Jump to content
ryanlammi

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Recommended Posts

All,


I have created a separate topic for the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary. The number of candidates running is starting to build, and I don't want to have the discussion force its way into other topics, so feel free to discuss here.

 

So far, it seems the mainstream candidates who have publicly announced are:

Julian Castro - Former Mayor of San Antonio and HUD Secretary under President Obama

John Delaney - US Representative from Maryland

Tulsi Gabbard - US Representative from Hawaii

Kamala Harris - US Senator from California and former Attorney General of California

 

Others interested (listed in my rough order of likelihood to run/public name recognition):

Elizabeth Warren - US Senator from Massachusetts

Kirsten Gillibrand - US Senator from New York

Cory Booker - US Senator from New Jersey

Sherrod Brown - US Senator from Ohio

Joe Biden - Former Vice President

Amy Klobuchar - US Senator from Minnesota

Bernie Sanders - US Senator from Vermont

Beto O'Rourke - Former US Representative from Texas

John Hickenlooper - Former Governor of Colorado

Tim Ryan - US Representative from Ohio

Eric Holder - Former US Attorney General

Michael Bloomberg - Former Mayor of New York

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the Conservative that's willing to be swung, and likely will so long as the candidate is sane.... here's my objective list of who can get a swing voter like me, in order...

 

1. Amy Klobuchar

2. Sherrod Brown

3. John Hickenlooper

4. Eric Holder

5. Joe Biden

6. Beto O'Rourke

7. Cory Booker

 

Those seven, for now, are pretty much an exhaustive list for me - I've left Tim Ryan off the list for the simple fact that he has 0% chance of winning the nom. 

Edited by YABO713
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, freefourur said:

^ I have Klobuchar near the top of my list too.  

 

Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders are on my hell no list. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal favorites right now are probably

 

1) Kamala Harris

2) Amy Klobuchar

3) Sherrod Brown

4) Julian Castro

 

But it's way too early right now to make a solid decision. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillibrand and Warren have publicly announced they are running.

 

Also announced (according to the NYT) whom I have never heard of are John Delaney, Richard Ojeda and Andrew Yang.

Share this post


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

Gillibrand and Warren have publicly announced they are running.

 

Also announced (according to the NYT) whom I have never heard of are John Delaney, Richard Ojeda and Andrew Yang.

Gillibrand and Warren have announced an Exploratory Committee, but haven't said they are actually running.

 

I didn't include people that aren't on anyone's radar. I don't think Richard Ojeda or Andrew Yang are contenders, so I didn't include them. There are a bunch of other people who have announced that no one here has probably ever heard of: Michael E. Arth, Harry Braun, Ken Nwadike Jr., and Robby Wells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

Gillibrand and Warren have publicly announced they are running.

 

Also announced (according to the NYT) whom I have never heard of are John Delaney, Richard Ojeda and Andrew Yang.

 

John Delaney = former U.S. House Rep from Maryland's 6th district from 2013 to 2019.

Richard Ojeda = former Trump supporter (I think?), former West Virginia state Senator who lost his bid for WV's 3rd House district in 2018

Andrew Yang = founder of Venture for America

 

All will be out within the first month of primaries starting.

  • Like 2

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is... Klobuchar will not have a chance with the current insurgence of far-left politicians in the party - if Klobuchar gets the nomination, look for another Jill Stein to make his or herself known

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only candidate that will get me to vote is Tulsi.

25 minutes ago, freefourur said:

 

Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders are on my hell no list. 

 

What's the dem's resistance to Tulsi?  She seems like most level headed of the democrats lately.  I don't get how people call her conservative.

 

 

Share this post


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

Gillibrand and Warren have announced an Exploratory Committee, but haven't said they are actually running.

 

I didn't include people that aren't on anyone's radar. I don't think Richard Ojeda or Andrew Yang are contenders, so I didn't include them. There are a bunch of other people who have announced that no one here has probably ever heard of: Michael E. Arth, Harry Braun, Ken Nwadike Jr., and Robby Wells.

 

Not to split hairs, but there is no legal distinction between an exploratory committee and running for president.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/423560-why-forming-an-exploratory-committee-means-youre-already-running-for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Problem is... Klobuchar will not have a chance with the current insurgence of far-left politicians in the party - if Klobuchar gets the nomination, look for another Jill Stein to make his or herself known

 

Yeah, which is why it will be someone that falls between Klobuchar and AOC.  Harris is my #1 candidate and I think she has a little bit of everything to unite the party.  O'Rourke is my #2, and even though he is more centrist, I bet he can unite that young/liberal demographic with his charisma and channel that Obama "hope" message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tklg said:

 

What am I missing here....

She's had a rough few years since the Bernie campaign wound down.  She's been pro-Assad, over-stepped in fighting against the D party, and had some anti-LGBT stances until she got called out on it.  The Assad thing is the real problem though, makes you either sound like a Russian agent, or just plain ignorant on human rights issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal requirement for who I vote for in the primary is that they need to be under the age of 65.  Obama and Clinton were under the age of 50 during their first campaigns.  Carter was 52 when he assumed office.  LBJ was 55 when he assumed office and 56 when he won in 1964.  JFK was 43. FDR was 51 when he first took over the Oval Office.  Conversely, the only GOP Presidents since the Great Depression to assume office under the age of 60 were George W. Bush (54 years old) and Richard Nixon (56 years old).

 

Largely, the older (60+) candidates for the Democrats have not fared well - Hillary of course won the popular vote, but did not win the Electoral College.  Kerry lost both and he was ~60 in 2004.  Gore was I believe 51 in 2000 (and won the popular vote and very likely would have won the EC if votes were properly counted in FL).  So going "young" doesn't necessarily = winning, but running an "older" candidate has almost never resulted in winning the Presidency for the Dems.

 

With having done little research I probably go:

1) Klobuchar

2) Gillibrand

3) Harris

4) O'Rourke

5) Booker

6) Warren

7) Brown

Then some combination of Biden, Sanders, etc.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tklg said:

 

What am I missing here....

Her prior stance to gay marriage was... troubling.

 

Times change, and people change, but she was a very strong opponent of gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now, I imagine Sherrod Brown makes the ticket as either the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate. He's fairly progressive, but is also a staple in the Democratic Party, he comes from a rust belt state, and is someone that working class people feel they can trust. If he wins the candidacy, I would imagine him picking a charismatic, younger running mate in Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, or Julian Castro.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 10albersa said:

She's had a rough few years since the Bernie campaign wound down.  She's been pro-Assad, over-stepped in fighting against the D party, and had some anti-LGBT stances until she got called out on it.  The Assad thing is the real problem though, makes you either sound like a Russian agent, or just plain ignorant on human rights issues.

 

Yea, I just found an article detailing some of the ways Tulsi pissed off dems, since she didn't march and met Orangeman and then because she met with Assad.  

 

Isn't that was politicians are supposed to do?  Who knows what the nature of the meetings are, but condemning politicians for meeting with other political and national leaders is ludicrous.

 

Also, the whole Assad thing is so full of propaganda it's extremely difficult to know (as a common lay person only getting information from media outlets) what is actually happening over there.  Not sure how going to meet with him condemns her here either.

 

The democrats appears to have a rather large issue of "if you don't think like us, we don't like you and won't talk to you and might even insight outrage to publicly shame you".  Doesn't anyone find this detrimental to american politics?  The dem's are supposed to be the ones protecting democracy but closing off people with different ideas feels more like the opposite.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Her prior stance to gay marriage was... troubling.

 

Times change, and people change, but she was a very strong opponent of gay marriage.

 

lol...ooo yea that's a tough one to overcome.

Share this post


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

What am I missing here....

 

She ran against gay marriage and abortion in her campaign for the Hawaii legislature in 2004.

Quote

“As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists,” she said at the time.

 

Quote

Her state Democratic Party LGBT caucus, for instance, openly distrusts her, and backed her Democratic primary opponent in 2016. When questioned why the LGBT caucus, which had actually supported her three years earlier, had turned against her, the chairman cited two things. One was her less-than-stellar answers to a questionnaire the LGBT Caucus had sent. The other was a 2015 interview with Ozy, in which she confirmed that her personal views on gay marriage and abortion hadn’t changed, just her view on whether the government should enforce its vision of morality.

Quote

Gabbard’s brand of anti-interventionism has even received praise from former KKK grand wizard David Duke, who called for her to be named secretary of state.

A lot of her rhetoric in regards to foreign policy was to criticize Obama's approach, but then around 2014/2015 she basically said she would expand it - the use of drones, occupying Muslim-majority countries with more troops, etc.  She has been praised by Breitbart and AEI for this.  She bought in heavily to the "we need to identify terrorists are radical Islam" garbage.

 

She started with "mainstream" support after becoming a U.S. Rep in 2012, but as that support waned because of her foreign policy stances, she backed Bernie in 2016.  I don't think it was enough to win back the progressive wing because she then went to see Assad in Syria in 2017 and came back parroting Assad's lines about anti-Assad forces.

 

If you want a candidate with more name recognition, more experience, similar domestic policy views, and none of the baggage on foreign policy or LGBT I'd look at Elizabeth Warren.

  • Thanks 1

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Right now, I imagine Sherrod Brown makes the ticket as either the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate. He's fairly progressive, but is also a staple in the Democratic Party, he comes from a rust belt state, and is someone that working class people feel they can trust. If he wins the candidacy, I would imagine him picking a charismatic, younger running mate in Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, or Julian Castro.

 

Isn't the knock on Castro that he's kind of boring?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, tklg said:

 

Yea, I just found an article detailing some of the ways Tulsi pissed off dems, since she didn't march and met Orangeman and then because she met with Assad.  

 

Isn't that was politicians are supposed to do?  Who knows what the nature of the meetings are, but condemning politicians for meeting with other political and national leaders is ludicrous.

 

Also, the whole Assad thing is so full of propaganda it's extremely difficult to know (as a common lay person only getting information from media outlets) what is actually happening over there.  Not sure how going to meet with him condemns her here either.

 

The democrats appears to have a rather large issue of "if you don't think like us, we don't like you and won't talk to you and might even insight outrage to publicly shame you".  Doesn't anyone find this detrimental to american politics?  The dem's are supposed to be the ones protecting democracy but closing off people with different ideas feels more like the opposite.  

 

 

I mean...she's been a Dem Rep since 2013 with her varying views.  The question is whether or not the combination of her views and experience will be enough to win across the country.

 

She also didn't just meet with Assad - she came back parroting Assad's comments that anti-Assad forces are basically the same as ISIS.

  • Thanks 1

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope the DNC takes some lessons from the Republican debacle in 2016.  There will likely be too many candidates to host one debate at a time (to start, at least).  There has been talk of drawing names out of a hat for the two debates instead of creating an A tier and a B tier like the GOP did.  Have one on Tuesday night and the next one on Wednesday night.  Ignore public polling (i.e. here are our top 6 candidates) for the debates until at least a few weeks in.  Let the voters decide, not the delegates or party leadership.

 

I would also like to see some non-traditional debate hosts.  Ezra Klein, Sarah Kliff, etc.  Perhaps even in a more focused setting - "tonight we're talking healthcare."  The rapid fire, try to cover all of our bases without digging into details is ok some of the time, but I'd like to see them switch it up a bit.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will likely post this multiple times in the coming months... but here's my advice for Dems that want to run a candidate on Progressive principles moreso than an ability to win an election and effectuate actual change...

 

 

Share this post


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

I really hope the DNC takes some lessons from the Republican debacle in 2016.  There will likely be too many candidates to host one debate at a time (to start, at least).  There has been talk of drawing names out of a hat for the two debates instead of creating an A tier and a B tier like the GOP did.  Have one on Tuesday night and the next one on Wednesday night.  Ignore public polling (i.e. here are our top 6 candidates) for the debates until at least a few weeks in.  Let the voters decide, not the delegates or party leadership.

 

I would also like to see some non-traditional debate hosts.  Ezra Klein, Sarah Kliff, etc.  Perhaps even in a more focused setting - "tonight we're talking healthcare."  The rapid fire, try to cover all of our bases without digging into details is ok some of the time, but I'd like to see them switch it up a bit.

 

I wouldn't debate at all until a few weeks before Iowa... and I'd invite everyone polling above 5% to the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

I wouldn't debate at all until a few weeks before Iowa... and I'd invite everyone polling above 5% to the first.

I would actually like to see a lot of small "town hall", intimate events featuring 3 candidates at a time early on. All throughout this summer and fall, I think it would be beneficial to people interested in real policy goals to hear the candidates speak about their plans on a range of issues. It will definitely be a crowded field, and I don't want to see a 2-hour event with 15 candidates on stage. The Democratic Party needs to be smart to give everyone plenty of time to brush up their debate skills, and get the public familiar with them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I would actually like to see a lot of small "town hall", intimate events featuring 3 candidates at a time early on. All throughout this summer and fall, I think it would be beneficial to people interested in real policy goals to hear the candidates speak about their plans on a range of issues. It will definitely be a crowded field, and I don't want to see a 2-hour event with 15 candidates on stage. The Democratic Party needs to be smart to give everyone plenty of time to brush up their debate skills, and get the public familiar with them.

 

This sounds like a good idea.  It would also give some of the more unknown candidates an opportunity to introduce themselves to voters.  I doubt the DNC does it but it would be helpful.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Just calling a spade a spade here, but I bet the DNC is more open to ideas this go-round as none of its primary candidates have them by the gonads. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

As the Conservative that's willing to be swung, and likely will so long as the candidate is sane.... here's my objective list of who can get a swing voter like me, in order...

 

1. Amy Klobuchar

2. Sherrod Brown

3. John Hickenlooper

4. Eric Holder

5. Joe Biden

6. Beto O'Rourke

7. Cory Booker

 

Those seven, for now, are pretty much an exhaustive list for me - I've left Tim Ryan off the list for the simple fact that he has 0% chance of winning the nom. 

I'm a little surprised that you approve of Klobuchar.   I don't know much about her yet, but I really liked how she handled herself in the Kavanaugh hearings. 

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Amy_Klobuchar.htm

 

I think the Democratic party is going to favor a woman or minority candidate -- old white men like Joe Biden have no chance.  But white men are probably still the biggest donors -- we'll see whether Brown or Hickenlooper can get any traction. 

 

Despite the aggressive attacks from the Right, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Elizabeth Warren's appeal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

I'm a little surprised that you approve of Klobuchar.   I don't know much about her yet, but I really liked how she handled herself in the Kavanaugh hearings. 

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Amy_Klobuchar.htm

 

I think the Democratic party is going to favor a woman or minority candidate -- old white men like Joe Biden have no chance.  But white men are probably still the biggest donors -- we'll see whether Brown or Hickenlooper can get any traction. 

 

Despite the aggressive attacks from the Right, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Elizabeth Warren's appeal.

 

 

What I like about Klobuchar is two-fold: 1) none of her policy position's are radically left - most candidates seem to have one that they can hang onto to say "SEE IM PROGRESSIVE", and 2) She is one of the most pragmatic Senators holding office at the moment. In the current environment, we need action not toddlers and rigid ideologists

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tklg said:

has there been a changing of the guard at DNC?

Technically, yes, although the new guard isn't much different than the old one.  They did reduce (or maybe abolished) super-delegates, so that's a nice start. 

 

I don't blame them for putting all their eggs in the Hillary basket in 2016, she had worked all her life to be in that position and was one of the most experienced and qualified presidential candidates out there.

 

Now that she's gone, they won't actively work against any one candidate, they learned their lesson.

Share this post


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

I really hope the DNC takes some lessons from the Republican debacle in 2016.  There will likely be too many candidates to host one debate at a time (to start, at least).  There has been talk of drawing names out of a hat for the two debates instead of creating an A tier and a B tier like the GOP did.  Have one on Tuesday night and the next one on Wednesday night.  Ignore public polling (i.e. here are our top 6 candidates) for the debates until at least a few weeks in.  Let the voters decide, not the delegates or party leadership.

 

 

Yes, don't shove someone up everyone's ass and tell them not to vote for anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

Technically, yes, although the new guard isn't much different than the old one.  They did reduce (or maybe abolished) super-delegates, so that's a nice start. 

 

I don't blame them for putting all their eggs in the Hillary basket in 2016, she had worked all her life to be in that position and was one of the most experienced and qualified presidential candidates out there.

 

Now that she's gone, they won't actively work against any one candidate, they learned their lesson.

 

What, precisely, was her "experience"?

 

First Lady is a "make of it what you will" position.   No defined responsibility or need for follow through.   No actual management role.  Her managerial skills showed in her campaign, it was a big part of why Trump won.

 

She didn't do much in the Senate and she was a lackluster (at best) SecState.

 

Kaine was far more experienced and qualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...