U.S. Democratic Primary

[iNow]

Normal growing pains. They also have more options and other opportunities this time with other campaigns that were lacking last time. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

....so no one? 

I said they rushed to judge. I didn't say their error was directed at a specific person.

It was asked if it would hurt them. My stance is not for the Primaries with Democrats but possibly beyond that with others.

Does that not seem possible?

Personally I don't think it is a big deal on it's own. Smollett sucked them into it. I'm not saying that any hurt it may cause them would be fully deserved.

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Personally I don't think it is a big deal on it's own

So, we agree, and now I wonder... given that it's not a big deal... why we've just gone back and forth for 2 pages of thread discussing it.

#squirrel!  #weaponsofmassdistraction

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

So, we agree, and now I wonder... given that it's not a big deal... why we've just gone back and forth for 2 pages of thread discussing it.

#squirrel!  #weaponsofmassdistraction

I think it's because I took the extreme view that it wouldn't hurt Booker and Harris with Democrats, that Republicans would make more of it than it really deserved, and that Harris and Booker might learn something from it...a totally preposterous position even if exactly true (though I claim it as opinions not facts) given that hate crimes of the alt right are on the rise, and Trump does much worse than what Harris and Booker did, and on a much more regular basis (both of which pretty much everyone agrees with).

Edited February 27, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

There are other candidates I didn't even realize, one of whom has already withdrawn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Other_declared_candidates_and_exploratory_committees

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

There are other candidates I didn't even realize, one of whom has already withdrawn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Other_declared_candidates_and_exploratory_committees

I am familiar with Yang. He openly acknowledges he is running to raise awareness of key issues and doesn't expect to be the nominee. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I am familiar with Yang. He openly acknowledges he is running to raise awareness of key issues and doesn't expect to be the nominee. 

I'm not, but if a lady named Yin runs, he'd make a great running mate...

...and I'll see myself out...

[iNow]

Rimshot 

[MigL]

Exactly how many are in the running now ?
And, if too many,  do they risk 'diluting' the message ?
Would it be better to have just a few 'strong' candidates, or a lot, with differing agendas ?

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Exactly how many are in the running now ?

I believe 15. Scroll slightly upward via the link I shared above to confirm 

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

And, if too many,  do they risk 'diluting' the message ?
Would it be better to have just a few 'strong' candidates, or a lot, with differing agendas ?

 

[MigL]

Nice link INow.
Didn't think Wiki would have an entry listing all candidates already.

[iNow]

On the how many is too many question, hard to say.

You don’t want them all sniping at each other in the primary and doing all the work of their opponent in the election itself.

You also want to ensure each have enough time to be heard and have their views considered and voter decisions informed. But with so many, none will get more than 60-90 seconds on stage during debates. 

A mix of ideas is good, but in the end priority one is to beat Trump. 

By this time next year, we’ll know who the top 2 or 3 valid contenders really are. 

Edited February 28, 2019 by iNow

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

By this time next year, we’ll know who the top 2 or 3 valid contenders really are. 

I think Harris, Warren, Booker, and Sanders are the only current candidates with a shot. Everyone else is running for VP, a cabinet position, or to promote something. 

Trump was considered a long shot so there is an argument that long shots can win. However Trump got wall to wall press. Alone his campaign eclipse all other Republican primary contenders put together. As it currently stands no one in the Democratic field has that ability to capture headlines which diminishes the chances of a dark horse gaining steam. 

[iNow]

Jay Inslee, governor from the state of Washington, has just entered the primary. His main issue focus will be climate change.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Jay Inslee, governor from the state of Washington, has just entered the primary. His main issue focus will be climate change.

Finally someone who wants to do something about climate change...about time 

[iNow]

Pete Buttigieg has already spoken out on this and he entered the race a few weeks ago

[Ten oz]

It is unfortunate that so many people are choosing to run in my opinion. I don't really understand the point beyond self promotion. Assuming one cares about climate change, healthcare reform, college debt, and etc, etc the most important thing should be to see like minded individuals in office. That will only be accomplished in a coordinated manner. The President isn't a King. It takes controlling seats all over the country to enact policy. That is the whole reason parties exist in the first place. 

It seems some politicians conflate awareness with impact. I view it as problematic. Take Bernie Sanders for example. His uncompromising (uncooperative and unhelpful) approach in 2016 elevated the awareness of his policy positions. Some would argue that in 2020 Democrats will adopt some of those positions to campaign on because they were so popular. The problem though is that Bernie Sanders was a contributing factor to Trump winning in 2016. Democrats losing in 2016 had a negative impact on the very policies Bernie Sanders successful rose the awareness of. So while Bernie Sanders may beat his chest the awareness his impact has be terrible. 

The goal of any Democrat running needs to be that a Democrat wins. In coordination with other Democrats in Congress, Governors, state legislatures, Mayors, and so forth ANY Democratic President will tackle issues like Climate Change, Education, Healthcare, Immigration, and etc is a more progressive manner (relative to Democratic voters). Likewise with Republicans. None of the establishment want Trump but they have rallied behind him understanding that having a fellow Republican in office is better for there policy goals. If that isn't a candidates goal they should run as an independent. The system allows for independents. One doesn't need to hijack a Party's Primary to run for POTUS. 

I view having many candidates running and raising awareness of key issues in micro vs macro terms. Candidates who may not have much of a chance to win the nomination but are from Red States or key battleground states are helpful. A candidate like Julian Castro in Texas, Pete Buttigieg in Indiana,  and Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota  can help raise awareness of the Democratic platform in Red States and get people interested. I think Democrats need Candidates in places like Texas, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Georgia and etc to raise awareness. Castro, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg are good for the Democratic Primary. Provided they remain team players through the whole process of course. 

On the flip side I think Candidates who may not have much of a chance to win the nomination from solidly blue states John Delay of New Jersey, Tulsi Gabbard of HI, Kirsten Gillibrand of NY,  and Jay Inslee of Washington State are merely raising there own profiles. If they want o help they would all be more useful as allies/surrogates for other Candidates with more promising prospects of winning the nomination. Awareness is already extremely high in these places. 

[iNow]

The issue at play here is Dems need to take the Senate, but many of the strongest senatorial candidates are choosing to run for POTUS and are thus making it easier for the GOP to grab their seats. 

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

The issue at play here is Dems need to take the Senate, but many of the strongest senatorial candidates are choosing to run for POTUS and are thus making it easier for the GOP to grab their seats. 

That need only eliminate one of them, though. They wouldn’t have to step down from the senate until after they won the election, and wouldn’t have to wave off a senatorial run unless they won (or went deep into) the presidential primary.

Warren is up for re-election this cycle, but e.g. Harris and Gillibrand are not.

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

The issue at play here is Dems need to take the Senate, but many of the strongest senatorial candidates are choosing to run for POTUS and are thus making it easier for the GOP to grab their seats. 

Hopefully Abrams runs for Perdue's seat in GA, O'Rourke runs for Cornyn's in TX, and Ojeda  runs in W. VA.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Warren is up for re-election this cycle, but e.g. Harris and Gillibrand are not.

That’s an entirely fair point. It’s not as all or nothing as I suggested. 

[MigL]

That is a 'realistic' objective Ten oz.
Winning the Presidency, which gets rid of D Trump, will no doubt better the country.
But we should not forget that the primary objective of any politician SHOULD BE the betterment of the country and its people, not simply winning elections.
That mindset has soured a lot of Americans ( and Canadians ) on career politicians, who will promise anything to win the election, but then do as they please.
And a little of that particular mindset helped get D Trump elected in the first place.

[Ten oz]

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

That is a 'realistic' objective Ten oz.
Winning the Presidency, which gets rid of D Trump, will no doubt better the country.
But we should not forget that the primary objective of any politician SHOULD BE the betterment of the country and its people, not simply winning elections.
That mindset has soured a lot of Americans ( and Canadians ) on career politicians, who will promise anything to win the election, but then do as they please.
And a little of that particular mindset helped get D Trump elected in the first place.

This goes without saying. Even I am not so anti-Republican that I don't think they (most of them) believe their policies are in the best interest of the country. The Libertarian Party, Green Party, all parties should promote policies they believe a re best for the Country.  That should go without saying in my opinion. Corrupt individuals who use a Party to win office yet don't care an iota for the platform or its impact on the country are the exception. 

My comments were directed towards the Primary. The goal of a successful Primary is to nominate someone who will both best represent the party's platform and has the best chance of winning in the General Election. While some candidates are clearly running to push other candidates one way or another on certain issues and/or to challenge the status quo a bit none should knowingly allow themselves to be distractions. None should allow themselves to become impediments to their party being successful.

If an individual loses faith that a particular Party's platform is not in the best interest of the country they can always change parties, start a new party, or just run as an independent. 

[iNow]

Governor Hickenlooper from Colorado is announcing tomorrow. 

[iNow]

On 1/23/2019 at 6:54 PM, Ten oz said:

From a tactical standpoint I hope Holder runs. I suspect the right would love to pile on and obsess over him. That would provide a window for others to get going prior to fielding full scale attacks. I also think Holder would remind some moderates of how much better things use to be just a couple years ago. Holder is a seasoned veteran at dealing with the rights propaganda and others can learn a thing or two from him if he runs. 

He’s announced that he will not run. Will focus on gerrymandering issue, but not from a perch in the WH

Edited March 4, 2019 by iNow