Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Levelfive]

While beating Trump is certainly important, it can't be the only thing people vote on. Republicans are going to be there for the foreseeable future and they're going to continue to be evil fucks like Bush and Trump.

This "You have to vote for the right wing Democrats or the Republicans win!" thing is just the right wing democrats not wanting to lose power. It's made even more stupid by their chosen right wing candidate losing to Trump in the last election.

We need more than just right wing vs. extreme insane right wing as options in this country.

Hell, right wing Democrat establishment lost to Bush twice too, one of those AFTER Bush started stupid wars for no good reason. Obama managed to win because he promised changed, not status quo.

I'm pretty far left, at least by American standards, and I don't think any of the Democrats running are "right wing," or even "blue dog" level of conservative Democrat, unless I'm forgetting somebody (and if they're that memorable, then...). I think they all share or at least espouse core progressive ideals. Clinton was to the left as Mitt Romney is to the right: a smarmy, unctuous corporatist, both of whom gave off an "I'd tell you the truth but you're too dumb to hear it" vibe every time they talked, which, in fairness, is probably true, and she still won the popular vote. If she had focused some energy and smarter microtargeting at non-degreed white folks in a handful of states, she very likely could have picked up the 78k votes needed to beat Trump. The finer points of the current candidates' economic worldviews are completely irrelevant--even if a progressive dream baby wins the election, no one's abolishing capitalism any time soon.

A couple other things to note about these intramural battles for the soul of the party, where we try to parse out who we are and who's truer and what voters really want and which policy issues to highlight, and try in various and usually insufficient ways to explain Trump's win, none of which really hold up to scrutiny (it was economic anxiety! except, it wasn't; it was uneducated people! mmm yeah, but it was educated people, too) but we don't even have to hurl tea leaves at each other: since tv became a thing, we have voted in the most charismatic, and when no actual charisma is in play, we have voted in the one with "strongest" personality (and we're generally content and dumb enough to extrapolate "strength" from never apologizing--which means Republicans). This, and some status threat, is why Obama voters became Trump voters. This muck we drag each other into is ultimately pretty useless. Republicans have spent the last 4 or 5 decades convincing parts of the country that Democrats are the Poindexters who made you feel bad in high school and want to take your stuff and give it to brown people, which counts just enough in the right states, while we're busy squabbling about purity or some other nonsense that keeps us from even being in a position to enact any policy. I've said many times that Democrats keep bringing cupcakes to a knife fight--I don't have to like it, but Skroe is right; we need to get fucking smarter.

Democrats are terrible at politics because they need to wave the flag of the almighty cause at every chance they get. Their ability to act and think strategically is laughable. It would be quaint if it didn’t play into Republicans hands every time.

Take M4A. By all means, President Democrat could advance the fight for M4A. As President, go nuts. They have 4 years to make the case and lay the foundation In a picemeil fashion in spending bills. But to get elected President? The verdict of M4A is clear. It is not a vote getter in state’s, districts and demographics Democrats must carry I order to win. Trying to change people’s mind in an election in this political climate is a waste of time and resources. Calibrate the message for them, tell them what they want to hear. Then get elected and do what they want.

This is not hard. They make it hard. And that’s why Trump has a 60% chance of a second term in my view when he should have a 10% chance. Not because the Democrats aren’t “moderate”. But because they arent running the strat to win over essential voters.

Once elected though, if they want to live the social democratic life... go nuts. But you don’t win that way.

"Republicans are great at campaigning and shit at governing," said somebody.

[Muzjhath]

I'm pretty far left, at least by American standards, and I don't think any of the Democrats running are "right wing," or even "blue dog" level of conservative Democrat, unless I'm forgetting somebody (and if they're that memorable, then...). I think they all share or at least espouse core progressive ideals. Clinton was to the left as Mitt Romney is to the right: a smarmy, unctuous corporatist, both of whom gave off an "I'd tell you the truth but you're too dumb to hear it" vibe every time they talked, which, in fairness, is probably true, and she still won the popular vote. If she had focused some energy and smarter microtargeting at non-degreed white folks in a handful of states, she very likely could have picked up the 78k votes needed to beat Trump. The finer points of the current candidates' economic worldviews are completely irrelevant--even if a progressive dream baby wins the election, no one's abolishing capitalism any time soon.

A couple other things to note about these intramural battles for the soul of the party, where we try to parse out who we are and who's truer and what voters really want and which policy issues to highlight, and try in various and usually insufficient ways to explain Trump's win, none of which really hold up to scrutiny (it was economic anxiety! except, it wasn't; it was uneducated people! mmm yeah, but it was educated people, too) but we don't even have to hurl tea leaves at each other: since tv became a thing, we have voted in the most charismatic, and when no actual charisma is in play, we have voted in the one with "strongest" personality (and we're generally content and dumb enough to extrapolate "strength" from never apologizing--which means Republicans). This, and some status threat, is why Obama voters became Trump voters. This muck we drag each other into is ultimately pretty useless. Republicans have spent the last 4 or 5 decades convincing parts of the country that Democrats are the Poindexters who made you feel bad in high school and want to take your stuff and give it to brown people, which counts just enough in the right states, while we're busy squabbling about purity or some other nonsense that keeps us from even being in a position to enact any policy. I've said many times that Democrats keep bringing cupcakes to a knife fight--I don't have to like it, but Skroe is right; we need to get fucking smarter.

This. I've practically given up trying to get a group of my progressive friends in the US to fight smarter. Fight harder for the state level and grass roots. Rather than caring about the big officess.
They just can't focus on it and know that since they are in the right if they just shout loudly enough people will get it.

[JohnBrown1917]

You can rest assured of one thing, if the Democrats are going to choose a moderate as their presidential nominee and they lose, everyone will remember for a long time not to vote moderate Democrat anymore.

In this polarized market is seems counter-intuitive to me to try and push "moderates" forward anyway. Most people will just think: 'another corrupt average asshole' when they see a 'moderate' politician. You are underestimating their hatred for average / moderate elites.

Moderates in the US are just conservatives, so ofc its what conservatives want.

[I Push Buttons]

This. I've practically given up trying to get a group of my progressive friends in the US to fight smarter. Fight harder for the state level and grass roots. Rather than caring about the big officess.
They just can't focus on it and know that since they are in the right if they just shout loudly enough people will get it.

Nonsense! Once elected, Chairman Bernie will just snap his magical socialist fingers and all of his policies will automatically be implemented!

¡Viva la Revolución!

[Draco-Onis]

Nonsense! Once elected, Chairman Bernie will just snap his magical socialist fingers and all of his policies will automatically be implemented!

¡Viva la Revolución!

Actually he can and we can all thank Donald Trump for that executive orders, national emergencies and "national security" concerns if he chooses to do so. If there is one thing that might happen after Trump is the curving of the power of the executive but I am not holding my breath. The reason we are here is because congress is broken and the executive has taken on more and more power to get things done.

The founding founders never meant for congress to be a polarized two party system it was designed to force compromise but we are now sitting at decades of a do nothing congress. You get maybe one major policy change per administration if you are lucky.

- - - Updated - - -

This. I've practically given up trying to get a group of my progressive friends in the US to fight smarter. Fight harder for the state level and grass roots. Rather than caring about the big officess.
They just can't focus on it and know that since they are in the right if they just shout loudly enough people will get it.

To be fair the democratic party never recovered from Obama, he cared only about his legacy and left the party in tatters. He wanted to be above the fray and did nothing as democrats were getting devastated at the state level, he also did nothing about gerrymandering and voter suppression. Obama did more damage to the left than any tea party or right wing movement.

[Muzjhath]

To be fair the democratic party never recovered from Obama, he cared only about his legacy and left the party in tatters. He wanted to be above the fray and did nothing as democrats were getting devastated at the state level, he also did nothing about gerrymandering and voter suppression. Obama did more damage to the left than any tea party or right wing movement.

Well, even before Obama (got to know most of them during the Bush years) they hardly cared about state matters tbh.

[mvaliz]

Does it seem like disengenous attacks are up this cycle... it certainly seems like literally everyone is gunning for Buttigieg.

AOC blasted an new ad of his because it doesn't blanket make college free for all. It has a cutoff at 150k with some extra things to drive down costs.

Ummmm... Buttigieg went directly after Bernie. It's fairly common to "Gun" after someone who "gunned" you first. Nobody went after Pete until he shot the first shot.

Did you even hear the ad? It was a direct mockery of Bernie's Medicare-For-All statement, saying something to the effect of "If we made Education for free, that would mean billionares get free education ". I heard that and I was thinking "...and what's wrong with that!?"

While I really really liked Pete a lot... that ad really knocked my respect for him down quite a few pegs. =/

[kaelleria]

Ummmm... Buttigieg went directly after Bernie. It's fairly common to "Gun" after someone who "gunned" you first. Nobody went after Pete until he shot the first shot.

Did you even hear the ad? It was a direct mockery of Bernie's Medicare-For-All statement, saying something to the effect of "If we made Education for free, that would mean billionares get free education ". I heard that and I was thinking "...and what's wrong with that!?"

While I really really liked Pete a lot... that ad really knocked my respect for him down quite a few pegs. =/

It's an ad that plays to the midwest. Attack on the substance and don't just write it off as a GOP talking point.


The fact shes fundraising off of it now for her own reelection campaign with the words Republican lite is ridiculous.

This is the circular firing squad Obama warned about

[BronzeCondor]

There is no organically strong candidate in the Democratic Party right now that resonates with the Middle Class and the swing voters or one that has appropriately conveyed the gravity of the situation with China. Right now, Trump has them beat. No one can articulate their position soundly enough in that regard and if relying on "Orange Man Bad" is still in the Democrat's game plan, 2020 will be a worse defeat than 2016. Biden, Warren, and Bernie are all out of the picture. Tulsi or Peter may have the best chance going forward.

Who can stand toe-to-toe and articulate their position well enough to compete with Trump on national television? That's where it's going to matter. Trump has had 4 years of domestic/international policy experience to bolster his arguments and rhetoric. The last crew in 2016 didn't seem to fair too well when Trump had zero.

[DarkTZeratul]

Trump has had 4 years of domestic/international policy experience to bolster his arguments and rhetoric. The last crew in 2016 didn't seem to fair too well when Trump had zero.

The difference is that in 2016 Trump was running on promises, and in 2020 he'll be running on his absolutely abysmal record of foreign policy failures, broken promises, child concentration camps, and unprecedented staff turnovers.

Or, to put it another way, in 2016 Trump ran on saying that world leaders were figuratively laughing at the United States. In 2020, Trump will run having had world leaders literally laugh at him.

[Blade Wolf]

There is no organically strong candidate in the Democratic Party right now that resonates with the Middle Class and the swing voters or one that has appropriately conveyed the gravity of the situation with China. Right now, Trump has them beat. No one can articulate their position soundly enough in that regard and if relying on "Orange Man Bad" is still in the Democrat's game plan, 2020 will be a worse defeat than 2016. Biden, Warren, and Bernie are all out of the picture. Tulsi or Peter may have the best chance going forward.

Who can stand toe-to-toe and articulate their position well enough to compete with Trump on national television? That's where it's going to matter. Trump has had 4 years of domestic/international policy experience to bolster his arguments and rhetoric. The last crew in 2016 didn't seem to fair too well when Trump had zero.

Trump stood a much better chance in 2016 than he will 2020. His incompetence as a leader has been laid bare for the entire world to see.

[Blur4stuff]

Wait, when did Trump ever clearly articulate his positions and policy ideas? Remember how he claimed he'd replace Obamacare with something that covered more people, was better quality, and cost less? Except he never explained what that was? He still hasn't. Spoiler: he won't in this election either.

Goes for just about every issue. Trump can't articulate anything because he doesn't even understand the issues. He has zero solutions and likely isn't even aware of what the real problems are. If you vote Trump you are NOT voting for: better healthcare, lower debt, smaller government, improved climate, less inequality, etc... That's his track record.

He's in a significantly worse position compared to 2016. Millions of voters could say back then, "Well, he seems like an asshat but hey, let's see what happens." By 2020 election day he will have lost every single one of those people. He hasn't gained voters from the left. He's lost voters on the right. He has the hardcore, fox mainlining, brainwashed right wing base. That's about it. The only people left voting for Trump are those who completely ignore reality and choose to believe whatever they want.

[Dontrike]

Who can stand toe-to-toe and articulate their position well enough to compete with Trump on national television? That's where it's going to matter. Trump has had 4 years of domestic/international policy experience to bolster his arguments and rhetoric. The last crew in 2016 didn't seem to fair too well when Trump had zero.

What experience does Trump have exactly? 'Cause on every "policy" of his it's been one massive fuck up after another. The only real "successes" he can talk about is the tax cuts and..............that's it, but those have fucked up the economy. His conman promises did not come through in any way, no wall, no balanced budget, China doing what they want still (and still not being labeled a currency manipulator), Mexico is not paying for the wall, he's fucking with allies, friending enemies, deficit skyrocketing, debt shooting up, tax cuts sucked, tariffs suck harder, trade wars fucking things up, many of the regulations he stopped didn't actually help anything, and so much fucking more.

[Omega10]

Actually he can and we can all thank Donald Trump for that executive orders, national emergencies and "national security" concerns if he chooses to do so. If there is one thing that might happen after Trump is the curving of the power of the executive but I am not holding my breath. The reason we are here is because congress is broken and the executive has taken on more and more power to get things done.

The founding founders never meant for congress to be a polarized two party system it was designed to force compromise but we are now sitting at decades of a do nothing congress. You get maybe one major policy change per administration if you are lucky.

- - - Updated - - -



To be fair the democratic party never recovered from Obama, he cared only about his legacy and left the party in tatters. He wanted to be above the fray and did nothing as democrats were getting devastated at the state level, he also did nothing about gerrymandering and voter suppression. Obama did more damage to the left than any tea party or right wing movement.

It's possible that this was intentional. Current talk about him going out of his way to undercut Bernie supports this idea. His preference may be for a republican, even Trump, rather than Bernie or Warren.

[LilSaihah]

I'm a bit disappointed with people saying 'Trump has no chance'. His chances of re-election are very, very real. If you want him out of office, there's nothing more counterproductive than crowing that you've already won an entire year before the election.

[Ghostpanther]

There is no organically strong candidate in the Democratic Party right now that resonates with the Middle Class and the swing voters or one that has appropriately conveyed the gravity of the situation with China. Right now, Trump has them beat. No one can articulate their position soundly enough in that regard and if relying on "Orange Man Bad" is still in the Democrat's game plan, 2020 will be a worse defeat than 2016. Biden, Warren, and Bernie are all out of the picture. Tulsi or Peter may have the best chance going forward.

Who can stand toe-to-toe and articulate their position well enough to compete with Trump on national television? That's where it's going to matter. Trump has had 4 years of domestic/international policy experience to bolster his arguments and rhetoric. The last crew in 2016 didn't seem to fair too well when Trump had zero.

I agree with your assessment. Well said. If the economy remains as strong as it is now by Nov. 2020? He should beat any of them. It's hard to beat a incumbent president with a strong economy. But a lot can happen between now and then.

[cubby]

I'm a bit disappointed with people saying 'Trump has no chance'. His chances of re-election are very, very real. If you want him out of office, there's nothing more counterproductive than crowing that you've already won an entire year before the election.

Agreed. Saying Trump has no chance is dangerous. We have no choice but to go through the election process full bore and assuming nothing.

[Slybak]

Bernie Sanders had a heart attack and has since gone up in the polls, to the point that he now has the best Fav/Unfav ratio of any candidate running, the most committed support base, and a strong position in every state in an overall contest where convention delegates will be awarded proportional to the vote share. He's also got the most reliable fundraising base, consisting of repeat small donors, such that he functionally has his own political party.

People who write him off are substituting their own ideological priorities, and, in some particular cases around here, their own financial interests, for analysis. My own personal position of "I will never vote for Pete Buttigieg or Michael Bloomberg, and certainly won't volunteer time or money for their campaigns" doesn't cloud my assessment that the former has a decent chance of becoming the nominee - lamentably - and the latter does not.

[Muzjhath]

Bernie Sanders had a heart attack and has since gone up in the polls, to the point that he now has the best Fav/Unfav ratio of any candidate running, the most committed support base, and a strong position in every state in an overall contest where convention delegates will be awarded proportional to the vote share. He's also got the most reliable fundraising base, consisting of repeat small donors, such that he functionally has his own political party.

People who write him off are substituting their own ideological priorities, and, in some particular cases around here, their own financial interests, for analysis. My own personal position of "I will never vote for Pete Buttigieg or Michael Bloomberg, and certainly won't volunteer time or money for their campaigns" doesn't cloud my assessment that the former has a decent chance of becoming the nominee - lamentably - and the latter does not.

People who support a 78 year old man who reasently had a heart attack are bloody fucking idiots and deserve whomever his VP is to be POTUS, or deserve 4 more years of Trump.

[Draco-Onis]

It's possible that this was intentional. Current talk about him going out of his way to undercut Bernie supports this idea. His preference may be for a republican, even Trump, rather than Bernie or Warren.

Most of the DNC seem to be against progressive candidates they have undercut many runs on the state and local level, it is an uphill battle to win as a progressive. The democratic party is hellbent on being the republican lite party, if the republican party destroys itself in the long term I can see the democratic party splitting. The two sides are only together out of necessity they are far too different, the old republican party is alive in well in the democratic one.

I don't see a future for the GOP after Trump like Obama he has focused on himself and has build no future for the party not that he could since he has no principles to build upon aside fealty to himself.