2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[theprestige]

While the party might be picking the candidate as you say, the primaries are a good way for specific issues to gain support and acknowledgement. Even if the choice of person is predetermined, the end package of policies they are bringing will be influenced.

Hm. That raises an interesting question about the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Sanders claimed that he entered the primaries not to compete for the nomination, but to make sure certain issues got supported and acknowledged. I'm wondering if that perception, that Clinton had onboarded some of Sanders' issues, siphoned off some swing votes in the general election. Perhaps Clinton might have won if moderates hadn't been reminded that she also represents the Sanders wing of American politics.

 

[Brainster]

It's a game of the numbers.

The Parties aren't stupid. They know full well that 99% of their base electoral is going to vote for whoever the eventual nominee for their party is, regardless of grumbling.

Let's face facts here. We could hold the 2020 election right now with the only two candidates being Donald Trump and "Democratic Nominee to Be Named at a Later Date" and I'd wager the results would be no more then 5% off of whatever the actual final vote is gonna be.

Outside of the extreme margins everybody already knows if they are voting Democratic Candidate or Donald Trump.

So we have two extreme margins. The members of the parties that will either stay home or vote for the other side if their preferred candidate doesn't get the nod and people who are still politically undecided between voting for Donald Trump and the Democratic Nominee, whomever they wind up being.

I don't think either of those numbers are all that huge. But my gut is telling me that second number is just a sliver bigger then the first one and is a better demographic to pander to.

I think the Dems will trade a few "My dream candidate didn't get the nod, screw you I'm going home" votes for what they can expected to gain from undecided voters.

My point, rambling to it that it is, is that "We're telling you who the candidate is going to be, not asking" is what they do now, just with more pomp and circumstance.

The candidate is still to be decided, but that decision is being made by the ~200 members of the DNC, not the ~12 million registered Democrats in the US.

If anything, the Democrats are the less likely party to go along with the establishment pick. Obama wasn't an establishment choice, nor was JFK, McGovern or Carter. And when they do go with the "sensible" candidate (Hillary in 2016, Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000), it is usually only after an extended flirtation with some new charmer.

And if anything power is currently flowing away from the DNC. This convention, the super-delegates power has been cut back; they will not even get a vote in the first round of balloting.

 

[Segnosaur]

Listen I know he's an absolute knob, but Bill Maher summed it up pretty good for me.

https://deadline.com/2019/03/bill-m...ebate-controversy-real-time-video-1202576863/

So, Maher claimed that the Democrats need to 'grow a pair'...

But there is a very reasonable reason to not appear on Fox that has nothing to do with 'fear'... it has to do with giving legitimacy to Fox when it does not deserve it. (Its similar to the way that come evolutionary biologists won't debate creationists... its because they don't want to make creationists seem like they belong with actual real academics.)

He also compared it to Republicans appearing on his show... but the context is different. His show is generally seen as entertainment. He's not trying to portray his show as "fair and unbiased" news, and a republican can go on his show with that knowledge.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Democrats should have let fox host a debate...

Why do you think that?

(Youtube video of a Fox segment with Sanders)

Close to the most likes I've ever seen on a Fox News video.

Why is that relevant?

Sanders was a national figure with a significant base of hardcore supporters. He probably would have gotten a lot of likes regardless of where he appeared.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But there is a very reasonable reason to not appear on Fox that has nothing to do with 'fear'... it has to do with giving legitimacy to Fox when it does not deserve it.

And that's not a non-issue to be sure, I just think the trade off of getting your message out to a larger audience is worth it.

FoxNews is pretty much the sole provider of news to... like a lot of people. By abandoning FoxNews to itself basically we're assuring that only their... let's be charitable and call it "skewed" version of the events is going to be the only one a lot of people hear.

80% of people still (claim at least) that cable news is still, even in 2016 (which the last major poll I can find on this) was their primary source of news and FoxNews viewership dwarfs CNN's and MSNBC. These are not potential voters to just be abandoned to the wind.

Sure, sure we could play the "Well they are well and lost and will never change their mind we are wasting our time..." card but so what? If they are well and gone you're not losing anything by at least getting your side of things out there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The question is which combination has the best chance of beating Trump. Harris wants to be Potus, attacking Biden is her strategy for doing that. She could end up siphoning off enough votes to get Trump reelected, kind of like Bernie did last time.

I hope you are right, she really seems to be burning some bridges right now.

I take this attack on Harris by you to mean she's a threat to Trump.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just what are the debates going to do for Fox viewers? Give them fodder to attack Democratic candidates?

There wasn't a lot of 'vote us not Trump' in the first two debates.

Why give Fox acknowledgement of being a credible news source when it isn't?

 

[Ziggurat]

I have been inundated with trolls on Twitter with this kind of nonsense. I'm getting sick and tired of having to explain to people that Jamaica has black people too and their story on how they got there is rather sad.

There's a very easy solution to that problem, Travis, a solution I've been advising you to do for a long time now.

Get off Twitter. It's not good for you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just what are the debates going to do for Fox viewers? Give them fodder to attack Democratic candidates?

There wasn't a lot of 'vote us not Trump' in the first two debates.

Why give Fox acknowledgement of being a credible news source when it isn't?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why give Fox acknowledgement of being a credible news source when it isn't?

Because you've already got the vote of everyone who watches Rachel Maddow. You don't have to appeal to them. They are already on your side.

 

[Venom]

There's a very easy solution to that problem, Travis, a solution I've been advising you to do for a long time now.

Get off Twitter. It's not good for you.

An increasing fraction of the electorate is on social media now though.

 

[rdwight]

Hm. That raises an interesting question about the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Sanders claimed that he entered the primaries not to compete for the nomination, but to make sure certain issues got supported and acknowledged. I'm wondering if that perception, that Clinton had onboarded some of Sanders' issues, siphoned off some swing votes in the general election. Perhaps Clinton might have won if moderates hadn't been reminded that she also represents the Sanders wing of American politics.

It's something they no doubt explored for upcoming elections, although to what extent taking half measures alienated those in the Bernie camp and any other factors will also be in the discussion. Still feel it is a net positive for voters overall though. Even if we end up with a Trump on occasion. I'm sure others will disagree with that statement but is my current outlook.

 

[theprestige]

Because you've already got the vote of everyone who watches Rachel Maddow. You don't have to appeal to them. They are already on your side.

If my theory about Sanders is correct, it would be counter-productive for the Dem candidates to get in front of conservative voters at this point in the process. They need to focus on differentiating themselves for the Maddow vote. That's not something they'll want Fox viewers to see. Once that's done, they can moderate their message and pivot to the rest of the electorate.

 

[Marcus]

I take this attack on Harris by you to mean she's a threat to Trump.

If the choice ends up being between Harris and Trump, I would choose Harris. Perhaps you are remembering my dislike of Hilllary, but Harris is not Hilllary.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If the choice ends up being between Harris and Trump, I would choose Harris. Perhaps you are remembering my dislike of Hilllary, but Harris is not Hilllary.

It had nothing to do with Clinton. It's exactly what I said, why did you feel the need to diss Harris if not because you don't want her to win the primary?

 

[Marcus]

It had nothing to do with Clinton. It's exactly what I said, why did you feel the need to diss Harris if not because you don't want her to win the primary?

I think Harris is helping Trump by trying to knock down Biden. She is providing him ammunition for the general.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think Harris is helping Trump by trying to knock down Biden. She is providing him ammunition for the general.

If Biden can't stand up to Harris, how the hell is he going to stand up to Trump?

Why not let the best candidate win?

It was different when it was down to Sanders and Clinton and Sanders totally undermined her with the Goldman Sachs accusations. I'm sure that made sense to Bernie given he was on a mission to lead the masses against the tyrants. Clinton stood up against it and she won the primary.

This is too early in the game to start anointing Biden. He's old, out of date, he's already lied with the claim he was never against bussing, just against federal control.

But the truth of the matter is, Biden was vocally against bussing and it's on the record complete with racist statements that white kids would suffer if they had to go to poor schools and that mixed races in classrooms hurt everyone's education.

 

[The Atheist]

Why not let the best candidate win?

You mean "most popular".

Meanwhile, and yes, it's very early days and limited numbers, but current polling seems to indicate Harris is now a solid second, mere margin-of-error behind Biden.

Wall Street smiles.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I think Harris is helping Trump by trying to knock down Biden. She is providing him ammunition for the general.

Harris is fighting for what she considers her rightful demographic, the black voter. Mumbles has elaborated up thread, but Biden has a very high level of support from blacks. It's not a coincidence that she's trotting out an endorsement-a-day from the Black Caucus.

In the CNN poll that show's Biden with a reduced-to-5% lead, the only way he maintains that lead is with the 31% support he has by the black voters polled.

Does she need to ignore his voting and speaking history in order to give the appearance of party cohesion? I don't think so. This is why we have the primaries leading up to the nomination. If Kamala can cost him ten points in a minute or two of back-and-forth, what will the Great Right Wing Noise Machine do to him?

Frankly, I don't think Harris really wounded him. A mere nick, really. His out-of-touch demeanor was just painful to watch and is what hurt him more, I feel.

 

[theprestige]

If Biden can't stand up to Harris, how the hell is he going to stand up to Trump?

Why not let the best candidate win?

It was different when it was down to Sanders and Clinton and Sanders totally undermined her with the Goldman Sachs accusations. I'm sure that made sense to Bernie given he was on a mission to lead the masses against the tyrants. Clinton stood up against it and she won the primary.

This is too early in the game to start anointing Biden. He's old, out of date, he's already lied with the claim he was never against bussing, just against federal control.

But the truth of the matter is, Biden was vocally against bussing and it's on the record complete with racist statements that white kids would suffer if they had to go to poor schools and that mixed races in classrooms hurt everyone's education.

Unless there's some really weird context I'm missing, I don't think the first statement is actually racist.