Corry_El:
One thing not taken much into account is the dynamics of such a large, huge as of now, field. Many suggestions just keep broadening it.
As with the GOP in 2016, a big field of candidates can play to the advantage of one person who is in some way (perceived to be, it’s always about voter perception) different in a way which feeds a (hidden or not so hidden) hunger of the primary base the others don’t. In Trump’s case it was IMO a hunger for a more raw expression of hostility to the cultural left*, but also open hostility to the party establishment/Bush legacy (the latter aspect of Trump tends to be ignored or underplayed by people on the left).
So, the Democrats and GOP aren’t very similar right now, but one might try to think of what or who might parallel that. Some of 20-30 will test the waters and find not enough funding support. But at least as many as 2016 GOP field will probably actively enter. How would it actually be winnowed down? ‘We need a moderate or maybe a Southerner…’ I don’t think that’s the likely mechanism to settle on one person. More likely somebody who says stuff the base wants to hear in a way others aren’t willing to.
So I think it will likely be somebody fairly extreme, unless it’s another person in the category ‘it’s their turn’ like Hillary. Biden might fit that, or maybe Bernie checks both boxes. But somebody who is on a list of relatively similar people who are ‘moderate’ being the one to drive out the rest of the field by being moderate, I just don’t see that happening.
*you can call that some list of
Keep in mind that the delegate allocation for all Democratic primaries and caucuses is proportional, there are no winner take all or winner take most that the Republicans use. So, a freak show candidate like Trump can’t accumulate a massive delegate advantage by winning small pluralities.
The writer for Spy magazine who labeled him a “short-fingered vulgarian” wins every day.
Barkis_is_Willin:
Who can beat Trump? Or rather, how can Trump be beaten? Is there a candidate who will draw a better turnout than Hillary in 2016? Unless someone like Obama comes out from nowhere, I’m not seeing it. So the answer to me is to flip 2016 Trump voters in key states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc. Moderate republicans who reluctantly pulled the lever for Trump might not be able to stomach an overly progressive D candidate.
The guy I’d like to see run against Trump is John Kasich. He clearly doesn’t like Trump and hinted at leaving the GOP months ago. I don’t think he’ll primary Trump, nor do I think he would have a chance to win if he did. But if he pulled the ol’ party switch-a-roo? He’s got enough name recognition and he’s from the right state. He’d win Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Democrats may not love the idea, but I think if your candidate is ultra progressive, you are at great risk of losing again because you couldn’t convince enough people to switch their vote.
Kasich was the only one who held his own with Trump in the early primary debates. He was unflappable and smart when all the other candidates were self-destructing under Trump’s withering attacks.
How about Conor Lamb, who just won a special election in Pennsylvania, maybe for vice-president? He’s a lawyer, a former prosecutor, and a marine, and he’s really handsome. Born in DC, grew up close to Pittsburgh (rust belt).
BobLibDem:
I think the country is a lot more left than is given credit. Franken would have a good chance since he is extremely smart and very articulate and quite charismatic. What’s more, having a serial sexual predator as an opponent would inoculate him against charges of sexual harassment. The Republicans will vote like they always do. The challenge is getting someone that can relate to rust belters.
I would love to back Al Franken more than life itself, but he has a previous life that would come back to bite him in the ass big-time. When he used to be a comedian, I remember him describing a picnic of staid, conservative types where he went around asking people if they had ever had a homoerotic dream. I would bet there are thousands of anecdotes out there that would scandalize a lot of voters.
Lamoral:
Being “close to Wall Street” is not really the liability that many people make it out to be. Bernie’s popularity had more to do with his personal charisma, the fact that he sounded and looked unique (sheer novelty value) and the fact that he had extreme conviction in his positions and didn’t back down (except for that one incident with the Black Lives Matter women stealing his mic, which did kind of make him look like a bitch honestly.) I am convinced that he had a groundswell of enthusiastic support in spite of his anti-Wall-Street stance, not because of it.
Class warfare doesn’t work in America. Class resentment only exists in this country from the top down, not the bottom up. The people at the top and in the middle classes do, in fact, behind closed doors, often rant derisively about the lower classes, whether it’s rednecks, inner city minorities, or broke college students…but the lower classes don’t resent millionaires and billionaires, they want to be them.
The idea that someone should be scorned for merely having “connections with Wall Street”, is very fallacious and exists only in the minds of the farthest extremes of the left. Now, there are people connected “to Wall Street” (what a ridiculously loaded phrase!) who have malevolent objectives and are corrupt, but this is by no means some kind of universal rule, no matter how much socialists use “Wall Street” as a term of abuse.
Being close to Wall Street can hurt you in the Democratic party.
1 ) The % of Democratic voters that want to move closer to socialism.
2 ) The % of Democratic who think the rich aren’t taxed enough.
3 ) The % of Democratic voters who think white men have it easy, a Wall Steet club type.
betterlifethroughchemistry:
Stealing Locrian ’s list from CNN…I will look at this from the situation of how each will be attacked…
FULL DISCLOSURE, I am an registered independent, I live in upstate NY, which means my vote is meaningless be it D or R, I voted for neither Clinton or Trump, I wasted my vote on Gary Johnson as I could not in good faith vote for the other two…
The 2016 election (This is all IMHO) swung on the fact that Hillary was a really bad candidate, not that she’s not intelligent, but she was perceived to be aloof, not very personable, cringe-worthy at times, when she was asked if she ‘wiped her server’, and she answered with a smug smile, “Like with a cloth?”, my immediate thought was, that was the worst answer she could possibly give and it was one she had obviously practiced, please, you are trying to appeal to millennials, they know what ‘wiping a server’ means…even more importantly, there were a whole lot of middle class people thinking, “Oh…OK…”
Most importantly, Trump absolutely painted her into a corner, defined her before she could define herself, she became, “Crooked Hillary”, whether she deserved it or not is totally irrelevant, she and her campaign allowed herself to be identified…and the Comey announcement just days before the election potentially affirmed the Trump narrative…
So, if one looks at how she lost, IMHO, one has to look at how each potential D nominee will be attacked…
Joe Biden…his time has passed…the GOP/Trump campaign would likely attack him as ‘Creepy Joe’ and as being too old, but Trump is the ultimate creepy one and only three years younger, so that would not likely work, but the most important point, Biden is not relevant these days…Trump (for better or worse) is in the news every day, Biden is not…
Elizabeth Warren…IMHO, this is the nominee Trump would want to run against, she’s not very popular beyond the NE area, and they would have a field day branding her as “Fauxcahontas”…she’s far more intelligent and moderate than that, but the attacks would really hurt her in the SE and MW…
Kamala Harris…I don’t see her popularity and name recognition beyond the traditional coastal areas, Boston/NY/Philly/DC, around to her native CA and up to OR and WA…another one the Trump campaign would feast on…
Kirstin Gillibrand - I live in upstate NY, less than an hour from where she grew up…Kristin Gillibrand is a political lightweight, she has no appeal outside of the Northeast…the Trump campaign would eat her alive as she willingly accepted Hillary’s seat when Hillary was nominated for SOS, and welcomed Hill and Bill campaigning for her…then, when the #MeToo movement exploded, she stated that, given the context, Bill should have resigned…https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/us/politics/gillibrand-bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct.html....she has no significant legislative record…
Bernie Sanders…I know he gave Hillary a ride, but again, the Trump campaign would pounce on him for earning $1 million in 2017 and having three houses while espousing a socialist message…and that would not play in the fly-over, blue-collar states…
Eric Holder…irrelevant…he’s not been in the spotlight at all…he’d have no traction…
Cory Booker…too much baggage, he’s too close to Wall Street to distance himself from Trump…
So, the question is, who? Jim Webb makes sense, but it’s early, someone who has youth appeal and energy, Obama came from nowhere in the 2007 early cycle…Biden is the most logical one, but, again, I think his time has passed…JMHO…
Good post. Who is Jim Webb, can can he raise money, like Trump could being a bit of an unknown?
DrDeth
July 22, 2018, 7:45pm
168
You quoted a whole wall of text for a one line question?
He’s strongly pro-life and would never win the Democratic nomination.
The_Tooth:
He has KFC gravy for blood, is so physically active he drives a golf cart on to the green, and is known to have a pretty wicked temper. Look at how Bush the Lesser and Obama looked after they left the White House, and they both took pretty good care of themselves.
Also, he hardly sleeps, which is a predictor of early death AND Alzheimer’s, which in Trump’s case may be in the incipient stages already.
Aescwynn:
Also, he hardly sleeps, which is a predictor of early death AND Alzheimer’s, which in Trump’s case may be in the incipient stages already.
We can all see how much energy he has. The President’s father died at age 93, his mother at age 88. I’d say longevity is in his DNA.
With a field of very old people and unknowns, his chances would not be that bad. Kasich might be able to flip Ohio ( He won the primary there over Trump ) for the Dem’s, of course he’s really a Republican.
dalej42:
Keep in mind that the delegate allocation for all Democratic primaries and caucuses is proportional, there are no winner take all or winner take most that the Republicans use. So, a freak show candidate like Trump can’t accumulate a massive delegate advantage by winning small pluralities.
I think if anything that reinforces my point. Somebody has to eventually drive the others out. If they have to win bigger pluralities than Trump did in the GOP, they have to distinguish themselves all the more from everyone else. I just don’t see how you can do that being more ‘quietly solid and moderate’ than everyone else. You have to be louder than everyone else, in some way that appeals to (many) base voters. Huge field equals winner extreme in some way, I think is the general tendency.
Barkis_is_Willin:
The guy I’d like to see run against Trump is John Kasich. He clearly doesn’t like Trump and hinted at leaving the GOP months ago. I don’t think he’ll primary Trump, nor do I think he would have a chance to win if he did. But if he pulled the ol’ party switch-a-roo? He’s got enough name recognition and he’s from the right state. He’d win Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Democrats may not love the idea, but I think if your candidate is ultra progressive, you are at great risk of losing again because you couldn’t convince enough people to switch their vote.
Kasich is probably the most reasonable and moderate republican of prominence these days, but he’s still a republican. I don’t think that the democrats will accept him, as he does not agree with any of the democratic platform.
I’d love to see him office rather than trump, sure, and i’d love to see him primary him. Depending on the democrat, I might even vote for him. (For instance if Hillary runs again).
But he’s not going to switch sides, if he did, he would not be accepted, and if he were, then it would essentially mean the end of the democratic party, as it is replaced by what used to be the moderate and reasonable conservatives, while the republican party continues to head ever alt-rightward.
His chances would be 0. The Democrats are not going to nominate a Republican for president, and Kasich is a Republican. He’s not a Trump Republican, but he’s still a Republican.
DSeid
July 22, 2018, 10:02pm
176
He’s not a moderate either. He’s conservative through and through.
DrDeth
July 22, 2018, 10:04pm
177
Not for the Dems, but for the GOP, that would be nice. I could even vote for Kasich, depending .
FlikTheBlue:
I think the key for 2020 is that the nominee run a different style of campaign than Clinton did. Not necessarily different policy positions, but a different way of doing things. Here’s one thing that I think would work if done correctly. During the first debate when the subject of Russia comes up, the Democratic candidate should finish his or her answer with something like this. “Unlike my oponent I won’t be Putin’s bitch.”
So women are not only dogs, but are subservient to men? This is the new face of the Democratic party?
FlikTheBlue:
I think the key for 2020 is that the nominee run a different style of campaign than Clinton did. Not necessarily different policy positions, but a different way of doing things. Here’s one thing that I think would work if done correctly. During the first debate when the subject of Russia comes up, the Democratic candidate should finish his or her answer with something like this. “Unlike my oponent I won’t be Putin’s bitch.”
…you do remember this happened right?
"Puppet" of course isn't "Putin’s bitch", but any candidate that uses gendered slurs isn't someone who should be representing the United States of America in my humble opinion.
Just because people weren’t listening doesn’t mean it wasn’t addressed. Clinton could have plastered this all over the walls and yelled it from the roof-tops it wouldn’t have made a difference.
I believe FlikTheBlue was referring to Trump as Putin’s bitch, not women. I’m not sure how you managed to read it incorrectly, but I’m happy to help nonetheless.