2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[Stacko]

Andrew Yang is roughly 18,000 donors away from making the debate stage.

Andrew Yang has been a Democratic presidential candidate for well over a year. But chances are, you’ve never heard of him. He’s not a lawmaker. He has just over 90,000 Twitter followers. As of Dec. 31, 2018, his campaign committee had $38,730.78 cash on hand. He’s spent a grand total of $33,000 on Facebook ads. And has not run a single TV ad.

And yet, the self-proclaimed “entrepreneur who understands the economy” has somehow managed to get more than 47,000 individual donors to his campaign as of Wednesday night. It’s a figure that’s caught the attention of Democrats on other campaigns. But, more importantly, it’s one that places Yang close to a critical threshold. If that number rises to 65,000 over the next two months, he will qualify to participate in the first primary debate.

He's already met one threshold—that his campaign have a minimum of 200 donors per state in at least 20 states. And his team says he’s a lock to clear the other.

“100 percent. Hell will have to freeze over at this rate for us not to,” said Zach Graumann, Yang’s campaign manager. “We are averaging 1,500 donors a day. Not averaging, that is our baseline. And people don’t even know who he is yet.”

 

[Donal]

the self-proclaimed “entrepreneur who understands the economy”

Really? We really need to explain this again? Is the presidency the new toy for rich people?

 

[dudalb]

I live the way some here like to think that the moderate centrist vote does not exist.

 

[theprestige]

I live the way some here like to think that the moderate centrist vote does not exist.

You must love it, since you don't talk them about it, or argue for different viewpoint, or anything like that.

 

[Venom]

#AnybodyButTrump!

 

[The Atheist]

I live the way some here like to think that the moderate centrist vote does not exist.

Quite funny - I suggested at a different forum several days ago that the Dems need to look for a centrist who can appeal to Democratic voters as well as the many non-Trump moderate Republicans. That latter group aren't going to vote for a socialist, no matter how old/young/pretty they are.

At the moment, there doesn't appear to be anyone in that centrist space, which should be an indictment on the Democratic Party for spending two years crying about the election and not spending a second on finding the person to lead them away from the far left.

If you want cohesion, look to the middle, not the fringes. That's where about 80% of your voters live.

 

[Delvo]

Advice with a consistent track record of losing is advice on how to lose.

 

[Lambchops]

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

And yet, Hillary, who is the perfect centrist, lost against a literal circus clown.

Good luck with running another centrist against Trump in 2020. I'm sure that will work out just great.

 

[Lambchops]

Advice with a consistent track record of losing is advice on how to lose.

Indeed.

 

[Venom]

At the moment, there doesn't appear to be anyone in that centrist space, which should be an indictment on the Democratic Party for spending two years crying about the election and not spending a second on finding the person to lead them away from the far left.

If you want cohesion, look to the middle, not the fringes. That's where about 80% of your voters live.

Quite funny. Most of the experienced Democrats running right now are arguably centrist. If strong support for social justice issues and incremental progress fiscally makes you "far left" of center, that says more about the people hugging the right than it does the leftists. Well the center has been shifted rightwards anyways so in that respect most of the Dems aren't centrist. Hardly makes them far left.

In recent years the Democrats have always been more willing to compromise than the Republicans. No time for that nonsense anymore.

 

[The Atheist]

Quite funny. Most of the experienced Democrats running right now are arguably centrist.

Bernie Sanders self-describes as a democratic socialist, which is not centrist.

Joe Biden is a joke candidate.

That's your top two.

Who's next?

Kamala Harris? I think her record says she'd be a hard sell as a centrist, and even worse, she's a woman. If the Dems haven't learnt that USA isn't ready for a female president yet, they'll learn it again next year if they pick one. I personally think she's probably the best candidate of the lot, but I don't think she can win.

If you can't see the entrenched misogyny in the US electorate, maybe RCP can help you - Trump beats Harris by a larger or similar margin to Booker, who has zero name recognition but is a bloke.

Booker himself is the furthest of all from the centre:

...there's nothing in that realm of progressive politics where you won't find me.

After that, the field is pretty thin on anything.

Nobody else hits 5%, other than the odd Beto O'Rourke showing, and I don't think he's given much impression of trying to occupy the middle ground.

If strong support for social justice issues and incremental progress fiscally makes you "far left" of center, that says more about the people hugging the right than it does the leftists.

I agree entirely, but it's a time for pragmatism, and a pragmatic approach says you need to follow the centre to the right a bit rather than trying to drag it left. Get the power, own both houses, then move the balance as you can. Much like Trump's done with his emergency powers and stacking the courts.

The Dems need to take a multi-election approach if you ever want to return USA to world prominence.

 

[varwoche]

And yet, Hillary, who is the perfect centrist, lost against a literal circus clown.

Good luck with running another centrist against Trump in 2020. I'm sure that will work out just great.

2016 was an aberration due to extraordinary events. When you draw this conclusion from 2016, you're a prisoner of the moment.

 

[The_Animus]

Andrew Yang is roughly 18,000 donors away from making the debate stage.

There was a great interview he did with Sam Harris. I hope he makes it to the debates, though I doubt the structure or the questions that will be asked will allow him to adequately explain his views.

 

[Belz...]

If you can't see the entrenched misogyny in the US electorate, maybe RCP can help you - Trump beats Harris by a larger or similar margin to Booker, who has zero name recognition but is a bloke.

Sorry, how's that misogyny?

 

[angrysoba]

Andrew Yang is roughly 18,000 donors away from making the debate stage.

13000 to go now.

Of course, as mentioned, there is the problem that the debates won't give him much time to make his case.

 

[angrysoba]

And yet, Hillary, who is the perfect centrist, lost against a literal circus clown.

 

[varwoche]

Centrist vs progressive is too narrow of a guide to winnability. Old, establishment, non-telegenic, non-inspirational candidates tend to fare poorly. Working backwards, skipping incumbents...

2016: Clinton: 69, establishment, non-telegenic, non-inspirational. Loses

2008: Obama: 47, outsider, telegenic, inspirational: Wins

2004: Kerry: 61, establishment, non-telegenic, non-inspirational: Loses

2000: Gore: 52, establishment, non-telegenic, non-inspirational: Loses (via electoral college)

1992: Clinton: 46, outsider, telegenic, non-inspirational: Wins

1988: Dukakis: 55, outsider, non-telegenic, hyper non-inspirational: Loses

1984: Mondale: 56, establishment, non-telegenic, non-inspirational: Loses

1976: Carter: 52, outsider, non-telegenic, non-inspirational: Wins (in the wake of Watergate)

This is why I think that Biden, Sanders, and Warren aren't the best bets to defeat Trump.

Biden: Ancient, establishment, non-telegenic, non-inspirational
Sanders: Ancient, outsider, non-telegenic, inspirational
Warren: Ancient, establishment(?), non-telegenic, ?

 

[angrysoba]

I live the way some here like to think that the moderate centrist vote does not exist.

Okay, let's say it exists (nobody disputes this, by the way, but whatever).

Now, let's say that the Democratic candidate is, let's say Bernie Sanders. He's up against Donald Trump, obviously.

Let's ask the moderate centrist voter, "Who are you going to vote for?"

What do they answer? That there is no moderate centrist candidate to vote for so they stay home and aren't fussed which one wins?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Okay, let's say it exists (nobody disputes this, by the way, but whatever).

Now, let's say that the Democratic candidate is, let's say Bernie Sanders. He's up against Donald Trump, obviously.

Let's ask the moderate centrist voter, "Who are you going to vote for?"

What do they answer? That there is no moderate centrist candidate to vote for so they stay home and aren't fussed which one wins?

If it's Trump vs Sanders I think we should give serious thought to undoing the American Revolution and seeing if Britain will take us back. Sure, it's embarrassing going back to an ex, but sometimes it's for the best. Also, ex-sex is excellent. And then they'll be less fussed about leaving the EU. Win-win, old chap, guvnor, blimey. Seamless merger!

 

[Stacko]

Okay, let's say it exists (nobody disputes this, by the way, but whatever).

Now, let's say that the Democratic candidate is, let's say Bernie Sanders. He's up against Donald Trump, obviously.

Let's ask the moderate centrist voter, "Who are you going to vote for?"

What do they answer? That there is no moderate centrist candidate to vote for so they stay home and aren't fussed which one wins?

I believe you've discovered Howard Schultz's constituency.