2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[Delphic Oracle]

Criticism directed at nobody? How bizarre.



Please see my reply to TM a couple of posts up.

Criticism?

I made some statements.

So far, all you've responded to my post that didn't address you with is attempts to position me as hostile to you in some way.

In other news, this thread has convinced me to stock up on popcorn for the convention.

 

[acbytesla]

The bigger the field, the smaller the number of committed voters that you need to win. I read about a Sanders advisor that noted in 2016 Bernie needed to get 51% because he was (virtually) the only other candidate than Hillary, but in 2020 he could easily win with 33%. That's a little exaggerated; he would clearly need to pick up a share of the voters for candidates who drop out, but certainly in the early states, if he can get 33% he should be winning. Granted, because the Democrats don't do winner-take-all anymore, it won't be worth as much in terms of delegates, but that will be more than made up for by the media attention that goes with being a winner.

On the GOP side, I could understand the idea of running one time to get the voters acquainted with you, and the second time to get the nomination. If you look at the history of the GOP nominees who were not sitting presidents, they tend to be second-timers for the last 50 years:

1968: Nixon (previously ran in 1960)
1980: Reagan (1976)
1988: Bush (1980)
1996: Dole (1980 and 1988)
2008: McCain (2000)
2012: Romney (2008)

Obviously GW Bush and Trump are exceptions.

The Democrats tend not to go that way, and when they do they lose. The Democrats who have won the presidency in my lifetime (who were not sitting presidents) were all first-time candidates: JFK, Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama. The retreads are Humphrey, McGovern (he sort of ran in 1968), Gore and Hillary.

I don't think the numbers are large enough to say there is a meaningful pattern.

 

[Brainster]

Because the party leadership isn't actually wiser than the population.

I think the old-fashioned way made a lot of sense as kind of a blend of the top down and bottom up approaches. Candidates ran in selected primaries (and there were far fewer) to show the bosses they could actually get voters to cast ballots for them, then went to the convention and struck deals in the notorious smoke-filled rooms.

 

[Brainster]

I don't think the numbers are large enough to say there is a meaningful pattern.

Not statistically with any degree of confidence, sure. But if you are casting about for who is electable (as the Democratic voters reportedly are prioritizing) then at least it's something to consider. Doesn't bode well for either of the two front-runners (Biden and Sanders). Of course, Humphrey, Gore and Clinton all came very close to winning, so it may not be that significant.

 

[Belz...]

Because the party leadership isn't actually wiser than the population.

I don't see how that answers my question. First, the population isn't particularily wise, either. Second, my question was about the need for democracy in all things. Surely you agree that not everything needs to be democratic, right? Assuming that you do, why would primaries need to be?

 

[cmikes]

I don't see how that answers my question. First, the population isn't particularily wise, either. Second, my question was about the need for democracy in all things. Surely you agree that not everything needs to be democratic, right? Assuming that you do, why would primaries need to be?

It's two separate things to argue that primary selections should be democratic and that "everything needs to be democratic."

My answer would be that the Party leadership needs to be sure that their preferred candidate is popular (or at least mildly acceptable) to voters. Hillary Clinton is the perfect example. She had the entire Democratic establishment, ninety five percent of the media (but I repeat myself), all of the Washington establishment, all of academia, almost all Hollywood celebrities, basically all of the Elite, including many Never Trump Republicans, but unfortunately, the dogs didn't like it.* That would have been handy to know beforehand, don't you agree?


*Explanation for the old as dirt marketing joke, just in case. An executive at a dog food manufacturer is demanding from his team why their latest product is selling very poorly. "We have the best marketing team, we hired A-list stars for our advertising, we hired a popular pop star to sing our jingle, we have merchandisers in every store pushing our product, the best TV ads money can buy, so why is it not selling!?"

Finally someone timidly speaks up, "Sir, the dogs don't like it."

 

[Belz...]

It's two separate things to argue that primary selections should be democratic and that "everything needs to be democratic."

I never said Zig argued the latter. I'm using the fact that not everything is democratic or needs to be in order to argue that, if we're to say that a particular thing needs to be democratic, we should qualify that statement.

My answer would be that the Party leadership needs to be sure that their preferred candidate is popular (or at least mildly acceptable) to voters. Hillary Clinton is the perfect example. She had the entire Democratic establishment, ninety five percent of the media (but I repeat myself), all of the Washington establishment, all of academia, almost all Hollywood celebrities, basically all of the Elite, including many Never Trump Republicans, but unfortunately, the dogs didn't like it.* That would have been handy to know beforehand, don't you agree?

How about a third layer: voters get to say whether someone can run in the primaries!

 

[acbytesla]

Not statistically with any degree of confidence, sure. But if you are casting about for who is electable (as the Democratic voters reportedly are prioritizing) then at least it's something to consider. Doesn't bode well for either of the two front-runners (Biden and Sanders). Of course, Humphrey, Gore and Clinton all came very close to winning, so it may not be that significant.

I'm just not sure how having run once before in a primary would negatively affect the voters. Correlation isn't causation.

 

[Venom]

I just hope we get to see a Biden or Sanders debate against Trump as early as possible.

Paul Ryan is considered a good debater and he got absolutely pummeled by Joe Biden one-on-one, largely with showmanship. And in that regard Biden would out-talk Trump pretty badly I think. But that was in 2012 and I hope Biden still has that energy.

 

[acbytesla]

I just hope we get to see a Biden or Sanders debate against Trump as early as possible.

Paul Ryan is considered a good debater and he got absolutely pummeled by Joe Biden one-on-one, largely with showmanship. And in that regard Biden would out-talk Trump pretty badly I think. But that was in 2012 and I hope Biden still has that energy.

Biden can out-talk just about any one. His problem has always been foot in mouth disease. Saying too much. He's one of those people that really are easy to like. Gregarious, outgoing almost to a fault. Hillary said he was incredibly like Bill that way.

 

[varwoche]

@Delphic Oracle Let's see if we can unravel our exchange and then move forward. Here's the part of my post (addressed to TM) that led to our misunderstanding. This was post #2485.

If there's anything in particular that you take issue with Pelosi on, I'm all eyes. If the basis for your condemnation is vague, maybe you should reconsider.

A few minutes later you posted this non criticism(?) in post @2487, addressed to nobody:

It's cute how there's this quaint belief that divergence in social-political beliefs can be reconciled by rational means and demands for evidence.

First off, a side point -- more important than my main point actually: I strongly believe in using rational means and evidence within the political domain (all domains actually) to the extent possible. That extent is not zero. Far from zero. (Some day maybe I'll actually start a thread that I've contemplated now and then: Skepticism applied to the political domain.)

Now that you've explained that your comment wasn't addressed to me (in the interest of disclosure, I'm highly dubious) please clarify: Are there any examples of anyone -- member or non-member -- you can cite who "demanded" evidence where the existence or non-existence of said evidence would fail to inform at least in part? In deference to the thread, how about an example relating to one of the candidates? Just one please.

 

[Brainster]

I'm just not sure how having run once before in a primary would negatively affect the voters. Correlation isn't causation.

Democrats are always seeking out the new thing. This is natural; Democrats tend to be looking forward, while Republicans tend to look backwards. The four youngest presidents (at first inauguration) in my lifetime are JFK, Clinton Obama and Carter. The four oldest presidents in my lifetime are Eisenhower, Bush, Reagan and Trump.

It also explains Hillary's struggles in 2008 and 2016. She was the "establishment" candidate both times, and both times she ended up in an unexpected dogfight. I still think Sanders could have won if he had realized earlier that he had a real chance; instead his initial objective seemed to have been to force Hillary to address his pet issues.

 

[acbytesla]

Democrats are always seeking out the new thing. This is natural; Democrats tend to be looking forward, while Republicans tend to look backwards. The four youngest presidents (at first inauguration) in my lifetime are JFK, Clinton Obama and Carter. The four oldest presidents in my lifetime are Eisenhower, Bush, Reagan and Trump.

It also explains Hillary's struggles in 2008 and 2016. She was the "establishment" candidate both times, and both times she ended up in an unexpected dogfight. I still think Sanders could have won if he had realized earlier that he had a real chance; instead his initial objective seemed to have been to force Hillary to address his pet issues.

Interesting hypothesis. Not sure if it's right. But I give you credit for the analysis.

 

[Brainster]

Michael Bennet of Colorado joins the scrum. I'm beginning to think that the first debate may need to be done in three parts.

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

Vice Presidents:
Joe Biden

Governors:
Steve Bullock
Jay Inslee
John Hickenlooper

Senators:
Michael Bennett
Corey Booker
Kirsten Gillibrand
Mike Gravel
Kamala Harris
Amy Klobuchar
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren

US Representatives:
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Seth Moulton
Beto O'Rourke
Tim Ryan
Eric Swallwell

Cabinet Members:
Julian Castro

Mayors:
Pete Buttegieg
Wayne Messam

Unannounced But Considered Likely:

Mayors:
Bill De Blasio

 

[Ziggurat]

Then what purpose do they serve?

Damn good question. For both parties.

 

[theprestige]

Then what purpose do they serve?

Somebody needs to organize things. Whether you're holding a primary, and asking your party members to vote for the candidate they'd like to see in the general; or selecting that candidate in a smoke-filled back room, someone still has to put the thing together and make it happen.

 

[acbytesla]

Unannounced But Considered Likely:

Mayors:
Bill De Blasio

I thought De Blasio said he's not running.

 

[Brainster]

I thought De Blasio said he's not running.

I Googled Bill De Blasio not running for president, and mostly what came up were articles urging him not to run. This Rolling Stone article about Bennet's announcement indicates he's not completely out yet:

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio still seems to be flirting with the idea of mounting a run himself.

 

[The Atheist]

Michael Bennet of Colorado joins the scrum.

There's your boy, right there.

Looks to have an impeccable voting record and he destroyed Ted Cruz in a way that makes me think he could do the same to the Orange Toad.

 

[TragicMonkey]

There's your boy, right there.

Looks to have an impeccable voting record and he destroyed Ted Cruz in a way that makes me think he could do the same to the Orange Toad.

I just Googled him, he's not hard on the eyes at all. I see potential.