2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[The Great Zaganza]

Blank Boxman / Hindsight 2020

 

[PhantomWolf]

3. And this is by far the most important... somebody unknown. Somebody that isn't on anyone's radar right now. And not on anybody's radar 6 months from now. His name shouldn't be publicly, commonly recognized until... 2 months out from the primary, absolute tops. No old guards, no party regulars, nobody who's "earned it for being in the game so long." NOBODY WITH A HISTORY.

Someone that has no idea how DC works? Isn't that what is in there right now?

 

[Brainster]

Okay so a dream candidate for 2020.

1. A white guy. Yeah I know, I know it's playing the absolute worse game for the absolute worse reasons to placate the absolute worse people but the Democrats need to ask themselves do they want to win or feel good about losing.

I don't see why the white part is so necessary anymore. I do think that a man is probably required, preferably someone reasonably handsome.

2. Younger, but don't go crazy. Mid-40s to Mid-50s.

I agree.

3. And this is by far the most important... somebody unknown. Somebody that isn't on anyone's radar right now. And not on anybody's radar 6 months from now. His name shouldn't be publicly, commonly recognized until... 2 months out from the primary, absolute tops. No old guards, no party regulars, nobody who's "earned it for being in the game so long." NOBODY WITH A HISTORY.

Depends on what you mean by somebody unknown. Booker is relatively unknown outside of politics junkies; ditto with Harris. Hell, Beto is a relative unkonwn. That said, I don't see how an unknown breaks through unless he's got charm out the wazoo like Obama and Clinton had.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Break through the clouds for me: what exactly do you disagree with that I said, and why do you disagree?

You are repeating the lie that Hillary was elected as the Dem Candidate only because "It was her turn". The reality is that she was, and still is, very much loved as a candidate by a large section of Democrats. All you need to do is look at the 2008 primaries to see that, she was pretty much neck and neck with Obama with the popular vote (depending on a few different assumptions with Caucuses and issues with Michigan, it's possible to show that Obama may have has a slight lead in the popular vote, but most counts have it as that Clinton actually won it) and the Pledged Delegates (+63 to Obama), the real difference was in the Super Delegates (+231.5 to Obama) who put their support in behind Obama (including all of the Democrat Senators and Representatives from both New York and Arkansas, and both Past Presidents.)

She actually won the nomination in 2016 with nearly a million less votes than she received in 2008!

The figures simply don't bear out the claims, which generally come from Bernie Supporters who are desperately seeking out reasons that they lost. Thus they jump to the whole, system was biased against us, she got it because she was "picked to win" etc, and when asked to back up the claims with some actual evidence either go dead silent, or point at the DNC emails while failing to note the dates of them being, in one circumstance, prior to Bernie's (or anyone but Clinton's) announcement to run, and on the rest, at the point that it was clear to everyone, but the most stubborn Bernie supporters, that he had lost and his continuing on was just damaging the Democrats chances against Trump.

 

[Trebuchet]

Joe Biden is the most qualified person in the country to be President. He's not far off, if at all, but is still too damn old.
Biden/Beto, anyone?

 

[Segnosaur]

Okay so a dream candidate for 2020.

1. A white guy. Yeah I know, I know it's playing the absolute worse game for the absolute worse reasons to placate the absolute worse people but the Democrats need to ask themselves do they want to win or feel good about losing.

I don't see why the white part is so necessary anymore. I do think that a man is probably required, preferably someone reasonably handsome.

Because the election of Trump (and his continued support) shows that a huge portion of the electorate is A-OK with racism.

Yes, Obama managed to get elected, despite not being white, and some of his voters did eventually switch to Trump. If I were a Democrat, I might have the concern that all those potential Obama->Trump voters may realize they like the racism that Trump was spewing just a little bit too much.

It doesn't mean a minority couldn't win, but the Democrats do need to take back the whitehouse, and getting a white candidate makes that just a little bit more likely.

3. And this is by far the most important... somebody unknown. Somebody that isn't on anyone's radar right now. And not on anybody's radar 6 months from now. His name shouldn't be publicly, commonly recognized until... 2 months out from the primary, absolute tops. No old guards, no party regulars, nobody who's "earned it for being in the game so long." NOBODY WITH A HISTORY.

Depends on what you mean by somebody unknown. Booker is relatively unknown outside of politics junkies; ditto with Harris. Hell, Beto is a relative unkonwn. That said, I don't see how an unknown breaks through unless he's got charm out the wazoo like Obama and Clinton had.

Well, the other post was about the "dream candidate" (i.e. the type they would want to win), not necessarily who thy THINK will win.

The problem is, the longer a person is in the spotlight, the more chance that the republicans can dig up dirt from their background (or, more notably, make up fake stories about them). Hillary would have been a good president, but things like Bengazi and emails ate into her support.

 

[Stacyhs]

You are repeating the lie that Hillary was elected as the Dem Candidate only because "It was her turn". The reality is that she was, and still is, very much loved as a candidate by a large section of Democrats. All you need to do is look at the 2008 primaries to see that, she was pretty much neck and neck with Obama with the popular vote (depending on a few different assumptions with Caucuses and issues with Michigan, it's possible to show that Obama may have has a slight lead in the popular vote, but most counts have it as that Clinton actually won it) and the Pledged Delegates (+63 to Obama), the real difference was in the Super Delegates (+231.5 to Obama) who put their support in behind Obama (including all of the Democrat Senators and Representatives from both New York and Arkansas, and both Past Presidents.)

She actually won the nomination in 2016 with nearly a million less votes than she received in 2008!

The figures simply don't bear out the claims, which generally come from Bernie Supporters who are desperately seeking out reasons that they lost. Thus they jump to the whole, system was biased against us, she got it because she was "picked to win" etc, and when asked to back up the claims with some actual evidence either go dead silent, or point at the DNC emails while failing to note the dates of them being, in one circumstance, prior to Bernie's (or anyone but Clinton's) announcement to run, and on the rest, at the point that it was clear to everyone, but the most stubborn Bernie supporters, that he had lost and his continuing on was just damaging the Democrats chances against Trump.

Agreed! I voted for HRC in the 2008 primaries and in the 2016 primaries and election. I voted for her because I think she is highly qualified, experienced, and would have been a superior president. All the "corrupt" crap Trump and the GOP have been throwing at her for decades (all unproved, try as they might) mattered not a whit. She made Trump look like the fool he is in all the debates showing her superior intellect and knowledge.

 

[Delvo]

Someone that has no idea how DC works? Isn't that what is in there right now?

There are hundreds of experienced Representatives, Senators, governors, and state legislators who would also qualify as "unknown" to most people.

 

[acbytesla]

Joe Biden is the most qualified person in the country to be President. He's not far off, if at all, but is still too damn old.
Biden/Beto, anyone?

That works for me. In fact, I like it a lot. The only reason that I am hesitant to support either of them is their ages and experience. Biden maybe too old and Beto maybe too young. The two. President and PIT (President in Training)

 

[LSSBB]

You are repeating the lie that Hillary was elected as the Dem Candidate only because "It was her turn". The reality is that she was, and still is, very much loved as a candidate by a large section of Democrats. All you need to do is look at the 2008 primaries to see that, she was pretty much neck and neck with Obama with the popular vote (depending on a few different assumptions with Caucuses and issues with Michigan, it's possible to show that Obama may have has a slight lead in the popular vote, but most counts have it as that Clinton actually won it) and the Pledged Delegates (+63 to Obama), the real difference was in the Super Delegates (+231.5 to Obama) who put their support in behind Obama (including all of the Democrat Senators and Representatives from both New York and Arkansas, and both Past Presidents.)

She actually won the nomination in 2016 with nearly a million less votes than she received in 2008!

The figures simply don't bear out the claims, which generally come from Bernie Supporters who are desperately seeking out reasons that they lost. Thus they jump to the whole, system was biased against us, she got it because she was "picked to win" etc, and when asked to back up the claims with some actual evidence either go dead silent, or point at the DNC emails while failing to note the dates of them being, in one circumstance, prior to Bernie's (or anyone but Clinton's) announcement to run, and on the rest, at the point that it was clear to everyone, but the most stubborn Bernie supporters, that he had lost and his continuing on was just damaging the Democrats chances against Trump.

None of your statistics show she was loved. Not that they show the voters felt it was her turn either, although both are possibilities with the given data.

 

[LSSBB]

Because the election of Trump (and his continued support) shows that a huge portion of the electorate is A-OK with racism.

...or may not recognize racism due to their own blinders, or may not sufficiently weight racism over perceived economic benefits (however misguided they may be on that point).

 

[Foolmewunz]

You are repeating the lie that Hillary was elected as the Dem Candidate only because "It was her turn". The reality is that she was, and still is, very much loved as a candidate by a large section of Democrats. All you need to do is look at the 2008 primaries to see that, she was pretty much neck and neck with Obama with the popular vote (depending on a few different assumptions with Caucuses and issues with Michigan, it's possible to show that Obama may have has a slight lead in the popular vote, but most counts have it as that Clinton actually won it) and the Pledged Delegates (+63 to Obama), the real difference was in the Super Delegates (+231.5 to Obama) who put their support in behind Obama (including all of the Democrat Senators and Representatives from both New York and Arkansas, and both Past Presidents.)

She actually won the nomination in 2016 with nearly a million less votes than she received in 2008!

The figures simply don't bear out the claims, which generally come from Bernie Supporters who are desperately seeking out reasons that they lost. Thus they jump to the whole, system was biased against us, she got it because she was "picked to win" etc, and when asked to back up the claims with some actual evidence either go dead silent, or point at the DNC emails while failing to note the dates of them being, in one circumstance, prior to Bernie's (or anyone but Clinton's) announcement to run, and on the rest, at the point that it was clear to everyone, but the most stubborn Bernie supporters, that he had lost and his continuing on was just damaging the Democrats chances against Trump.

And to finish off Brainster's assumptions, it's kind of a stretch to look at the nominees but more heavily weight the winners of the nomination to say the Republicans usually fall in line.

Just a short list of "outsiders" who ran for the GOP:
Dewey - a "young turk" to the establishment, he copped the nomination in 1944 at only 41 years old.
Ike - didn't even know if he was Republican - they just wanted to win.
Goldwater - hijacked the nominating process by an earlier version of 2016 - large field of liberal-moderate candidates split their vote.
Reagan - now considered the backbone of the party, his rise was a damned revolution to the old guard.
Trump - 1964 redux... they didn't love Trump. They still don't. He lost the popular vote and didn't have a clear majority in any primary until the field was whittled down. The Not Trump primary votes finally totaled 55.5% to Trump's 44.4%. A performance he'd repeat in the GE.

And if you don't think "falling in line" is a description of the creepy floor show at the RNC, and the rush to buy knee pads and chapstick, then what is?


In short, the Dems have had more charismatic upstarts but the GOP has had as many.

 

[Foolmewunz]

None of your statistics show she was loved. Not that they show the voters felt it was her turn either, although both are possibilities with the given data.

Well, Hillary certainly has her robust and avid supporters.

A lot of the "because it's her/his turn" legend is based on pure realpolitik. Bernie was an upstart and got a lot of Paulista-type support (flashy, noisy, insignificant in the end) and Hillary had been prepping for the run since 2008. She had the organization, the war chest, the backers. Much of It's Her Turn was because she prepared for it and worked for it. Same as John Kerry did. Same as Al Gore did. Same as running Humphrey. In short there are as many "it's his turn" candidates on the Dem side as the GOP side and as I mentioned in my previous post, as many Change Candidates on the GOP side as Dem.

 

[Baylor]

You are repeating the lie that Hillary was elected as the Dem Candidate only because "It was her turn". The reality is that she was, and still is, very much loved as a candidate by a large section of Democrats. All you need to do is look at the 2008 primaries to see that, she was pretty much neck and neck with Obama with the popular vote (depending on a few different assumptions with Caucuses and issues with Michigan, it's possible to show that Obama may have has a slight lead in the popular vote, but most counts have it as that Clinton actually won it) and the Pledged Delegates (+63 to Obama), the real difference was in the Super Delegates (+231.5 to Obama) who put their support in behind Obama (including all of the Democrat Senators and Representatives from both New York and Arkansas, and both Past Presidents.)

Nice Wikipedia answer but it's misleading. Super delegates can switch their votes. The super delegates initially favored Clinton but after Axelrod harvested all the pledged delegates for Obama, Clinton had no path to victory. The super delegates then switched their votes from Clinton to Obama to punch out the Democratic card.

 

[Baylor]

...or may not recognize racism due to their own blinders, or may not sufficiently weight racism over perceived economic benefits (however misguided they may be on that point).

Or they just don't think like you do.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Nice Wikipedia answer but it's misleading. Super delegates can switch their votes. The super delegates initially favored Clinton but after Axelrod harvested all the pledged delegates for Obama, Clinton had no path to victory. The super delegates then switched their votes from Clinton to Obama to punch out the Democratic card.

I'm not sure what you consider as misleading, all I was doing was giving the numbers, and yes I am well aware of the ability that supers had to flip, I pointed out that most of the NY and AR ones did just that, despite being for Hillary initially. In fact even Hillary and Bill's votes went to Obama (c.f. 2016 where Bernie's went to himself.) That she had no path to victory isn't really true, it would have been tough, but she could have been only 16 delegates from taking a win if she'd believed in flipping the result. If she'd really pushed things, that might have been close enough to have won a number of those that went to Obama to her by playing the popular vote card. But she did (IMO) the right thing and went with the winner of the pledged delegates, even getting many of those that had supported her to go with Obama instead.

However, this is all beside the point. The actual point was that in 2008 the race was knife edge close, Obama only just won the race, and had the DNC really wanted Hillary then, they could have used Supers to install her. The second point was that in 2016 she held most of her votes from 2008, getting just shy of 1 million less votes, so there are a lot of Democrats that really wanted her, it wasn't just a case of it being "her turn." The numbers in both 2008 and 2016 show that.

 

[Brainster]

You are repeating the lie that Hillary was elected as the Dem Candidate only because "It was her turn". The reality is that she was, and still is, very much loved as a candidate by a large section of Democrats. All you need to do is look at the 2008 primaries to see that, she was pretty much neck and neck with Obama with the popular vote (depending on a few different assumptions with Caucuses and issues with Michigan, it's possible to show that Obama may have has a slight lead in the popular vote, but most counts have it as that Clinton actually won it) and the Pledged Delegates (+63 to Obama), the real difference was in the Super Delegates (+231.5 to Obama) who put their support in behind Obama (including all of the Democrat Senators and Representatives from both New York and Arkansas, and both Past Presidents.)

She actually won the nomination in 2016 with nearly a million less votes than she received in 2008!

The figures simply don't bear out the claims, which generally come from Bernie Supporters who are desperately seeking out reasons that they lost. Thus they jump to the whole, system was biased against us, she got it because she was "picked to win" etc, and when asked to back up the claims with some actual evidence either go dead silent, or point at the DNC emails while failing to note the dates of them being, in one circumstance, prior to Bernie's (or anyone but Clinton's) announcement to run, and on the rest, at the point that it was clear to everyone, but the most stubborn Bernie supporters, that he had lost and his continuing on was just damaging the Democrats chances against Trump.

I don't think she got the nomination because it was her turn. I think that she got the nomination despite the fact that it was her turn. Certainly very few political observers thought going into the 2016 Democratic primaries that Hillary was going to have a difficult time of it against a 75-year-old democratic socialist.

But she did get the nomination, and she was clearly the candidate whose turn it was. The Democrats just really seem to have something against going with the obvious candidate, and indeed if you look at their history, you can see why.

1956: Nominated Adlai Stevenson, candidate whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1960: Nominated JFK, while Stevenson (who had been a sacrificial lamb in 1952 and 1956 against the overwhelmingly popular Eisenhower) was the man whose turn it was. Democrats won
1964: Sitting president nominated.
1968: Nominated Hubert Humphrey, candidate whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1972: Nominated George McGovern, while Ed Muskie was arguably the candidate whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1976: Nominated Jimmy Carter. I don't know if there really was a candidate whose turn it was; you could argue Sarge Shriver (who had been McGovern's running mate in 1972). Democrats won.
1980: Sitting president nominated.
1984: Nominated Walter Mondale, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1988: Nominated Michael Dukakis, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1992: Nominated Bill Clinton. You could make an argument for Sam Nunn or Mario Cuomo as being whose turn it was, but neither of them ran. Democrats won.
1996: Sitting president nominated.
2000: Nominated Al Gore, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
2004: Nominated John Kerry, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
2008: Nominated Barack Obama, while Hillary Clinton was clearly the candidate whose turn it was. Democrats won.
2012: Sitting president nominated.
2016: Nominated Hillary Clinton, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.

It's a small sample, but it sure looks like when the Democrats go for the candidate whose turn it is (other than sitting presidents) they lose.

 

[varwoche]

<snip for brevity>

Point well made.

A nitpick though -- I don't think Dukakis fits the model.

 

[LSSBB]

Point well made.

A nitpick though -- I don't think Dukakis fits the model.

Me either.

ETA: I think Gary Hart was the "turn" candidate, but got taken down by Monkey Business.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Joe Biden is the most qualified person in the country to be President. He's not far off, if at all, but is still too damn old.
Biden/Beto, anyone?

Nope. Biden had a chance to challenge Hillary but didn't. I know why he didn't and I agree with his decision. That was his window, it has passed. Move on.