2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[theprestige]

Was there something wrong with that assessment?

Very much so.

And it not just a question of mere electability. It's a question of missing the national mood that made "not Trump" a disadvantage for her campaign, in ways that mattered, in states that mattered.

To this day, progressives are happy to talk about Trump's base, but Trump's base was never the issue. Just like the Democrats piling on millions of redundant votes in places like New York and California was never the issue. What they're not talking about is a relatively small number of swing voters in a few key states, and why they didn't choose Hillary in 2016.

 

[Belz...]

Isn't that what Democrats were telling themselves on election day 2016? That Hillary might be flawed but she wasn't Trump?

That's certainly how some people would like to remember it, yes. Me, I'd say that Hillary might be flawed but she would make a good president, unlike Trump.

 

[theprestige]

That's certainly how some people would like to remember it, yes. Me, I'd say that Hillary might be flawed but she would make a good president, unlike Trump.

If there's one lesson we can take from 2016, it's that neither of them would have made a good president.

 

[Belz...]

If there's one lesson we can take from 2016, it's that neither of them would have made a good president.

No, I don't think we can take that lesson at all. I still say she would've been a solid commander-in-chief, if not perfect. In fact, she might have gotten quite a bit more done than Obama. The problem with Clinton was perception, not competence, and the reason why she lost was a combination of that, and poor campaigning.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't find them substantive in any way.

Biden kissed a woman on the top of her head.
A child backed away from him.
Mayor Pete's father once made some positive remarks about communism. Elizabeth Warren said she has some native American blood.
Beto's family has money.

These are not remotely substantive to our daily lives.

I agree with you the last three of those are not substantive and we need to be careful letting the GOP define the Democratic candidates based on the equivalent of a sound bite.

But Biden's behavior is creepy and it's more than just an incident or two. In addition he's come out now defending the behavior as his being supportive, whatever. He's completely tone deaf.

I don't think he was making sexual passes. The rest of his behavior does not support that conclusion. At least I haven't heard yet that anyone felt he made untoward advances. Biden's behavior should not be conflated with sexual assault or aggression.
But ****! It's creepy in a creepy old man kind of way. Does he see other people doing it? Does he have no clue that's not comforting, it's invading personal space? Where did he get the idea it was acceptable behavior?

Today on the PBS News Hour one side of the discussion tried to say times and norms were changing. That may be true but this was creepy decades ago. It wasn't the norm that is now misunderstood because it is no longer the norm. And that's what Biden was claiming, that he's at fault because he didn't recognize times have changed.

No! When was his touchy-feely behavior OK? When was it at least a little bit common? Never!

I hope he decides not to waste our time running.

 

[theprestige]

No, I don't think we can take that lesson at all. I still say she would've been a solid commander-in-chief, if not perfect. In fact, she might have gotten quite a bit more done than Obama. The problem with Clinton was perception, not competence, and the reason why she lost was a combination of that, and poor campaigning.

It's exactly that perception I'm talking about.

A sharply divided democracy can't get good leadership out of a president who's actively hated by half the country (give or take).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And who doesn't have flaws or mistakes in their past? Who isn't sometimes creepy or weird or offensive?

Compare and contrast to Trump's list of failings.

The right wing is bizarrely blind to the comparison. Mind boggling but not surprising.

 

[Brainster]

That's certainly how some people would like to remember it, yes. Me, I'd say that Hillary might be flawed but she would make a good president, unlike Trump.

The argument I'm making is that if you are trying to find the electable candidate, you'd damn well better know the flaws of all of the candidates. Some you may discount or even find as not a flaw but a feature (I am sure that a lot of progressives will be thrilled to find out that Mayor Pete's dad was a Marxist).

 

[acbytesla]

I agree with you the last three of those are not substantive and we need to be careful letting the GOP define the Democratic candidates based on the equivalent of a sound bite.

But Biden's behavior is creepy and it's more than just an incident or two. In addition he's come out now defending the behavior as his being supportive, whatever. He's completely tone deaf.

I don't think he was making sexual passes. The rest of his behavior does not support that conclusion. At least I haven't heard yet that anyone felt he made untoward advances. Biden's behavior should not be conflated with sexual assault or aggression.
But ****! It's creepy in a creepy old man kind of way. Does he see other people doing it? Does he have no clue that's not comforting, it's invading personal space? Where did he get the idea it was acceptable behavior?

Today on the PBS News Hour one side of the discussion tried to say times and norms were changing. That may be true but this was creepy decades ago. It wasn't the norm that is now misunderstood because it is no longer the norm. And that's what Biden was claiming, that he's at fault because he didn't recognize times have changed.

No! When was his touchy-feely behavior OK? When was it at least a little bit common? Never!

I hope he decides not to waste our time running.

I disagree with your conclusion.

Biden may have been clueless about people's personal space, but it matters not one bit to me in choosing a President. Like you said, there is no reason to believe it's sexual in nature. That would be another cup of tea. I see a dedicated public servant more than anything else. There may be other reasons he may not be someone's choice for President. But this one IMV is absurd. I voted for Hillary even though i thought she was cold and not very personable. Now, Biden may be too personable, but i can't ignore his resume.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I disagree with your conclusion.

Biden may have been clueless about people's personal space, but it matters not one bit to me in choosing a President. Like you said, there is no reason to believe it's sexual in nature. That would be another cup of tea. I see a dedicated public servant more than anything else. There may be other reasons he may not be someone's choice for President. But this one IMV is absurd. I voted for Hillary even though i thought she was cold and not very personable. Now, Biden may be too personable, but i can't ignore his resume.

It isnt sexual, but it is very sexist.

 

[Venom]

It's exactly that perception I'm talking about.

A sharply divided democracy can't get good leadership out of a president who's actively hated by half the country (give or take).

So either way it wouldn't have mattered, on a practical level. Is that what your saying? Given your posting history that's how I interpret it. And I don't quite follow.

At the very least there is the intangibles; how a Trump victory legitimized his loyal and rabid fanbase, diplomatic optics, etc.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I disagree with your conclusion.

Biden may have been clueless about people's personal space, but it matters not one bit to me in choosing a President. Like you said, there is no reason to believe it's sexual in nature. That would be another cup of tea. I see a dedicated public servant more than anything else. There may be other reasons he may not be someone's choice for President. But this one IMV is absurd. I voted for Hillary even though i thought she was cold and not very personable. Now, Biden may be too personable, but i can't ignore his resume.

I have a bias in that I don't think Biden would make a good POTUS regardless.

But even if I didn't, electability is an important quality no matter how impressed one personally is about a candidate. It isn't the only quality, it is one of many I think need consideration.

 

[Venom]

Well Joe Biden should be on his way out in any case. If his electoral history is any indication, he fizzles out near mid-way.

Good to see Bernie Sanders has come out front. How long can he keep up these small dollar donations?

 

[Aridas]

She's become the single biggest source of remaining Democrat resistance to universal health care. Is there any serious possible reason for a Democrat to take that position other than being corrupted by the same kind of big-money corruption she otherwise claims to be against?

Hmm? What's the source of your claim here? By the look of it, Warren has been in favor of universal health care for quite a while. Single-payer, Medicare-for-all, and so on, on that front. Maybe you've been confused by her simultaneous support of multiple distinct plans to improve the health care situation, not all of which are universal health care?

 

[acbytesla]

I have a bias in that I don't think Biden would make a good POTUS regardless.

But even if I didn't, electability is an important quality no matter how impressed one personally is about a candidate. It isn't the only quality, it is one of many I think need consideration.

Biden is not my first pick, but he certainly isn't my last pick.

I'm just commenting on something that I consider to be trivial. Things like Obama's pastor, his birth certificate, Elizabeth Warren's heritage, Bill Clinton's blowjob and so many other things not worth mentioning but someone will.

Me personally, so far, I'm most impressed with Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Mayor Pete. I'm surprised, but my biggest disappointments are Beto, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobouchar, all I thought would be better. But it's early and I'm a long way away from choosing someone to back. But I can't fathom anyone not being a better choice than Trump.

 

[Venom]

She's become the single biggest source of remaining Democrat resistance to universal health care. Is there any serious possible reason for a Democrat to take that position other than being corrupted by the same kind of big-money corruption she otherwise claims to be against?

She hasn't looked into the options as hard as others.

She wants to be pragmatic with her options.

Or any combination of the three.

Warren is a niche candidate strong in her area. Gabbard has strong foreign policy proposals. I don't know that I'd drop Gabbard just cause she isn't for a particular type of universal health coverage.

 

[Stacyhs]

The argument I'm making is that if you are trying to find the electable candidate, you'd damn well better know the flaws of all of the candidates. Some you may discount or even find as not a flaw but a feature (I am sure that a lot of progressives will be thrilled to find out that Mayor Pete's dad was a Marxist).

Why would anyone care what his father's political views were? Mine are not those of my father. Stop with the Red Scare tactic. How'd that work out for McCarthy?

Buttigieg is brilliant, charming, erudite, and classy. Everything that Trump is not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Biden is not my first pick, but he certainly isn't my last pick.

I'm just commenting on something that I consider to be trivial. Things like Obama's pastor, his birth certificate, Elizabeth Warren's heritage, Bill Clinton's blowjob and so many other things not worth mentioning but someone will.

Me personally, so far, I'm most impressed with Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Mayor Pete. I'm surprised, but my biggest disappointments are Beto, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobouchar, all I thought would be better. But it's early and I'm a long way away from choosing someone to back. But I can't fathom anyone not being a better choice than Trump.

Interesting. All those other things I agree are trivial. I wonder if some of us are simply more creeped out than others, as in women vs men?

It is a paternalistic condescending kind of creepy. I can see where some men might not see it that way. I wonder if any other females in the thread would weigh in.

 

[Brainster]

Why would anyone care what his father's political views were?

It depends on how his dad's views influenced his own. I pointed out earlier in this thread that Buttigieg was not a fan of the Clinton economy of the 1990s, which definitely puts him in the minority around here. And the phrasing made it clear that these were the thoughts of his family (at the time) and not his own.

When you were in high school in the nineties, were you turned off by Bill Clinton because of his third way, centrist approach to politics?

Yeah, I definitely grew up in a family that was skeptical of that. There was progress overall in the economy, but I think that period also laid the groundwork for where we are now, where we've gotten tremendous growth in the economy and tremendous growth in economic inequality.

Italics=Interviewer

 

[The Atheist]

It is a paternalistic condescending kind of creepy. I can see where some men might not see it that way. I wonder if any other females in the thread would weigh in.

I'd be more inclined to think maybe guys who don't have daughters might not see it the same way I do.

If anyone had handled my daughter like that when she was a little girl, I'd have ripped his head off and kicked it onto a road. Nowadays, if someone tried it, she'd do that all by herself - she's a big girl now.