2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[WilliamSeger]

Sacrificing principles to win elections is what "moderate Republicans" do.

 

[dudalb]

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

Or are viewing the world through ideological blinders:They really want to believe there is a huge pool of Hard Left voters out there who are just waiting for the right candidate.
To the treat the centrist-moderate voters with contempt...which is what a number of people are doing..is a sure way for the Democrats to not just reelect Trump, but lose the House in the process.
Existing in a left wing bubble distorts reality just as much as living in a right wing bubble.

 

[dudalb]

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?

Yes,pretty much. Or vote for a centrist independent candidate..which, if Sanders get the nomination, there will be one.
If Sanders is nominated, Trump will win reelection. I am wiling to bet on this.

 

[Brainster]

Sherrod Brown is out, while Joe Biden continues his Hamlet imitation. And Beto O'Rourke is reaching out to potential staffers in New Hampshire.

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

Governors:
Jay Inslee
John Hickenlooper

Senators:
Corey Booker
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
Amy Klobuchar
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren

US Representatives:
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard

Cabinet Members:
Julian Castro

Mayors:
Pete Buttegieg

Unannounced But Considered Likely:

Vice Presidents:
Joe Biden

Senators:
None.

US Representatives:
Beto O'Rourke
Eric Swallwell

Mayors:
Bill De Blasio

 

[Brainster]

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, ?

I think in lieu of "telegenic" you might find that "charismatic" works better. Obama and Bill Clinton both had charisma oozing from their pores. Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Dukakis and Mondale are definite also-rans in the charm department. This is why Beto might work.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes,pretty much. Or vote for a centrist independent candidate..which, if Sanders get the nomination, there will be one.
If Sanders is nominated, Trump will win reelection. I am wiling to bet on this.

They wouldn’t just hold their nose and vote for Sanders in order to get Trump out?

That seems odd given how much scorn is heaped on those who wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton. “What do you want? Some ideological purist like Jill Stein?”

 

[The_Animus]

Yes,pretty much. Or vote for a centrist independent candidate..which, if Sanders get the nomination, there will be one.
If Sanders is nominated, Trump will win reelection. I am wiling to bet on this.

I'll take that bet. One month avatar bet agreeable to you?

 

[The Atheist]

Or are viewing the world through ideological blinders:They really want to believe there is a huge pool of Hard Left voters out there who are just waiting for the right candidate.
To the treat the centrist-moderate voters with contempt...which is what a number of people are doing..is a sure way for the Democrats to not just reelect Trump, but lose the House in the process.
Existing in a left wing bubble distorts reality just as much as living in a right wing bubble.

I do find myself smiling that I agree entirely with your last several posts on this subject.

It proves how successful Trump has been at polarising people, because what you're saying is blindingly obvious, yet the DNC & most people on the left seem unable to grasp it.

 

[Delvo]

what you're saying is blindingly obvious

Then perhaps you can provide the obvious evidence or reasoning for it, because (s)he has not; (s)he's simply repeated it a lot.

You're advocating the same approach that the Democrats were using while they lost not just the latest Presidential election but also over a thousand Federal and state seats during the last Democrat Presidency, and naysaying the shift that was associated with the blue wave in the last set of elections, in which the clear pattern was that those Democrats who lost were the ones who acted the closest to Republicans and those who won were the ones who put the most distance between themselves and Republicans. What's going to make the next election suddenly come out exactly the opposite from how things have clearly actually worked in the last several? We've asked several times why it will, and all we keep getting is more & more unsupported proclamations that it will. So far nobody's even pretended to have some strangely secret real basis for it, just fear-mongering.

yet the DNC & most people on the left seem unable to grasp it.

The people running the party are still the ones who've been doing things your way all along and seem to intend to continue.

 

[Lambchops]

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

Like I said, good luck.

 

[Brainster]

Then perhaps you can provide the obvious evidence or reasoning for it, because (s)he has not; (s)he's simply repeated it a lot.

You're advocating the same approach that the Democrats were using while they lost not just the latest Presidential election but also over a thousand Federal and state seats during the last Democrat Presidency, and naysaying the shift that was associated with the blue wave in the last set of elections, in which the clear pattern was that those Democrats who lost were the ones who acted the closest to Republicans and those who won were the ones who put the most distance between themselves and Republicans.

In the primaries, perhaps, and even there, only in ultra-lib districts. Keep in mind that AOC, Omar and Tlaib all won in seats that were already safe Democrat (indeed, the latter two ran unopposed in the general election). That is to say, they did not help the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives by flipping a seat.

Overall, the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, found that Progressive Democrats did somewhat worse than establishment Democrats in non-incumbent races (i.e., in districts with a Republican congressman). The establishment types were 140-260 in the primaries (keep in mind, this includes all the Democratic candidates in those primaries), while the Progressives were 101-278.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

She won by 3 million votes. The issue is not centrist or not, it's campaign strategy and messaging.

 

[Venom]

I do find myself smiling that I agree entirely with your last several posts on this subject.

It proves how successful Trump has been at polarising people, because what you're saying is blindingly obvious, yet the DNC & most people on the left seem unable to grasp it.

*sigh*

The DNC and people ostensibly on the left seem to not have grasped that pretending to be Republicans or centrists for the better part of a decade (you could argue for a few decades) is perhaps not a great idea after all.

Republicans have been pushing their usual talking points. They already called Obama a socialist. They've already doubled down on opposing anything even slightly leftist. We might as well try being liberals for once.

 

[Brainster]

The competition to out-progressive everybody else is on:

Warren proposes breaking up big tech--Apple, Amazon and Facebook.

John Hickenlooper dodged around the question of whether he was a capitalist:

He then asked the governor if he considered himself a “proud capitalist,” and Hickenlooper laughed before answering.

“Oh I don’t know, you know the labels, I’m not sure any of them fit,” the 2020 presidential hopeful answered. “I do believe that that ability to look at, you know, climate change and figure out how are we really going to create a sense of urgency, and get people together.”

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And Cory Booker came across quite well on Colbert tonight with his justice system reform platform.

 

[The_Animus]

She won by 3 million votes. The issue is not centrist or not, it's campaign strategy and messaging.

Overall vote totals were up 7 million from the last presidential election. Republicans gained 2 million compared to 2012, independents gained 5 million, and Clinton gained basically nothing.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

And Cory Booker came across quite well on Colbert tonight with his justice system reform platform.

agreed.
He did very well.

 

[Delvo]

Progressive Democrats did somewhat worse than establishment Democrats in non-incumbent races (i.e., in districts with a Republican congressman). The establishment types were 140-260 in the primaries (keep in mind, this includes all the Democratic candidates in those primaries), while the Progressives were 101-278.

That source not only has problems with how it categorizes candidates (like apparently taking the "Progressive" Caucus's word for it on its name) but also is referring to primaries, not the actual elections, so you're trying to use relatively small closed events with no non-Democrats present as an indicator of how those candidates would do with the non-Democrats in the general public. Primaries include cases where a corporatist and a progressive weren't in competition against each other, and cases where either one might compete against others of his/her own category. And the article itself explains the "establishment" candidates' success not in terms of the real popularity of their issue positions but in terms of Party support and name recognition from previous Party-supported experience. The whole point of the article was about the internal conflicts in each Party and how the Parties use the power of their establishment machines to resist changes sought by some of their own members from the inside; it didn't even claim to have anything at all to do with general elections or Party-unaffiliated voters.

 

[Brainster]

That source not only has problems with how it categorizes candidates (like apparently taking the "Progressive" Caucus's word for it on its name) but also is referring to primaries, not the actual elections, so you're trying to use relatively small closed events with no non-Democrats present as an indicator of how those candidates would do with the non-Democrats in the general public. Primaries include cases where a corporatist and a progressive weren't in competition against each other, and cases where either one might compete against others of his/her own category. And the article itself explains the "establishment" candidates' success not in terms of the real popularity of their issue positions but in terms of Party support and name recognition from previous Party-supported experience. The whole point of the article was about the internal conflicts in each Party and how the Parties use the power of their establishment machines to resist changes sought by some of their own members from the inside; it didn't even claim to have anything at all to do with general elections or Party-unaffiliated voters.

Almost half of the states have open primaries, where you do not have to be a registered member of the party, including such early states as New Hampshire and South Carolina. And your argument seems to be that the guys who keep losing in the Democratic primaries would win in the general election.

 

[acbytesla]

And Cory Booker came across quite well on Colbert tonight with his justice system reform platform.

Cory Booker is incredibly smart and incredibly articulate. I like his policy proposals. Hell, I like almost EVERYTHING about him. But he scares me in the General simply because he's African American.

And THAT REASON bothers me to no end. It SHOULDN'T matter. But it DOES. Because it matters to poor whites who will vote against their own interests because of bigotry.

And I'm not saying they are consciously bigoted, but subconsciously bigoted. People of EVERY color or race regardless how liberal they might think they are show a racial bias to people of their own race.

Obama demonstrated that an articulate intelligent African-American can be elected President so Booker should be able to as well. But I think Obama led to a racial backlash and it was one that Trump rode to the White House.