2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[Venom]

I think nominating someone who is pretty far to the left would be the worst thing Democrats could do. Nasturally those far to the left disagree.

The middle has been shifted to the right. Today's mainstream progressives are simply not "far left"; not mirror images of much of the right today.

And time after time when voters are faced with a Republican versus a Republican-lite who's trying to play "both sides", the real Republican gets the votes while the candidate who's pretending to be one often loses the respect of his base. I'm just asking that they maintain a strong liberal/leftist stance for once.

The worst thing the Democrats could do now is half-ass their policy proposals AGAIN to pander to Wall Street and moderate Republicans.

 

[varwoche]

That's a big IF. I'd like to see some evidence that a centrist is what the US is looking for right now. If the last election was any indication, the answer appears to be a resounding NO. It seems to me that, more now than ever, centrist Democrats bore voters and keep them away from the polls.

The "right now" part is hard to figure. We'll see.

Historically though, this is 180 degrees opposite of reality. When a progressive can't make it past the primaries, that doesn't bode well for the general.

 

[kellyb]

This can get confusing, because what passes for "centrism" in the US is actually "right-wing" in the rest of the world. Since we're talking about the US, though, I'm going to use the term "centrism" and "centrist" as it pertains to US politics.

Are US voters looking for a centrist candidate?

Let's look at the positions that are considered "far left" in the US right now.

How about Medicare for all? That's supported by 70% of the population.

Okay, what about free college tuition? That's supported by 66% of the population.

Those are the big two, but let's get into some of the more far-out, crazy left-wing territory, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's plans to tax the rich. Surely, voters are not willing to embrace...(gasp)...socialism?

In fact, 54% of the voters do support this!

Oops, wait, sorry...I'm wrong.

Actually, that's supported by 54% of Republicans (!) according to a poll by Fox News (!!!) When you poll Independents, it goes up to 71%, and Democrats support it by 85%!

So, what's the evidence that a centrist candidate will appeal to the broadest range of voters? It looks to me like the broadest range of voters is looking for somebody "far left" like Bernie Sanders.

Expanding social security, too:
https://socialsecurityworks.org/201...ited-in-support-of-expanding-social-security/

The polling found that expanding Social Security is supported by:

75 percent of men and 69 percent of women
69 percent of whites, 82 percent of African-Americans, and 79 percent of Latinos
70 percent of 18-29 year olds, 65 percent of 30-45 year olds, 76 percent of 46-65 year olds, and 70 percent of Americans over 65
87 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of Independents, and 51 percent of Republicans

The policies the supposed "centrists" try to paint as "far, fringe left" are actually popular even with Republicans.

It's a big part of why I think the so-called, self-identifying "centrists" are actually anything but actually moderate, and are actually pretty radical themselves, with their thirst for "entitlement reform", etc.

 

[kellyb]

The worst thing the Democrats could do now is half-ass their policy proposals AGAIN to pander to Wall Street and moderate Republicans.

I don't think we have to worry about them halfassing the policy proposals. What they probably want to do is have Booker, Harris and Biden pander to the left, and hope it's effective enough to get them installed, with the actual policies pursued and passed once in office being more incremental shifting to the right in the name of "pragmatism".

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I honestly don't know whether they should go further to the left to energise the Democratic voters, or go towards the center to grab the moderates.

Go left
Compared to the GOP and Trump, everything is left. They will call you Communist even if you are right of Center, as long as you have a (D) behind your name.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But there is no broad range of voters anymore. Everybody is either hard left or hard right. Have'nt you been reading the last few posts?

*Laughs* Yeah it's almost as if the tribes that have been running American politics for the last 100 years have some sort of ulterior motive to promote the narrative that there is no compromise and only "them but more so" can save the day.

 

[The Big Dog]

Kamala's social media game is lit AF!

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1090389634109132800

/yeah the guy on the bench in the background is passed out or maybe dead.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Expanding social security, too:
https://socialsecurityworks.org/201...ited-in-support-of-expanding-social-security/


The policies the supposed "centrists" try to paint as "far, fringe left" are actually popular even with Republicans.

It's a big part of why I think the so-called, self-identifying "centrists" are actually anything but actually moderate, and are actually pretty radical themselves, with their thirst for "entitlement reform", etc.

Many thanks to both you and Axiom_Blade for bringing some data to the discussion.

That it matches my own preconceived notions makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. But I'm perfectly willing to review some contrary data, even if it would make me feel cold and soulless.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Kamala's social media game is lit AF!

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1090389634109132800

/yeah the guy on the bench in the background is passed out or maybe dead.

Have you never slept on a bench? Man, I thought I had some white privilege issues . . .

 

[Venom]

*Laughs* Yeah it's almost as if the tribes that have been running American politics for the last 100 years have some sort of ulterior motive to promote the narrative that there is no compromise and only "them but more so" can save the day.

Obama tried, and failed. Then tried, then failed some more...

It's almost as if trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is not worth the risk anymore.

 

[The Big Dog]

Have you never slept on a bench? Man, I thought I had some white privilege issues . . .

Not only have I never passed out on a bench, I have never been featured in campaign propaganda for the sixth place finisher at the Iowa caucuses like this fellow.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Not only have I never passed out on a bench, I have never been featured in campaign propaganda for the sixth place finisher at the Iowa caucuses like this fellow.

I've never passed out on a bench either.* But I have slept on plenty. Especially on a cool sunny day. Feels great to have a nice breeze and soak up some sun while catching some winks on the lunch break. Especially when working some ****** job like document review in a closed off file room that makes you question your career choices.

I'd look a lot like that photo, even with the soda on the ground next to me and the nice dress shoes.

I've also done it on vacation while waiting for my wife and kids to do something I'm not that in to, but then I'd be wearing shorts or jeans.

Thinking that benches are just for sitting or being passed out on is just ****** up.



*Not that I recall, but if I were to do a survey of friends from my heavy drinking years they may correct me on this.

 

[dudalb]

Some of the Demoractic contenders are going to have their fifteen minutes of Warholian fame, then go back to obscurity except for people in their own states and districts. Twas ever thus.
Everytime it looks like a party has a excellent chance of an election year being "it's year" you get a lot of candidates coming out of the woodwork who quickly go back there. That goes for both parties.

 

[The Big Dog]

I've never passed out on a bench either.* But I have slept on plenty. Especially on a cool sunny day. Feels great to have a nice breeze and soak up some sun while catching some winks on the lunch break. Especially when working some ****** job like document review in a closed off file room that makes you question your career choices.

I'd look a lot like that photo, even with the soda on the ground next to me and the nice dress shoes.

I've also done it on vacation while waiting for my wife and kids to do something I'm not that in to, but then I'd be wearing shorts or jeans.

Thinking that benches are just for sitting or being passed out on is just ****** up.

*Not that I recall, but if I were to do a survey of friends from my heavy drinking years they may correct me on this.

You slept on bus stop benches right next to the side of a busy street?

Huh, that seems pretty selfish

 

[kellyb]

But I'm perfectly willing to review some contrary data, even if it would make me feel cold and soulless.

Me, too, but they never bring any contrary data. Almost as if they don't have any because it doesn't exist.

At this point, they usually just divert into talking about how us catching up with the rest of the developed world is asking for unicorns and rainbows since we're a "less homogeneous society" .

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Okay so how is this supposed to be working exactly?

If you aren't "Left" enough people will vote for the "Right?" That if someone isn't 100% percent as far Left as you want them to be but only... like 60 or 80% they'll vote for someone who's 60 or 80 or 100% fully on the Right or not vote at all just... why? To spite them?

These all just seems like a narrative to justify cause purity.

Voter indifference is researched subject in voting theory.

Let's put the spectrum as 0 for liberal and 1 for conservative.

If I'm at 0.1, and the two candidates are 0.5 and 0.55, the gap between my position and each of the candidates, 0.4 and 0.45, is similar enough that I will have no significant preference.

Alternatively, if I'm at 0.5 and the two candidates are 0.45 and 0.55, the gap between my position and each of the candidates, 0.05, is the same so I will have no significant preference.

The ideological population distribution, where the other party chooses to position, and other factors will determine where the a party should position itself for a winning strategy.

 

[Brainster]

Senator Corey Booker from New Jersey announced today.

I'll try to do a modest job of organizing the at least moderately credible candidates here; sorry Jeff Boss. Feel free to point out corrections/additions.

In Or At Least Exploring (By Current or Highest Office Held):

Senators:
Corey Booker
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
Elizabeth Warren

US Representatives:
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard

Cabinet Members:
Julian Castro

Mayors:
Pete Buttegieg

Unannounced But Considered Likely:

Vice Presidents:
Joe Biden

Senators:
Sherrod Brown
Amy Klobuchar
Bernie Sanders

US Representatives:
Beto O'Rourke

Mayors:
Michael Bloomberg
Bill De Blasio

I thought about putting even more speculative candidates and the "I'm out" crowd in here, but it's just too much.

 

[SezMe]

Irony is those Democratic voters who Hillary did not motivated are going to be motivated in 2020...by Trump.
I think nominating someone who is pretty far to the left would be the worst thing Democrats could do. Nasturally those far to the left disagree.

I'm unable to distinguish left from far-left. Has a far-left Dem declared for 2020? If so, who? If not, name a couple of far-left Dems so I can see what the beast looks like.

 

[Venom]

I'm unable to distinguish left from far-left. Has a far-left Dem declared for 2020? If so, who? If not, name a couple of far-left Dems so I can see what the beast looks like.

Not a Democrat but I imagine what a "far left" Dem would look like.

 

[kellyb]

Not a Democrat but I imagine what a "far left" Dem would look like.

[qimg]https://votesmart.org/canphoto/35775_lg.jpg[/qimg]

She's not any different from Sanders when it comes to policy proposals.

Basically everyone on the left has the same policy ideas.