I think this is the sort of thing that contributes to negative views of the Democrats; this excessive “team first” mentality that often seems like Democratic politicians would really like to just pick the candidate from among themselves and leave the voters out of it.
The post in question said they should both run. Isn’t that letting the voters decide?
Kamala Harris is a political expert, more than me, and hopefully has learned from mistakes. If she thinks she would beat the likes of Rubio or Vance, I have no problem with her running. Same with Newsom. That’s letting the voters decide.
If it is fairly clear from the polls – after the first few primary season debates – that they cannot win, sure, drop out then.
Yes, I was agreeing with Babale. “This sort of thing” referred to Newsom’s announcement, not to Babale’s post. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
And worse, they often pick a candidate because it’s their “turn”, and not because they’re the most qualified.
If Newsom thinks that he’ll be the best candidate, or the best President, then he should run, and to hell with anyone else. Voters like ambitious candidates. That’s what got Clinton and Obama elected.
This is a thing people say, but it’s just not true. They don’t pick candidates, maybe some donors push candidates, but the last contested primary was 2020 where the donors wanted Pete Buttigeig, and the guy who won barely had two nickels to scrape together until after Super Tuesday.
In 2008 Hillary Clinton was the “chosen” candidate, and she got beat by an upstart senator from New York. It wasn’t just a 2 horse race either, John Edwards was in it too until he set his political career on fire.
People point to 2016, but that should have been Biden and Clinton, but Beau got diagnosed with brain cancer and Joe was in no shape to run after that. The rest of the Democratic field was bereft of decent candidates because very few rising stars could emerge in the Obama era.
Illinois, but yeah. HRC was the senator from New York.
You think she’s more of an expert than you, but you can only hope she’s learned from mistakes?
Perhaps neither of them should run.
That would be quite disappointing.
But the facts show otherwise.
Sure, but the candidates get to decide first. Who should NOT get to decide and in fact does not- is the DNC.
The “they” being the voters? Have we not shown here in this forum over and over that the DNC does not pick candidates- even if it is “their turn”?
For quite a while, “it’s their turn” or “the next in line” was much more considered to be a problem that the GOP had, rather than the Democrats. Nixon, Reagan, Dole, and GHW Bush all had a level of anointment for the nomination because of this.
From the Democrats’ side, in the last 40 years, Gore and Hillary Clinton were probably the closest to that idea.
The way state primaries are scheduled and staggered out means the majority of Democratic voters, in most cycles, have no real say in who the nominee is because they don’t get to vote until one candidate has cleared the field anyway.
To very few people I suspect, including some who would be content with either of them as the nominee. This thread provides some evidence that the bench is pretty deep. Okay not so deep for the progressive wing: AOC is mostly it with Ro Khanna way distant second. But center left and establishment? Lots of good options. And none as … stale … as either of those two.
IMO, Harris had her shot, and Newsom is basically just Trump with a (D) at the end of his name. Neither of them have a policy agenda any deeper than “I should be president” and they both act like they’re entitled to the votes of liberals and progressives because “what else are you gonna do, vote Republican?”
I’m holding out hope for a Pritzker/AOC ticket.
I’m curious if you have a cite for this remarkable statement. I don’t recall Buttigieg being a recipient of a great deal of donations from the big time donor class.
I mean, I sent him $100 but I don’t consider myself to be a major donor to any candidate.
Here.
https://www.axios.com/2020/02/01/2020-democrat-presidential-candidates-campaign-election-fundraising
- Sanders raised $60.6 million from individuals who gave less than $200 each to the campaign — more than any other candidate. He’s long championed this kind of grassroots, small-dollar fundraising. It gives a picture of his strong support among average American voters, as opposed to wealthy donors who can afford to give thousands of dollars to politics.
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yangjoin Sanders as the three candidates who received more than half of their campaign money in 2019 from small-dollar (less than $200) donations.
- In contrast, Buttigieg raised more money from large donations ($200+) than any other candidate. He’s come under fire, particularly from Warren, for a lack of transparency around his large-dollar fundraising.
(I’m a fan of his FWIW.)
Oh, Okay, so the Governor who has signed more bills protecting LGBT people is “just another trump”? The Governor who increased the Minimum wage to $16.90 or more? Free Kindergarten? Free School meals? Expanded Medi-Cal coverage eligibility to low-income residents regardless of immigration status.
And then there are these-
I have never seen a claim so very wrong on these boards. Equating the progressive Newsom with the fascist-wannabe trump.
and here is even a Youtube-
In that he’s a grandstanding demagogue who’ll say whatever it takes to make people like him and pals around with Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon, yes.
Jesus, why do you people “keep making me” defend Newsom? I don’t like the guy. But this is errant nonsense. It is almost literally like some MAGA nut opining that Liz Cheney is just Kamala Harris with a (R) at the end of her name.
Newsom is 18 million miles from Trump. Opportunistic? Entitled? An oily slick political operator and triangulator? Yep. He’s all of that. But TRUMP? Get the fuck out of here with that.
Yep