2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[a_unique_person]

She endorsed Justice Democrats.

Justice Democrats put her in office.

Her Chief-of-Staff is one of the founders (was also high up in Brand New Congress).

Why does she have to be "arrogant" or "have an inflated opinion of herself" to make this move?

What does she owe career Democrats? They didn't put her where she is, she did (with Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress).

Also, the center is not doing so well across the whole OECD, so I'm not sure why there's this certainty that middle-ground centrist technocracy is going to beat Trump. In fact I think that's the best course of action if you want to see the same thing that happened last time.

Finally...

What are you doing that's so damn important to help the cause?

I mean besides hurling pejoratives from behind a screen?

For the record, I'm done with my candidate's Charter and Bylaws, now moving into Policies and Procedures for staff once we start hiring. We'll be sending in the FEC forms sometime in March. Platform working groups will get filled, literature written, doors knocked on. It's game time.

My candidate has met with Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress, She Should Run, All In Together, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. There's quite a growing institutional backlash against the Democratic Party going on. AOC isn't firing a starting gun, she's just pointing out what's already happening.

We're going to primary a Democrat here in my flyover country district.

Hillary was the perfect centrist. Look where it got her.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Hillary has stated in a number of interviews now that she won't be running for public office again.

Hillary ruled out her own campaign today.

I'd say that is he decides to run, this guy as a pretty good shot, and the best thing is that since he's from Texas, his running could really throw a lot of chaos into the election by turning Texas Blue!

Cabinet Members:
Julian Castro

At this point I'd say I'm doing well in my predictive powers.

 

[dudalb]

Have you even considered the possibility that a large part of US Dem voters are fed up with the impotent "moderate centrism" their party has been offering them for way to long, and now want's the Dems to move further left?

That maybe some USAians, after being utterly screwed over for so many years, want some actual change? Maybe they want a country that does not force them to choose between a centre-right party and a far-right party?

I suppose your answer is "no".

My answer is you don't know much about US Politics if you think there is some massive hidden Left wing vote out there.

 

[dudalb]

The problem is the party is not a monolith and NEVER has been.

And to try to turn it into one would be a disaster.

SO far in this thread I have seen plenty of evidence that there is indeed a group who basically are a "Tea Party of the Left" and will insist on ideological purity if they get control of the Democratic party.

Which would guarantee the relection of Trump and the house going back to the GOP.

 

[dudalb]

So, we can all agree that the re-election of Trump must be avoided at all costs? Since AOC's wing of the party doesn't seem to be willing to back down, why don't the moderates move to the left? It seems like the only sane thing to do. That is, IF the Democrats are willing to put party cohesion and defeating Trump above all else, like they keep saying they are.

Because maybe some moderates actually have principals they are not willing to surrender for "Party Unity".
I suggest to you we are seeing blind loyalty to a party in action right now, and it's not a pretty thing.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Because maybe some moderates actually have principals they are not willing to surrender for "Party Unity".
I suggest to you we are seeing blind loyalty to a party in action right now, and it's not a pretty thing.

It's okay for a moderate to put principles over party, but if progressives do so, well damn, they are destroying America.

Reeks of hypocrisy to demand pragmatism and then turn around and make excuses for not being willing to consider the same.

 

[dudalb]

It's okay for a moderate to put principles over party, but if progressives do so, well damn, they are destroying America.

Reeks of hypocrisy to demand pragmatism and then turn around and make excuses for not being willing to consider the same.

You are demanding the total surrender of the moderate wing of the democratic party to the left wing.
Ideological purity above all.
Keep it up, guy. Get Trump reelected and the GOP back in control of the house.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

My answer is you don't know much about US Politics if you think there is some massive hidden Left wing vote out there.

You are demanding the total surrender of the moderate wing of the democratic party to the left wing.
Ideological purity above all.
Keep it up, guy. Get Trump reelected and the GOP back in control of the house.

Haven't followed thread too closely, but what do you make of the fact that Bernie polled better across the board than Hillary did?

 

[Delvo]

My answer is you don't know much about US Politics if you think there is some massive hidden Left wing vote out there.

I agree.

It isn't hidden at all. It's quite out in the open & plain to see.

What we still haven't seen yet is any evidence of your hidden massive supply of voters "in the middle" who would just love a chance to vote for a Republican-mimicking Democrat next time around... even though haven't, at least not in years & years, during which that's precisely who the Democrats were going after and losing over & over again while doing so. When do you plan on getting around to showing some reason to believe in those voters?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You are demanding the total surrender of the moderate wing of the democratic party to the left wing.
Ideological purity above all.
Keep it up, guy. Get Trump reelected and the GOP back in control of the house.

I am demanding no such thing.

I'm saying that if the progressives make the stronger showing coming out of the primaries and the moderates sit it out, I'm going to call all of this hand wringing over party unity and the bigger picture a bunch of sanctimonious ********.

ETA: While we're at it, let's please not turn the primaries into a circular firing squad of everyone saying they are the only way to beat Trump and voting for my opponents means you support Trump and if you don't like the candidate I like, you like Trump.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I agree.

It isn't hidden at all. It's quite out in the open & plain to see.

What we still haven't seen yet is any evidence of your hidden massive supply of voters "in the middle" who would just love a chance to vote for a Republican-mimicking Democrat next time around... even though haven't, at least not in years & years, during which that's precisely who the Democrats were going after and losing over & over again while doing so. When do you plan on getting around to showing some reason to believe in those voters?

I swear there's some kind of collective amnesia among democratic political operatives, they seem to be unaware of political trends starting about 2010. Nearly everywhere that has a handful or so of actual viable parties, the center has collapsed. ETA: There's left and right versions of this going on, for every Zeman or Farage, there's a Sturgeon or an Iglesias.

The American left is getting its Tea Party infusion now that it is in opposition mode. It can get blindsided by it, try to beat it back, and result in both camps being depleted and directionless (like the Republicans) or they can embrace it, infuse the energy into the party machinery, and work out something mutually beneficial.

I strongly advise against the former, for the latter I'm in the "would love to see it, but not holding my breath" camp.

 

[Mumbles]

Hillary was the perfect centrist. Look where it got her.

A few million more votes and a near-certain victory had the FBI director not played favorites and spiked her chances at the last moment - or had the press not concentrated entirely on a fake email scandal while giving a bigoted conman massive free airtime?

People tend to forget that the dems had the more effective convention, and Hillary mopped the floor with Dolt 45 in every debate, explaining policy in effective terms while leaving Toupee Fiasco sputtering in anger and confusion.

Not that I wouldn't like a more "left-leaning" candidate - my only real objection to the most common platforms is that I suspect we'd be better off moving to the German health insurance system than "Medicare for all" (I'm no expert, though) - but let's not pretend that Hillary was some disastrous candidate.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

A few million more votes and a near-certain victory had the FBI director not played favorites and spiked her chances at the last moment - or had the press not concentrated entirely on a fake email scandal while giving a bigoted conman massive free airtime?

People tend to forget that the dems had the more effective convention, and Hillary mopped the floor with Dolt 45 in every debate, explaining policy in effective terms while leaving Toupee Fiasco sputtering in anger and confusion.

Not that I wouldn't like a more "left-leaning" candidate - my only real objection to the most common platforms is that I suspect we'd be better off moving to the German health insurance system than "Medicare for all" (I'm no expert, though) - but let's not pretend that Hillary was some disastrous candidate.

Granted. Although I'm among those who find a 2.1% lead over Trump to be sort of "damned with faint praise."

While Hillary "mopped the floor" in the debates from an academic perspective, that's not necessarily preferable.

If someone says there's people coming to murder your family, hearing some statistics from the latest Harvard study on 8 vectors of radicalization can land to some people as downright psychotic.

 

[Segnosaur]

It's okay for a moderate to put principles over party, but if progressives do so, well damn, they are destroying America.

Reeks of hypocrisy to demand pragmatism and then turn around and make excuses for not being willing to consider the same.

There is one big difference between a moderate and a progressive in this case.

If you are a 'progressive', then supporting the moderate will be the only way to get anything that you might want.

If you are a moderate, you will like some of what the progressives might offer, but you will also prefer at least some policies that are offered by conservatives. Throwing your support to a progressive means you will get some of what you want, but you will also get some things that you don't want.

 

[Segnosaur]

Haven't followed thread too closely, but what do you make of the fact that Bernie polled better across the board than Hillary did?

This has been discussed multiple times in various threads in the forum.

It is true that Sanders polled better than Clinton. But, unlike Clinton, Sanders was never subject to any sort of sustained attacks from the Republicans. And there was a ton of material that could have been used... Sander's self-labeling as a 'socialist', his criminal background, his plan to increase taxes on the middle class. (The republicans specifically held back from attacking him because they thought he would be easier to beat in a general election.)

Any politician will look good if nobody says anything negative about them.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

This has been discussed multiple times in various threads in the forum.



It is true that Sanders polled better than Clinton. But, unlike Clinton, Sanders was never subject to any sort of sustained attacks from the Republicans. And there was a ton of material that could have been used... Sander's self-labeling as a 'socialist', his criminal background, his plan to increase taxes on the middle class. (The republicans specifically held back from attacking him because they thought he would be easier to beat in a general election.)



Any politician will look good if nobody says anything negative about them.

Yeah, all that got discussed ad nauseum during the primaries by major media outlets telling us why he'll never be taken seriously.

How come every insistence he never got pilloried comes with a suspiciously consistent list of negative qualities supposedly nobody ever thought of using against him?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

There is one big difference between a moderate and a progressive in this case.



If you are a 'progressive', then supporting the moderate will be the only way to get anything that you might want.



If you are a moderate, you will like some of what the progressives might offer, but you will also prefer at least some policies that are offered by conservatives. Throwing your support to a progressive means you will get some of what you want, but you will also get some things that you don't want.

Sounds like we may be in for a lot of smugly satisfied, yet disappointed people come November 2020.

 

[Delvo]

How come every insistence he never got pilloried comes with a suspiciously consistent list of negative qualities supposedly nobody ever thought of using against him?

Same reason why they carefully avoid saying whether the Republicans would also be mean to any other candidate as well, or anything about how effective Republican meanness would be

 

[Segnosaur]

It is true that Sanders polled better than Clinton. But, unlike Clinton, Sanders was never subject to any sort of sustained attacks from the Republicans. And there was a ton of material that could have been used...

Yeah, all that got discussed ad nauseum during the primaries by major media outlets telling us why he'll never be taken seriously.

Really? I don't seem to remember any significant discussion about (for example) Sanders stealing from his neighbor, or him being at a rally where people were chanting "Yankees Die". (You know, the type of things the Republicans might use against him.) The majority of the discussion seemed to be taken up with Hillary's emails, the Clinton Foundation, and the like. If there was any discussion of Sander's past, it certainly didn't seem to be front-page news, more academic or opinion articles.

How come every insistence he never got pilloried comes with a suspiciously consistent list of negative qualities supposedly nobody ever thought of using against him?

While the material that could be used against him wasn't exactly hidden, there is a difference between something Sanders did a decade ago tucked away in some quickly-forgotten news article, and seeing that same information splashed all over TV attack ads and pushed in national debates.

As for why the material was never used against him:

- The republicans certainly thought of using it against him, but were planning on waiting until the general election, figuring he'd be an easier target than Clinton

- Clinton didn't use the material against him probably because in the primaries, her target demographic (e.g. fellow Democrats) might have reflected negatively on her release of the material. (Plus, although Sanders did give her a challenge, she was still considered a front runner, and it probably would have been damaging to the Democrats as a whole to go that negative against a possible ally.)

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Really? I don't seem to remember any significant discussion about (for example) Sanders stealing from his neighbor, or him being at a rally where people were chanting "Yankees Die". (You know, the type of things the Republicans might use against him.) The majority of the discussion seemed to be taken up with Hillary's emails, the Clinton Foundation, and the like. If there was any discussion of Sander's past, it certainly didn't seem to be front-page news, more academic or opinion articles.

I think you're talking about the general election. I was talking about the primaries.

It wasn't on the front page =/= it was never discussed.

While the material that could be used against him wasn't exactly hidden, there is a difference between something Sanders did a decade ago tucked away in some quickly-forgotten news article, and seeing that same information splashed all over TV attack ads and pushed in national debates.



As for why the material was never used against him:



- The republicans certainly thought of using it against him, but were planning on waiting until the general election, figuring he'd be an easier target than Clinton



- Clinton didn't use the material against him probably because in the primaries, her target demographic (e.g. fellow Democrats) might have reflected negatively on her release of the material. (Plus, although Sanders did give her a challenge, she was still considered a front runner, and it probably would have been damaging to the Democrats as a whole to go that negative against a possible ally.)

Because maybe, because what if, because totally hypothetical excuses exist.

As I said, Clinton didn't have to say it, nearly every pundit who discussed Bernie did that plenty.

Meanwhile, collapse of the center is a well-documemted global phenomena.