2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[Brainster]

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.

If you follow this "logic," you will probably conclude that the Democrats should not nominate a woman either--too much risk of a sexist backlash. And no gays for fear of a homophobic backlash. So it's straight white males?

 

[angrysoba]

If you follow this "logic," you will probably conclude that the Democrats should not nominate a woman either--too much risk of a sexist backlash. And no gays for fear of a homophobic backlash. So it's straight white males?

...as long as they aren’t too “progressive”.

 

[acbytesla]

If you follow this "logic," you will probably conclude that the Democrats should not nominate a woman either--too much risk of a sexist backlash. And no gays for fear of a homophobic backlash. So it's straight white males?

How do I say this? I think eliminating racism bigotry, sexism, etc takes time. Moving too quickly can and does lead to back lashes. A rebound effect. I think it is extra important for the Democrats to win. Not winning could set not only race relations back, but could destroy the democracy. I'd rather win with a white progressive male than lose.

But of course the flip side of this is a good African-American candidate can and has won twice. That is more than we can say for Catholic candidates.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Female will work, because it worked with Clinton getting the popular majority, and Trump is no longer an unknown quantity.
But I agree that African-American is dicey, since there might be a sentiment that "they had their turn, and now they have to let others have a go before they get to go again".

 

[Brainster]

How do I say this? I think eliminating racism bigotry, sexism, etc takes time. Moving too quickly can and does lead to back lashes. A rebound effect. I think it is extra important for the Democrats to win. Not winning could set not only race relations back, but could destroy the democracy. I'd rather win with a white progressive male than lose.

But of course the flip side of this is a good African-American candidate can and has won twice. That is more than we can say for Catholic candidates.

? Not sure where that came in; a Catholic has won the presidency (JFK). AFAIK, the other JFK (John F. Kerry) is the only other Catholic to receive the nomination of a major party.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

? Not sure where that came in; a Catholic has won the presidency (JFK).

That would be once.

 

[Brainster]

Female will work, because it worked with Clinton getting the popular majority, and Trump is no longer an unknown quantity.
But I agree that African-American is dicey, since there might be a sentiment that "they had their turn, and now they have to let others have a go before they get to go again".

 

[Brainster]

That would be once.

So no Jews, since they have never won the presidency.
No Catholics, because they are 1-1.
No women because they are 0-1.

Seems to me that by this logic, African-Americans are in fact the way to go, since they are 2-0.

You know, I had heard that polling showed that electablity was the #1 issue for Democratic voters this time around, but I didn't realize it would express itself in quite so racist and sexist (and anti-Catholic if that was not some silly joke) a fashion.

 

[acbytesla]

? Not sure where that came in; a Catholic has won the presidency (JFK). AFAIK, the other JFK (John F. Kerry) is the only other Catholic to receive the nomination of a major party.

Al Smith too.

My point mentioning the Catholics was simply that doesn't matter like it once did. And that a Catholic has only won the Presidency once and this is less than the number of presidential elections people of color have won.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

So no Jews, since they have never won the presidency.
No Catholics, because they are 1-1.
No women because they are 0-1.

Seems to me that by this logic, African-Americans are in fact the way to go, since they are 2-0.

You know, I had heard that polling showed that electablity was the #1 issue for Democratic voters this time around, but I didn't realize it would express itself in quite so racist and sexist (and anti-Catholic if that was not some silly joke) a fashion.

I didn't say and don't agree with any of those things. I was just helping you learn to count.

 

[acbytesla]

So no Jews, since they have never won the presidency.
No Catholics, because they are 1-1 2.
No women because they are 0-1.

Seems to me that by this logic, African-Americans are in fact the way to go, since they are 2-0.

You know, I had heard that polling showed that electablity was the #1 issue for Democratic voters this time around, but I didn't realize it would express itself in quite so racist and sexist (and anti-Catholic if that was not some silly joke) a fashion.

FTFY
I'm not sexist and I'm definitely not anti-catholic unless that Catholic wants to outlaw same-sex marriages or birth control.

I DON'T care about color or sex or sexual preference. I would prefer an atheist as POTUS, but not as a candidate in the upcoming election cycle.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

How do I say this? I think eliminating racism bigotry, sexism, etc takes time. Moving too quickly can and does lead to back lashes. A rebound effect. I think it is extra important for the Democrats to win. Not winning could set not only race relations back, but could destroy the democracy. I'd rather win with a white progressive male than lose.

But of course the flip side of this is a good African-American candidate can and has won twice. That is more than we can say for Catholic candidates.

This makes you part of the backlash.

 

[acbytesla]

This makes you part of the backlash.

Yeah, possibly. I want to win.

I'm an atheist. I would prefer an atheist as POTUS. But I do think itvwould be a disaster in the next Presidential election to nominate an acknowledged atheist too.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Yeah, possibly. I want to win.

I'm an atheist. I would prefer an atheist as POTUS. But I do think itvwould be a disaster in the next Presidential election to nominate an acknowledged atheist too.

So when is the next time you think it would be appropriate to nominate a black, a Jew, a Catholic, or an atheist for President?

 

[acbytesla]

So when is the next time you think it would be appropriate to nominate a black, a Jew, a Catholic, or an atheist for President?

Who the hell knows? I really, really, really, DON'T want to have to care. When it comes to religion, I'd like to think no candidate is so deluded to believe there are gods at all. As it stands, I believe that the vast number of non-believers are in the closet regarding that nonsense. I know I was most of my life.

 

[SezMe]

2016 was an aberration due to extraordinary events.

I'm not sure I agree so I'd appreciate a discussion of 2016 aberrations in order to assess more accurately the landscape for 2020.

 

[SezMe]

....the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank....

WHAT!?!? Surely you jest.

 

[SezMe]

.... But I think Obama led to a racial backlash and it was one that Trump rode to the White House.

Absolutely true.

 

[theprestige]

Al Smith too.



My point mentioning the Catholics was simply that doesn't matter like it once did. And that a Catholic has only won the Presidency once and this is less than the number of presidential elections people of color have won.

The logic seems sound, but I don't think you're properly handicapping a reelection.

 

[SezMe]

How do I say this? I think eliminating racism bigotry, sexism, etc takes time. Moving too quickly can and does lead to back lashes. A rebound effect. I think it is extra important for the Democrats to win. Not winning could set not only race relations back, but could destroy the democracy. I'd rather win with a white progressive male than lose.

But of course the flip side of this is a good African-American candidate can and has won twice. That is more than we can say for Catholic candidates.

While I don't disagree, I think how the Dems handle discrimination issues will be more important. If they play support for minorities as a prime talking point, they're gonna lose big, They must stand for equality but they cannot put it front and center. Flogging it will, it is sad to say but true, cause too many to either stay home or vote Dump.