, a shorter observation of the same general thing: we all know which party has been gaining the most ground lately and which one has been losing the most lately. Now, which strategy has which side been using? The side that's been actually standing for what they stand for has been winning; the mealy-mouthed group-hug party has been losing.

Hilited: No. Not only did the exit polls show that Perot drew almost equally from both Clinton and Bush, but that the states where Perot did best all went to Bush. Only the West Coast triplets were heavy in Perot support but went Democrat. But CA hasn't gone Republican since '88 , WA '84, and I'm not sure about OR.

Clinton was part of the new wave of corporatist moderate-to-conservative Democrats. Obama's proposols, campaign and actions were right in the same ilk. Only in America, where political affiliation is defined on the "logger scale" (where anyone not as RIGHTeous as Robert Welch is considered a lefty) is Barack Obama a liberal or progressive.

You're obviously biased. Coincidence that so many conservatives would like to see the Democratic Party run hard left? I'm sure. Just as they were all sincere in their praise of Bernie Sanders.
 
What credentials he has are decent enough (from a liberal/progressive point of view) but he's too junior. He has a major hurdle to traverse next year. If he wins the Senate seat, we can start talking about him but as a Congressman (House of Representatives) you need Paul Ryan's kind of tenure to be a major force and he just doesn't have that.

There's a really interesting long article about him in Texas Monthly this month. They seem to agree that his chances of success are pretty low, but he sounds great to me.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/makes-beto-orourke-run/
 
It's really surprising how many people think all the Ds have to do is run a warm body without scandals in order to beat Trump in 2020. It's like people didn't learn anything from all of the numerous "beginning of the end"s predicted for Trump in 2015 and 2016 by all of the "pros."

For example, in August of 2015 the much worshipped Nate Silver of 538 gave Trump a 2% chance of winning the R nomination. (Much less an electoral victory in the GE.) Granted it was an off the cuff prediction, not a result of statistical analysis, but the sentiment was clear.

If the economy is doing well and Trump hasn't started any unnecessary wars or done anything major that is overtly stupid then he MAY stand a good chance of being elected to a second term. And by then all of the "he's the next Hitler" and similar memes will have been proven false.
 
It's really surprising how many people think all the Ds have to do is run a warm body without scandals in order to beat Trump in 2020. It's like people didn't learn anything from all of the numerous "beginning of the end"s predicted for Trump in 2015 and 2016 by all of the "pros."

For example, in August of 2015 the much worshipped Nate Silver of 538 gave Trump a 2% chance of winning the R nomination. (Much less an electoral victory in the GE.) Granted it was an off the cuff prediction, not a result of statistical analysis, but the sentiment was clear.

If the economy is doing well and Trump hasn't started any unnecessary wars or done anything major that is overtly stupid then he MAY stand a good chance of being elected to a second term. And by then all of the "he's the next Hitler" and similar memes will have been proven false.

I agree with a lot of this, although I think Trump has done plenty that is overtly stupid for a long time, but it never seemed to hurt his electoral chances. I don’t rule out the possibility of him winning again at all and so a strong Democrat is obviously going to be necessary.

As for the Nate Silver thing, 2% chance in August 2015 was hardly an unfair assumption. Remember that priors are completely okay things to have before the data comes in. That’s why they are referred to as priors. They also said that they did too much punditry ahead of the republican nomination and corrected their behaviour for the GE always pointing to the much larger than most other models probability they had for a Trump victory.

But speaking of 538, they have just done a podcast on their picks for the Democratic nomination:

Harry Enten thinks Kamala Harris and that’s based on their finding that black women as a block have become an important demographic for the Democrats.

Claire Malone thinks Kristen Gillibrand, and they all agree that she has adapted her policies in ways that match the voters’ wishes - being conservative in her win in the congressional district in up-state New York and then more progressive when she became senator for New York replacing Clinton. She may carry Clintonian baggage but has sought to rid herself of that with attacks on Bill Clinton. She seems to be riding the #metoo wave which could help or hinder her depending on what shape that movement is in come the primaries. And she also has a solidly anti-Trump record.

Nate Silver reckons Bernie Sanders, just because he polls highly, will almost certainly run and has an experienced and battle-hardened campaign team.

Of course they add the important caveats that it is too early to have anything but a fairly wild speculation and that none of them could ever have more than a 20% chance right now.
 
Last edited:
Sanders will be 79 on election day 2020. Biden will be just a couple of weeks short if his 78th birthday. Doesn't anyone see a problem there?

Sure. Their ages are definitely factors against them. But both of them look as though they are jockeying for a run for president.
 
Then...

Enten: jeff Ainsley?
Malone: Castro
Silver: Hilary Clinton

Enten: Jason Candour?
Malone: Eric lizetti?
Silver: The Rock
 
Progressive candidates only....that's all I'll say.

Bring in O Malley, dull as he is, bring in Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.

No Clintons, No Joe Biden please no....No Kamela Harris, no Booker that showboating idiot. Let the DNC elites whither away.

I'll go so far as to say media should be biased against them and cover them less so the progressive wing of the Democrats and independents gain more airtime.
 
Progressive candidates only....that's all I'll say.

Bring in O Malley, dull as he is, bring in Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.

No Clintons, No Joe Biden please no....No Kamela Harris, no Booker that showboating idiot. Let the DNC elites whither away.

I'll go so far as to say media should be biased against them and cover them less so the progressive wing of the Democrats and independents gain more airtime.

You realise that the majority of the Democrat base is made up of Centerists right? That swinging sharply to the Left is most likely to austricize them and leave them in a position for the Republicans to pick up.
 
Progressive candidates only....that's all I'll say.

Bring in O Malley, dull as he is, bring in Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.

No Clintons, No Joe Biden please no....No Kamela Harris, no Booker that showboating idiot. Let the DNC elites whither away.
Keep in mind that many of those 'elites' have dedicated their lives to advancing causes that many Americans (especially those on the left) actually cherish.

While simply being around a long time shouldn't guarantee a person a shot at the presidency, it shouldn't automatically be seen as harmful either.
I'll go so far as to say media should be biased against them and cover them less so the progressive wing of the Democrats and independents gain more airtime.
That would likely make moderates less likely to support the democrats, and have them either jump to the Republicans, or just simply stay home on election day. That might end up resulting in another Republican win.
 
It's bizarre to me to see people actually still trying to push the ridiculous myth that "centrism" (AKA acting just like the right) is the way to go for Democrats and "going left" would harm them. When has there ever been any evidence of anything but the exact opposite? That's exactly what they've already been trying for years, it's been losing them hundreds of offices, and the reason why is plain to see in all of the polls, from topic-specific polls showing large majority support for the left side of all major issues, to polls showing that most people believe the party "stands for nothing" and that liberal voters who theoretically should be voting for Democrats don't see anyone to vote for precisely because they're disgruntled by Democrats going right and the lack of options to vote for to the left, to the latest off-year election results in which voters elected the farthest-left option they had in practically every case, to popularity polls showing that our country's most established left-winger is its most popular politician and that the rabid orange baboon they managed to lose to with this brilliant strategy in the last Presidential election was the most unpopular (AKA most easily beatable) candidate ever on the day they handed the election to him.
 
Last edited:
Whoever the Democrats choose needs to be charismatic enough to get voters off their couches and/or Twitter feeds and into the polling stations in large numbers.

Dukakis, Mondale, Kerry, Gore and Hillary were all no doubt very competent individuals who would likely have been very effective Presidents from an administrative perspective but the utterly failed to generate the levels of enthusiasm from the electorate necessary for victory.

IMO Biden, Sanders, Warren and the rest of that crowd are the past of the Democratic Party. By all means keep them around as advisors or whatever if you must, but the baton needs to be passed one or two political generations on. I'd be disappointed if any of the leading Democratic candidates is older than me (I'm 50), much less the successful candidates. The politics of the 70s and 80s should be left there.

If the candidate is sufficiently charismatic then their proposed policies become largely academic and in any case whatever they propose has to make it through both houses in any case (likely to still be under GOP control in 2021). If the candidate is sufficiently compelling then people will find a way to support them.
 
It's bizarre to me to see people actually still trying to push the ridiculous myth that "centrism" (AKA acting just like the right) is the way to go for Democrats and "going left" would harm them. When has there ever been any evidence of anything but the exact opposite? That's exactly what they've already been trying for years, it's been losing them hundreds of offices, and the reason why is plain to see in all of the polls, from topic-specific polls showing large majority support for the left side of all major issues...
Here's the problem with relying on polling for specific topics...People often take opinions that are internally inconsistent. So, they may say "I agree that we should have free college/health care/etc.", but they will also say "I think taxes should be low/government should not interfere in my life".

Its easy to say you agree with a single issue on a poll... its much different when you are presented with a complete platform (including the costs of enacting that platform).
...to polls showing that most people believe the party "stands for nothing"...
Even if the Democrats take positions that are moderate-left rather than extreme left, there would be more than enough for them to say "I stand for something", and it would be distinct enough from the republican/right wing stance to make a clear distinction.

The fact that people think the Democrats "stand for nothing" probably has less to do with their actual positions than the way they try advertising their stances. Get a charismatic leader in charge, with good advisors who can make the best decisions for campaign ads/speeches/etc. and people should see the differences between the parties and accept that the Democrats do "stand for something".

...and that liberal voters who theoretically should be voting for Democrats don't see anyone to vote for precisely because they're disgruntled by Democrats going right and the lack of options to vote for to the left
I suspect that if a liberal voter doesn't see the difference between the republicans (a party that is trying to dismantle Obamacare, gave huge tax breaks to corporations, and wants to crack down on drugs) and the Democrats (who want to maintain Obamacare, were against the tax bill, think drugs need to be dealt with differently) then they are really a first class idiot.

If such a Liberal were foolish enough to not see the difference, then chances are they'd probably find something to complain about regardless even if the Democrats took a far-left stance.

...to the latest off-year election results in which voters elected the farthest-left option they had in practically every case...
Not exactly a good measure, since you're talking about a fairly statistically small sample.

Oh and by the way, you know Doug Jones, the Democrat who beat Moore in Alabama? Well, he holds views in favor of gay rights, but he also said he was a "second amendment guy" and has no problem with the concept of cutting taxes. So I'd characterize him as anything but "far left"... more of a "moderate-left". And he won the.
...to popularity polls showing that our country's most established left-winger is its most popular politician...
You talking about Sanders? I think most of his current popularity is more due to name recognition than an actual interest in his policies.

...and that the rabid orange baboon they managed to lose to with this brilliant strategy in the last Presidential election was the most unpopular (AKA most easily beatable) candidate ever on the day they handed the election to him.
That Trump won had less to do with Democratic policies and more to do with underlying bigotry, Russian interference, and a successful decades-long smear campaign against Clinton. (It should also be noted that Clinton actually won the popular vote, and only lost the presidency due to the foibles of the electoral college.)
 
It's really surprising how many people think all the Ds have to do is run a warm body without scandals in order to beat Trump in 2020. It's like people didn't learn anything from all of the numerous "beginning of the end"s predicted for Trump in 2015 and 2016 by all of the "pros."

For example, in August of 2015 the much worshipped Nate Silver of 538 gave Trump a 2% chance of winning the R nomination. (Much less an electoral victory in the GE.) Granted it was an off the cuff prediction, not a result of statistical analysis, but the sentiment was clear.

If the economy is doing well and Trump hasn't started any unnecessary wars or done anything major that is overtly stupid then he MAY stand a good chance of being elected to a second term. And by then all of the "he's the next Hitler" and similar memes will have been proven false.

Good points.

The "he's the next Hitler" stuff has already been proven to be embarrassingly wrong to those who said it. I'd be surprised if Trump ran again, but I think the Ds would have a tough time if he did and the election was today. Who knows what will happen in the next few years though in these crazy times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom