Dems would do well to focus on, not only turning out the current batch of registered voters, but bringing new voters into the mix. Depending on who’s numbers you use, there were ~90 million people who were eligible to vote and didn’t in at least the last two presidential elections. With the right effort if the dems could get even 5-10% of those people registered and voting that’s 4.5-9 million new voters. Hopefully some of those non-voters now see just how much the president and congress can screw with your life, they might actually get off their asses and vote.
2020 Democrats
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
Dems would do well to focus on, not only turning out the current batch of registered voters, but bringing new voters into the mix. Depending on who’s numbers you use, there were ~90 million people who were eligible to vote and didn’t in at least the last two presidential elections. With the right effort if the dems could get even 5-10% of those people registered and voting that’s 4.5-9 million new voters. Hopefully some of those non-voters now see just how much the president and congress can screw with your life, they might actually get off their asses and vote.
The Nation published its 2017 Progressive Hall of Fame.
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-2017-progressive-honor-roll/
Have a look. If THIS is the progressive hall of fame, how could any moderate ever break into contention for the Democrat nomination. Look at the voice of progressivism's own list. From a moderate center position, you can't see that far left with high powered binoculars.
My two cents..
Joe was my preferred 2016 candidate. I think had he run, he would have won the nomination and the general election rather easily. With that said, I think the party already has an age problem and I don't think someone of his age would be the best face for the Democratic Party in 2020 and beyond. So, my list, sans Joe, would be, in no particular order, as follows:
Joe was my preferred 2016 candidate. I think had he run, he would have won the nomination and the general election rather easily. With that said, I think the party already has an age problem and I don't think someone of his age would be the best face for the Democratic Party in 2020 and beyond. So, my list, sans Joe, would be, in no particular order, as follows:
- Eric Garcetti: He's young, attractive, a relatively good orator. He's also Hispanic, which could work to his benefit within a party that seems ready to move beyond white male candidates. I also think Democrats would be wise to look beyond the Congress for their candidate in 2020, which would be a plus for him. However, not sure he'll be able to gain enough attention to become a viable contender as his name recognition will lag far behind many of the other potential nominees.
- Jeff Merkley: Good experience. Solid progressive credentials without having done or said anything to alienate other portions of the electorate (something that could hinder other candidates such as Elizabeth Warren, imo). He endorsed Bernie in 2016 so that could allow him to attract his supporters going forward if Bernie elects not to run again. Like Garcetti, not sure he'd be able to attract enough attention to raise his relatively low name recognition. Also, not the best orator.
- Jeff Hickenlooper: Good governor. Coming from outside of Washington. Relatively moderate. Low name recognition. Not very exciting.
- Terry McAuliffe: Has also been a good governor, imo. Middle of the road liberal. Some of his actions, such as his executive orders restoring voting rights, could appeal to the party base. Close Clinton ties could be a liability.
- Kirsten Gillibrand: It seems clear that she has to be one of the favorites. Clearly running. Able to attract lots of media attention. Solid liberal credentials since she got into the Senate. She's been a leader on women's issues, especially with regard to sexual assault. Has also been the anti-Trump senator, voting against even the most uncontroversial of his nominees. Not sure the party is ready to nominate another woman from New York, but we will see.
- Amy Klobuchar: She checks off a lot of the boxes that Gillibrand does, without the potential New York baggage. Midwestern credentials, which could be key as the party seeks to win back the Rust Belt. Not as charismatic as Gillibrand, but she still does pretty well in interviews and other media appearances. Might not be liberal enough to appease the base and not sure how her record as a prosecutor would play with criminal justice reform voters.
- Kamala Harris: See above, without the mideastern appeal and less of a track record to run on.
Ima hep you out.The Nation, a reliably extreme left publication, published yesterday or so their 2017 progressive Hall of Fame. - Got that so far?
Those are the selected leaders and voices adored by the progressive left. Still with me?
A poster above mentioned a Massachusetts Congressman as a good moderate candidate. (You read all post, right)?
I noticed that no moderate could ever be found on any list that Progressives appreciate. You still there?
So, I posted it the link to the list of the Progressive Hall of Fame for purposes of comparing those leftists with the suggested Massachusetts moderate ANOTHER poster suggested to show how very far they are from even a Democrat Congressman called a moderate. No one was talking to you were they?
I assumed you were talking to me, since it was my post you were responding to. Do you get that?
Your post still doesn't make any sense. An article about who The Nation thinks are the progressive stars for the year has practically (literally?) no bearing on what kind of candidate the Democrats might nominate in 2020. It sounds like you were just taking the opportunity to remind us how much you despise leftists.
the Dem party will want their moneyed interests' donors' pick as the candidate in 2020, (as with Hilary in 2016).
working class liberal voters will want someone other that a Wall St shill who's only liberal on social issues.
should be interesting to see how long the machine can dominate over the people.
being old, i've learned not to overestimate the insight of voters.
so many on both sides are still blind sheep, and will always be.
working class liberal voters will want someone other that a Wall St shill who's only liberal on social issues.
should be interesting to see how long the machine can dominate over the people.
being old, i've learned not to overestimate the insight of voters.
so many on both sides are still blind sheep, and will always be.
Yeah, I suppose that John Hickenlooper guy does have a bit of a problem with name recognition .....
Roll a moderate Dem or even Joe Manchin as a candidate in the Democrat primaries. Every Democratic Leader on that list would instantly attack them as not progressive enough and bring down the wrath of the entire party, maybe not too visible but effective enough to control who becomes the nominee - just like the fix in 2016. The Dems, because of their support groups, are not ever going to let a moderate be nominated.
I had thought the Trump health issues would be his downfall. Apparently fat unhealthy men live longer than expected. His dad lived to 93. Clearly his mind and teeth are gone but the fat ass probably has another 15-20 years. I see a second term if the Dems serve up another turd sandwich like Hillary. I like Bernie but he is way too old and not even a Democrat. I would like to see someone like Buttigieg. Cool name and far more qualified than Trump.
Wrong person. Besides, qualification is not the primary criteria to become the president of the US. Remember we just elected Donald Trump!I would like to see someone like Buttigieg. Cool name and far more qualified than Trump.
1) The name is too long. I posted earlier that a man with a long name cannot be elected in the US. To get elected, s/he must get some votes away from Tump. I don't think they are patient enough to pronounce his name.
2) His name Buttigieg will be the butt of a joke.
Booty Judge? Dude? That is a plus.Wrong person. Besides, qualification is not the primary criteria to become the president of the US. Remember we just elected Donald Trump!
1) The name is too long. I posted earlier that a man with a long name cannot be elected in the US. To get elected, s/he must get some votes away from Tump. I don't think they are patient enough to pronounce his name.
2) His name Buttigieg will be the butt of a joke.
Good run down. Only thing is that do you think Jerry Brown is interested? I haven't looked it up but I think he's already almost 80 years old. I don't think we want to elect a guy that old to be President and I don't know why a guy that old would want to do it. Maybe if he was 60 he would be a great candidate.
I would like someone who's going to be under 60 in 2020 who sounds authentic when they talk, likable and can connect to voters. Needs to be clean without political scandals and comfortable in their own skin on the campaign trail.
That's my basic list.
We will see some people emerge out of nowhere and be much stronger candidates than you expect and some will flounder out of the gate but become polished by the time the Iowa caucuses start.
That's my basic list.
We will see some people emerge out of nowhere and be much stronger candidates than you expect and some will flounder out of the gate but become polished by the time the Iowa caucuses start.
If NC can't get their shit together, the court is going to end up drawing the map itself.
EDIT:
Never mind, this is partisan, not racial, gerrymandering. Going to end up in SCOTUS.
Here's how badly North Carolina is gerrymandered.
2016, GOP won 53% of the vote, 77% of seats
2014, GOP won 55% of the vote, 77% of seats
2012, GOP won 49% of the vote, 69% of seats
Yes, in 2012, the Democrats actually won a majority of the votes cast, but only 4 out of 13 seats.
2016, GOP won 53% of the vote, 77% of seats
2014, GOP won 55% of the vote, 77% of seats
2012, GOP won 49% of the vote, 69% of seats
Yes, in 2012, the Democrats actually won a majority of the votes cast, but only 4 out of 13 seats.
Wow! And all the talk about fraudulent votes when this big elephant in the room....
Is NC the worst of the lot? And how do you see the SOCTUS deciding on this?
By default, I think SCOTUS rules in favor of states in cases where the only claim of gerrymandering is on a partisan basis, because that's where the case law leads me. However...
SCOTUS has never shut the door on banning partisan gerrymandering. They have instead said that, if a proper objective measure can be developed, they might be able to overrule maps on that basis. The relatively new Efficiency Gap measure may be exactly what they are looking for. Specifically, it may be exactly what Kennedy is looking for, as he has previously hinted that he was hunting for a viable way to ban partisan gerrymandering. I think the states are favored, but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS rules 5-4 against them, based on the use of the Efficiency Gap method.
Doesn’t SCOTUS only look at gerrymandering’s effect on racial representation? I don’t think any court has said districts must be politically competitive.
They have refused to overturn maps on a purely partisan basis in the past, but only because they were not presented with a viable method for measuring partisan bias in such cases. Kennedy specifically seemed very interested in the possibility of finding such a method in the future. So it's still an open question.
@CO. Hoosier
Check out this case: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1580
I think that best illustrates where Kennedy is, and why this is an edge-of-the-blade issue. Key line as to why he didn't join the opinion of the court: "That no such standard has emerged in this case should not be taken to prove that none will emerge in the future. Where important rights are involved, the impossibility of full analytical satisfaction is reason to err on the side of caution."
Check out this case: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1580
I think that best illustrates where Kennedy is, and why this is an edge-of-the-blade issue. Key line as to why he didn't join the opinion of the court: "That no such standard has emerged in this case should not be taken to prove that none will emerge in the future. Where important rights are involved, the impossibility of full analytical satisfaction is reason to err on the side of caution."
You, and maybe Kennedy, (I haven’t read what he has to say) are begging the question. I don’t think equal protection has ever been extended to protecting political competitiveness. I have done a little work on this in Colorado and while I think the Colorado supremes have considered competitiveness under our process, as far as I know, the only federal constitutional protection is about making sure minorities get a fair shake.
Acknowledged. I just cross-posted while you did with a link to the relevant case. Read Kennedy's opinion when you have time. If he accepts the mew method, the liberals are certain to join with him, which is why this is still an open question.
That’s an awfully bold claim. 2016 proved character is low on the totem pole for both parties.
Try responding to the entire post and not just the first four words.
