• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

PhDeac said:
Yep. Why is the first state in the primary process in February in a cold weather state where they require people to go somewhere to “vote?”

I appreciate some aspects of it like starting with a small state to presumably minimize spending and how politically involved people are. But then you have promising candidates dropping out after almost a year in the race before they even get to Iowa because of fundraising troubles and you have billionaires all over the airwaves after getting in only months before Iowa. So emphasizing one state so heavily doesn't minimize spending.

I would rather see a multistage national primary. No delegates. No individual states. No Super Tuesday. Three national elections.

One election in March to narrow the field to everyone who gets over 5%. If this only leaves one or two candidates, skip the next primary.

One election in May to narrow the field from the 5% threshold to two (if necessary).

One election in June to pick the winner.
Click to expand...

and in the darkness bind them
 
PhDeac said:
Go for it.
Click to expand...

There aren't as many "lanes" as people like to think. There's really Sanders, Warren, and Biden, and people trying to thread the needle between these three lanes have not succeeded. People like Biden because they think he can win (not because they like his policies). People like Bernie because they like his policies (not because they like him or think he can win). Warren fans like her "plans" messaging, it plays to a return to normalcy, meritocratic/bureaucratic approach.

Booker didn't have anything distinguishing about his approach; his lane was closest to Warren's but without such a standout team. Warren's team has stumbled a lot lately though with her poll numbers looking less good, I'm sad to say.
 
That's a good take. I largely agree with that.

My take on Booker is that he's a Cheerleader. He's likable and he can help rally people, but the Dem base right now isn't interested in a cheerleader taking on Trump. Hopefully Booker will be active on the trail stumping for Dems up and down the ballot.

For the record, Biden is the Statesman, Warren is the Wonk, Bernie is the Activist. Those archetypes represent where Dems are now. Obama uniquely crossed over all three. Those three get weird if they try to cross lanes.
 
That's a good typology, Ph. Booker was great on the campaign trail in 2016. I would expect to see him out again in 2020. I've never been a Booker fan, but it's kind of a shame to see a guy who has patiently paid his dues to the Democratic Party for almost a decade at this point just get obliterated - largely, in silence - in the last two election. Democrats should probably value candidates like Booker over flavors of the month like Buttigieg and O'Rourke in large party because Booker is far more valuable to the broader Democratic Party apparatus than those guys, but we're never going to solve that dilemma here...
 
another thing about Booker is that it feels like he's been angling to be President for like 10 years and that he's driven more by personal ambition than by any core values
 
It may be true, juice, but he does a lot of campaign work for national and down ballot candidates. He doesn't really have a message, but stands out from the selfish brigade by doing a lot of good work for the DNC at the institutional and grassroots levels.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
another thing about Booker is that it feels like he's been angling to be President for like 10 years and that he's driven more by personal ambition than by any core values
Click to expand...

But we could have had Rosario Dawson as First Old Lady.
 
Booker also feels like he's been doing that because he was arguably the first candidate to really make use of "new media" forms with Brick City and Street Fight.
 
of course Whatamount is getting sucked into pre-primary tabloid journalism since he is their ideal audience

pure clickbait, folks! eyes on the prize.
 
PhDeac said:
That's a good take. I largely agree with that.

My take on Booker is that he's a Cheerleader. He's likable and he can help rally people, but the Dem base right now isn't interested in a cheerleader taking on Trump. Hopefully Booker will be active on the trail stumping for Dems up and down the ballot.

For the record, Biden is the Statesman, Warren is the Wonk, Bernie is the Activist. Those archetypes represent where Dems are now. Obama uniquely crossed over all three. Those three get weird if they try to cross lanes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the responses. I can buy what you and Townie are saying. So would Booker have been more viable had Biden not hopped in and if he had had a better campaign staff?

Juice, how do you distinguish Booker from Hillary or Biden? Hillary was angling to be prez for 16 years and Biden off and on for 30 years - hell, Hillary even abandoned her former free trade self when she thought it politically expedient in 2016, evidencing her lack of core values.

And what do we make of Warren's dip in the polls over the last month? Are we scared of nominating another woman, or is the dip more subatantive (for instance, health care waffling)? And how come our top 3 are all in their 70s - is that incidental or do we somehow want an old nominee?
 
Strickland33 said:
of course Whatamount is getting sucked into pre-primary tabloid journalism since he is their ideal audience

pure clickbait, folks! eyes on the prize.
Click to expand...

I mean I just said this seems like a huge meh. If that’s getting sucked in tabloid journalism (CNN) then ok whatever.

Awfully defensive over there tho.
 
cville deac said:
Juice, how do you distinguish Booker from Hillary or Biden? Hillary was angling to be prez for 16 years and Biden off and on for 30 years - hell, Hillary even abandoned her former free trade self when she thought it politically expedient in 2016, evidencing her lack of core values.
Click to expand...

no big distinction, but I guess the key difference is that Booker felt like he was angling for President back when he was mayor of Newark based on the types of speeches he was giving, etc. Biden and Hillary are a little more exempt from this judgement due to the fact that they've spent more time in Washington along the way and they "paid their dues" and gained more experience along the way

Pete is probably more similar to Booker in some regard, he's just skipping more steps

but ultimately, not a terribly important distinction unless you value Washington experience
 
cville deac said:
Thanks for the responses. I can buy what you and Townie are saying. So would Booker have been more viable had Biden not hopped in and if he had had a better campaign staff?

Juice, how do you distinguish Booker from Hillary or Biden? Hillary was angling to be prez for 16 years and Biden off and on for 30 years - hell, Hillary even abandoned her former free trade self when she thought it politically expedient in 2016, evidencing her lack of core values.

And what do we make of Warren's dip in the polls over the last month? Are we scared of nominating another woman, or is the dip more subatantive (for instance, health care waffling)? And how come our top 3 are all in their 70s - is that incidental or do we somehow want an old nominee?
Click to expand...

I definitely don't pretend to be an expert on viability but I do know quite a bit about who staffs whose campaigns. The Hillary and Obama staffers went to Kamala and Pete's teams, generally speaking. Those campaigns have been run poorly and decently, respectively. Pete hiring Lis Smith is kind of analogous to Obama hiring Rahm. The DNC and DCCC tend to advise their candidates that you need an attack dog type, someone not afraid to get their hands dirty and with a lot of connections and/or knows where the bodies are buried. Sanders's closest version of that is Sirota. Warren doesn't really have one; she's changed strategies from her Senate runs to her Presidential run and gone a lot closer to the Sanders grassroots strategy plus hired maybe the largest policy staff in presidential campaign history.

My take on Warren's dip is that Sanders' ground team is absolutely crushing in the early states and taking some of her support. He has the most volunteers by almost a factor of two. His texting and calling campaigns have gotten a lot of commitments from people in the "never voted before" or "haven't voted in a long time" groups, which no other candidate is going after.

Some of the leaks the past couple weeks that are being made to look like Warren-Sanders infighting smell pretty bad to me like outsider hits from outside either campaign. The debunked leaked script and the CNN piece catafuck posted (really poorly sourced, hasn't gotten a comment OTR from Warren campaign, Sanders campaign issued OTR lengthy denial) should be viewed in terms of who benefits from them the most, and that isn't Sanders or Warren. CNN hasn't treated the Sanders campaign fairly whatsoever, but if we've learned anything from Trump, being slammed by MSM doesn't necessarily mean your campaign is toast. The most nefarious actors within the party are the Neera Tanden thinktank wing who wield way too much influence within the party. The central committees give far too much credence to their outputs, which aren't based in good polling or policy, they're just corporatists with good media ties.

To the last question about these people all being old, I think name recognition is a pretty big part of it, and to varying degrees their experience and records help them with their respective supporters.
 
nah i'm just sick of you stirring the pot for the purposes of start fights on here, Whatamount

ETA: I can't quote posts anymore when I post on the website version of the boards, mods. Whenever I try, it inserts multiple posts that I quoted weeks/months ago. Anybody else having issues with this?
 
Last edited:
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
no big distinction, but I guess the key difference is that Booker felt like he was angling for President back when he was mayor of Newark based on the types of speeches he was giving, etc. Biden and Hillary are a little more exempt from this judgement due to the fact that they've spent more time in Washington along the way and they "paid their dues" and gained more experience along the way

Pete is probably more similar to Booker in some regard, he's just skipping more steps

but ultimately, not a terribly important distinction unless you value Washington experience
Click to expand...


I think Mayor Cory Booker would have been a more attractive candidate for similar reasons I think Mayor Julian Castro would have and I think Mayor Pete is. Establishment Dems haven't done well in the general. There's a real hunger for leaders from outside of Washington. That's why out of all the Presidents in my lifetime, only Bush I spent a lot of time in Washington when he was elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top