And The 2020 DNC Candidate Will Be

At this point the Democratic Party has itself sitting at the same point the Republican Party was in 2015 - too many potential candidates, essentially drastically watering down the ability to form any cohesive narrative and potentially setting themselves up for a run-up knife fight in a phone booth. I am not sure Perez and team have the skills necessary to keep the knives pointed in the right direction.

Good point on the crowded field being similar to the situation the Republicans had in 2015.

Perez doesn't have that skill to focus the passions. The only thing he's good at is spouting empty nonsensical platitudes. He does not seem capable of anything else. For one thing: us progressives despise him (more than we hate Trump even) and do not trust anything he says or does. He has not displayed any ability to forge the two wings into one cohesive party with something like a compromise platform with something from both sides. Under him the division has gotten worse. Under his incompetent leadership progressives and establishment democrats are at eachother's throats not united and taking it to the republicans.

Perez is a money guy not a leader. Certainly not the one the DNC needs in charge right now. If we win in 2020 it will be because the bungling of the RNC, how unpopular Trump is, and a singularly inspiring candidate offsetting Perez's lack of leadership in the DNC.
 
Biden will be the candidate against Trump, and Trump will be reelected.
 
Do Democrats have any one under 60 years of age to put up or are they Boomer-centric?

Enough with the dotards and Wild Eyed Ideologues. :(
 
Probably white
Probably male
Probably 50 to 65.
Probably moderate centrist.
Possibly ex military.
Very morally respectable.
No Progressives - D's wanna win.
Possibly strong on economics, there's gunna be a recession by 2020.

And certainly I'll be wrong on many issues because it's much too soon to tell, but whatever else the candidate will not be a progressive of any kind. :)
 
I haven't seen a breakdown by age, though that would be interesting. Should age be a factor in the decision of which candidate we're going to support?

If the past three presidential wins by the Democrats are any indicator, the winning Democratic presidential candidate is going to be a rather obscure representative (Obama) or a Governor (Clinton and Carter).

I think there is a fairly big advantage to NOT having an extensive national record, since in building that record/experience it's inevitable that you make enemies, internal and external, who are just waiting with those sharp knives for revenge. That previous history rules out any of the candidates who are Senators, which would knock Sanders, Booker and Harris out of the game. They might get the nomination, but history seems to hold they won't get the win.

It seems that in the zeitgeist of America right now we're looking for outsider candidates.
 
I haven't seen a breakdown by age, though that would be interesting. Should age be a factor in the decision of which candidate we're going to support?

If the past three presidential wins by the Democrats are any indicator, the winning Democratic presidential candidate is going to be a rather obscure representative (Obama) or a Governor (Clinton and Carter).

I think there is a fairly big advantage to NOT having an extensive national record, since in building that record/experience it's inevitable that you make enemies, internal and external, who are just waiting with those sharp knives for revenge. That previous history rules out any of the candidates who are Senators, which would knock Sanders, Booker and Harris out of the game. They might get the nomination, but history seems to hold they won't get the win.

It seems that in the zeitgeist of America right now we're looking for outsider candidates.

I'd vote for Pee Wee Herman if he is the D candidate. I've voted third party before but as long as Trump is a candidate I'll vote for whoever can beat him.
 
I'd vote for Pee Wee Herman if he is the D candidate. I've voted third party before but as long as Trump is a candidate I'll vote for whoever can beat him.

If a person is adamantly opposed to Trump (with him being the presumptive RNC nominee at this point), if they didn't vote for him the first time through and aren't going to vote for him now, I don't think that is going to make much of a difference.

The decision point is going to be - new voters who oppose him, independents who switch from him to the Democratic candidate, and former Trump supporters who've turned away and are willing to turn away far enough to cross party lines and cast an "anyone but Trump" votes.

Otherwise there is a very real possibility 2020 is a repeat of 2016 (popular vote win, electoral college loss). Whoever we settle on, I just hope they've got actual charisma and a longer list of positives than negatives.
 
I'd vote for Pee Wee Herman if he is the D candidate. I've voted third party before but as long as Trump is a candidate I'll vote for whoever can beat him.

That is EXACTLY how I found myself voting for Trump! I'd have voted for Pee Wee Herman if it kept Hillary out of the White House.
 
Okay, so it looks like we're building universal consensus around Pee Wee Herman as our preferred candidate. If Cowboy Curtis is the VP, I'm in!
 
I haven't seen a breakdown by age, though that would be interesting. Should age be a factor in the decision of which candidate we're going to support?

If the past three presidential wins by the Democrats are any indicator, the winning Democratic presidential candidate is going to be a rather obscure representative (Obama) or a Governor (Clinton and Carter).

I think there is a fairly big advantage to NOT having an extensive national record, since in building that record/experience it's inevitable that you make enemies, internal and external, who are just waiting with those sharp knives for revenge. That previous history rules out any of the candidates who are Senators, which would knock Sanders, Booker and Harris out of the game. They might get the nomination, but history seems to hold they won't get the win.

It seems that in the zeitgeist of America right now we're looking for outsider candidates.

That also would rule out Biden. He's been in national politics long enough to have a long list of enemies hungry for some payback too.

Hell that was Hillary's achilles heel in 2016. Those damned emails and Benghazi and so many people willing to give her a black eye by supporting those bogus attacks on her as legitimate concerns. Don't get me wrong. I hate Hillary almost as much as any MAGA guy chanting "Lock her up", but even I could see that there wasn't much of any substance to that other than "I hate Hillary and this Email server thing is the tar and feathers I'm gonna pump up to make her lose".
 
I knew next to nothing about Beto, so I had to look him up and read a bit about him. Since I am not in Texas I didn't follow the Senate race there other then seeing a few bits and pieces splashed in the evening news and online. Wikipedia has a pretty good biography of him if anyone is interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beto_O**7Rourke

I don't quite know what to think of him yet. Quite frankly, his profile reads "another self-styled privileged elite white guy" to me. Personally, I'd like to see the Democrats get back their blue-collar strength and field some people who have actually been in the arena and experienced and struggled a bit with life. I think that struggle is what builds empathy. A difference between "empathic due to experience" and "empathic because they were told to be empathic".

I think that's what's going be a challenge for the Democratic candidate, whoever it ultimately is - that ability to connect with ordinary folks.
 
That also would rule out Biden. He's been in national politics long enough to have a long list of enemies hungry for some payback too.

Hell that was Hillary's achilles heel in 2016. Those damned emails and Benghazi and so many people willing to give her a black eye by supporting those bogus attacks on her as legitimate concerns. Don't get me wrong. I hate Hillary almost as much as any MAGA guy chanting "Lock her up", but even I could see that there wasn't much of any substance to that other than "I hate Hillary and this Email server thing is the tar and feathers I'm gonna pump up to make her lose".

I think that is a challenge any politician faces - trying not to let the mud stick that is going to get tossed. A lot of that drives toward the strength of an outsider or someone on the peripheral of party politics. You need some name recognition in a positive light to start with. If you start with negative name recognition, it's one strike against you.
 
From the CNN/Des Moines Register poll conducted yesterday.

Joe Biden (32%)
Bernie Sanders (19%)
Beto O'Rourke (11%)
 
the 32 percent is the DOC establishment.

My instincts are telling me Beto

I was surprised he broke double digits. It will be curious to see if both the establishment D’s and the progressive D’s will winnow it down quickly to a two person race. I’m apprehensive that the progressive win is going to rip itself up and spend a lot of time and money infighting on “who is more progressive”.
 
I was surprised he broke double digits. It will be curious to see if both the establishment D’s and the progressive D’s will winnow it down quickly to a two person race. I’m apprehensive that the progressive win is going to rip itself up and spend a lot of time and money infighting on “who is more progressive”.

I know very little about him but based only on what I've seen of his image, he might appeal to millenials and Kennedy seniors.

If the Ds are smart, which they are not, they wouldn't run Clinton, Biden or Sanders.
 
Last edited:
I like Eric Swalwell the most, but I don't know if he has the charisma. He is planning to run, though, and he's from Iowa.

If the shit really hits the fan with the House Intel and Mueller and Russia, he's going to get more prominent.

He's soft spoken, but he is really tough on Trump and so far I like everything he says out of everyone I've seen.

But he'd probably be a poor choice, simply for his lackluster media presence. That's the only thing against him.
 
I know very little about him but based only on what I've seen of his image, he might appeal to millenials and Kennedy seniors.

I think people see him in the vein of Barack Obama--a charismatic, "we the people," fresh, younger candidate shining bright out in left field. They don't seem to processing that Obama at least got a Senate win before running.
 
I think people see him in the vein of Barack Obama--a charismatic, "we the people," fresh, younger candidate shining bright out in left field. They don't seem to processing that Obama at least got a Senate win before running.

I'm not sure if that matters anymore. The reality TV star has lowered that bar as low as I ever want to see it go.

I like Admiral McRaven.
 
I'd like to see who can perform and stand out in the coming Legislature vs. Executive battles revving up (I hope) in January. In that sort of struggle, anyone not in an elected job is going to have to find some way to muscle into the action.

I tend to shy away from military, having worked with them (and having attended their finishing/polishing school myself) and finding most of them inflexible, naïve, and ideologues, with an authoritarian bent. I think Colin Powell might have been an exception.
 
Last edited:
There's time for a State Governor to make a mark in the next couple of years - but which; no-one stands out yet. I suspect that the electorate is still broadly anti Washington, but at this stage A.N.Other looks the most likely. It will not be a progressive, however, because they are far too easy to attack.

Charisma can be overrated. Middle aged, middle of the road, with a wooly message of "bringing America together again," might work - dull might even be good.
 
There's time for a State Governor to make a mark in the next couple of years - but which; no-one stands out yet. I suspect that the electorate is still broadly anti Washington, but at this stage A.N.Other looks the most likely. It will not be a progressive, however, because they are far too easy to attack.

Charisma can be overrated. Middle aged, middle of the road, with a wooly message of "bringing America together again," might work - dull might even be good.

I kind of agree with you here. Two of three of the last successful Democrat Presidents have been Governors - Carter and Clinton. I think it's probably one of the best training grounds out there given the nature of the job.

I do think the right progressive could cut through the crowd though, if they can avoid the "a bridge to far" scenario and trim off, say the top 20% of the crazy and present it fluidly and convincingly. (Think of Clinton's "Sister Soulja" moment.)

I wonder if the Trump years will drive a significant part of the electorate to seek out an articulate, low key, no drama type of candidate who can contrast themselves with that approach - sort of a water v. fire, as opposed to a fire v. fire approach.
 
Back
Top