Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
WWWwombat

Who should/will the Dems run in 2020?

Recommended Posts

Mainly because I find the NYTs coverage of primaries infuriating, here's another 538 piece:

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-kamala-and-beto-have-more-upside-than-joe-and-bernie/

 

I think Harris, at this point, has/is the best shot.

 

But, again, I don't really care. I've never been active in primaries, and have campaigned for the last 3 democratic nominees (though only voted for one of them).

 

Edited by Tyzack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Also, remember that Obama backed neither candidate until after the primaries were over, which is something I think you will see most elected officals do again, basically taking the line "I'm focused on my job in Washington, and I encourage a vigorous primary debate.""

 

It's one thing for the sitting President not to endorse a candidate before the nomination is one and another for the other elected officials to do the same. The second, has never happened as one of the main things candidates attempt to do is to lock in the support of key officials in each state before the primary in their process to establish a campaign in those states. 

 

The problem in 2016 was that almost all Democractic officials endorsed HRC way before the primaries started and thus the view was that the fix was in especially since although he did not endorse a candidate prior to HRC clinching the nomination Obama and his organization was obviously and actively working for HRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

 

The problem in 2016 was that almost all Democractic officials endorsed HRC way before the primaries started and thus the view was that the fix was in especially since although he did not endorse a candidate prior to HRC clinching the nomination Obama and his organization was obviously and actively working for HRC.

 

The deal with HRC not contesting Obama into the convention in 2008 was that she would have a cabinet position and be the nominee in 2016. The deal relatively out in the open. There were a lot of "Never Obama" people in the DNC who were "bought off" basically by Obama offering them jobs and promises of support in the future. 

 

Talking to (or rather listening/reading) former Obama staffers wonder outloud about why their "movement" failed, one of the reasons was the embrace of centrist/party loyalist (ie Clintonian) elements of the party in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

 

It's one thing for the sitting President not to endorse a candidate before the nomination is one and another for the other elected officials to do the same. The second, has never happened as one of the main things candidates attempt to do is to lock in the support of key officials in each state before the primary in their process to establish a campaign in those states. 

 

 

However, I was speaking more generally to the strategy of parties-not-in-the-white-house to bifricate during presidential elections essentially having the mechanisms of the party work in DC while farming out the campaigning to the people running for the nomination. 

 

To the extent that the "party-in-the-white-house" helped a canidate in the 2016 primaries was more a side-effect (intented/planned) effect of having that parties nominee essentially anointed in the last set of open primaries 8 years previous. 

 

A similar analogy would have been if Bush and RNC had "supported" McCain in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"However, I was speaking more generally to the strategy of parties-not-in-the-white-house to bifricate during presidential elections essentially having the mechanisms of the party work in DC while farming out the campaigning to the people running for the nomination. "

 

Except that that never happens. Almost all professional politicians will endorse one or another candidate prior to or during the primary season well before the nomination is settled. That has happended repeatedly and among both parites. Further the extent to which the entire establishment went into HRC's pocket prior to the primary season is unprecedented. Even in 1996 and 2000 where the nominations of the ultimate Republican cndidates was wrtitten on the wall there were far more decenters not only among the party faithful but the money men to allow other conventional candidates a try at the nomination. The 2016 HRC example was unique in that it essentially prevented any other conventional candidate from seriously considering a run.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

 

Except that that never happens. Almost all professional politicians will endorse one or another candidate prior to or during the primary season well before the nomination is settled. That has happended repeatedly and among both parites. Further the extent to which the entire establishment went into HRC's pocket prior to the primary season is unprecedented. Even in 1996 and 2000 where the nominations of the ultimate Republican cndidates was wrtitten on the wall there were far more decenters not only among the party faithful but the money men to allow other conventional candidates a try at the nomination. The 2016 HRC example was unique in that it essentially prevented any other conventional candidate from seriously considering a run.

 

 

We agree?

 

Two things, IMO, led to that:

 

1.) Obama's 2008 campaign was a revolutionary as Trumps, and they mirror each other in many ways. One key way they differ is Obama's embrace of the party establishment once nominated/elected (see: reasons why he was never able to build his coalition outside of himself?). 

 

2.) Prior to 2008. The Clinton machine sat out 2004 election because they were (smartly, they thought), aiming for 2008. What brought about the Clinton machine? 12 years of republican rule had decimated the national democratic party in the early 90s, to the extent that the election of 92 was largely forfieted to Bush, so when they won they were able to repopulate the Democratic political class (which had been emptied out since ... Johnson? Ford?) with their allies and essential build what is today the "modern" democratic party...

 

So yeah, when "their" candidate finally ran for President - a second time - they were damn sure going to make sure she at least got the nomination.  It took an extremely unlikely set of unpredicatable events - Comey and the hacks - to move the needles ever so slightly against her.

 

...

 

Back to 2020, we can have a discussion about the politics of the 90s in a seperate thread; I'm only now going back and reading about what happened in middle/highschool. I was more focused on, well, things teen-age boys are focused on, not national politics.

 

...

 

I see no similar party-backed momentum happening on either side this year. In a way, both party establishments were wipped out by the 2016 elections.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tyzack said:

Comey and the hacks - to move the needles ever so slightly against her.

Do you actually know an individual that was influenced by anything Comey or any leaked email had to say or is this just what you choose to believe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nolder said:

Do you actually know an individual that was influenced by anything Comey or any leaked email had to say or is this just what you choose to believe?

 

I know a couple of people who were pro-Bernie, switched to Clinton after the nomination, but after the dnc leaks they switched by to Bernie.

 

it should be noted their logic was “well, she’s going to win anyway, and what she did in the primary was bad, so I’m still voting for Bernie”

 

After the election they still say what she did was bad, and hide behind her winning New Hamsbire, so it “didn’t really matter”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyzack said:

 

I know a couple of people who were pro-Bernie, switched to Clinton after the nomination, but after the dnc leaks they switched by to Bernie.

 

it should be noted their logic was “well, she’s going to win anyway, and what she did in the primary was bad, so I’m still voting for Bernie”

 

After the election they still say what she did was bad, and hide behind her winning New Hamsbire, so it “didn’t really matter”

Sounds to me like you continue to discount her rigging a primary election as a pretty big black mark against her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

Sounds to me like you continue to discount her rigging a primary election as a pretty big black mark against her.

 

There was more than one republican in the 2016 primaries whom I would have voted for over her, but they didn’t win.

 

I could not/can not stand the “pox on both their houses”/“flaming douche/turd sandwhich” comparisons, specifically with regards to Trump and Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyzack said:

 

I know a couple of people who were pro-Bernie, switched to Clinton after the nomination, but after the dnc leaks they switched by to Bernie.

 

it should be noted their logic was “well, she’s going to win anyway, and what she did in the primary was bad, so I’m still voting for Bernie”

 

After the election they still say what she did was bad, and hide behind her winning New Hamsbire, so it “didn’t really matter”

That doesn't sound like it actually had anything to do with Comey or the leaks to me and more like their preferred candidate "lost". If Trump didn't make it out of the primaries I might not have even voted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Nolder said:

That doesn't sound like it actually had anything to do with Comey or the leaks to me and more like their preferred candidate "lost". If Trump didn't make it out of the primaries I might not have even voted.

 

I suppose you are technically correct; it was the dnc hacks which titled their votes.

 

Thank the Russians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Tyzack said:

 

I suppose you are technically correct; it was the dnc hacks which titled their votes.

 

Thank the Russians.

His name was Seth Rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Krakalakachkn said:

I wish someone like Rod Miller would run for President.   I would even campaign for him.

 

Why?

 

2 hours ago, Nolder said:

Dislike. 👎

 

Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tyzack said:

 

Why not?

Instead of calling for reforms on tax loopholes he just out and out wants to commit class warfare and tax the rich which I am not down for.

 

His rhetoric on the second amendment indicates to me that he is probably weak on gun rights.

 

Wants to legalize weed which I'm against.

 

His entire spiel about women's rights is filled with platitudes and outright lies without any real point other than to mention women. He has no policy position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nolder said:

Instead of calling for reforms on tax loopholes he just out and out wants to commit class warfare and tax the rich which I am not down for.

 

His rhetoric on the second amendment indicates to me that he is probably weak on gun rights.

 

Wants to legalize weed which I'm against.

 

His entire spiel about women's rights is filled with platitudes and outright lies without any real point other than to mention women. He has no policy position.

 

Well, I'm unclear as to what his party is, as it's not listed, and what his CV is, as, again, not listed, and he doesn't seem to have a wikipedia page. With the caveat that basing opinions purely off campaign talking points:

 

1.) CV: Rancher, gov't experince, ranch manager? My only quip is that he calls his home "the greater Buford Metroplex" ... i'm not sure what's "metro" or "plex" about Buford, WY, it appears to be an exit on a highway with a radio tower...but that's an aside.

 

2.) I generally agree with his platform, though, TBH, I glossed over the land management part, which seems be his claim to fame.

 

A well written platform, I don't give to induvidual state races; I contribute to organizations like Swing Left, so if he gets the nomination in the Democratic primary, maybe some of my money will flow his way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×