So, we can only hope for the best.

If you think about it, that's one reason how the Repubs ended up with the Orange Shitgibbon.

I'd rather have 3-4 really good strong candidates than 20. I'm hoping some drop out before the debates start.

If Warren and Booker aren't getting any traction I doubt if the folks polling behind them have much of a chance.

I see 10 or less on the stage at the first debate.

If Trump had been one of 5 candidates he still would have won, because the other candidates would have been afraid to attack him.

At the risk of getting hammered, I don't think Sanders is a winning candidate. In a sense it really doesn't matter what the policies of the candidate actually is, anything that will be accomplished will be part of an overall negotiation.

Probably Biden, Sanders, Harris, and a dark horse will come out of Super Tuesday. Folks seem to be trying on the flavor of the day right now for that dark horse.

Lots of time until Iowa and New Hampshire to the landscape to change.

agree, and it's not because I don't support his ideas/ideology... I don't think he can win and even if he did, he wouldn't be the best thing for the Country right now

In a "field election" where you have a large number of candidates, the "most different" wins since, yes, similarity divides votes.

How do you feel about superdelegates?

I'm not too sure about that. I really don't consider our candidates as extreme. Sanders is even outflanked by Warren and I don't hear people calling her extreme. Sanders just gets a certain oppositional niche to show up because he trashes the party and they love it. I don't think it's going to work for him. It's pretty stunning how far his numbers have fallen from previous support. It's clear people are looking at other candidates. Then look at Harris. She is polling neck and neck with Sanders in some states where she has extremely low name recognition. Sanders is at a saturation point in those states and has lost enormous support.

Let the chips fall where they fall. If we end up with Sanders we will lose in the general. Lesson learned. I still don't think Trump will drive more people to the polls than he did last time. We can still have modest gains in congress.

(which is what voting is), instead of viewing this as a desparate time in history. We MUST put forward someone who can beat trump. I like Bernie but I don’t think he can beat potatohead. He will be labeled a socialist, and the game will be over. IMHO

what's your alternative?

and who we end up with, is who will win. If we can vote, and our votes are counted, we win.

In 2016 when the party choose Hillary Clinton as the nominee, wasn't she the best of the party? Sound like you want to run another candidate similar to her to challenge Trump in 2020. We all know what happened in the General. Why would you want to repeat that?

an historically large field. What happens is that votes get very split, and oddball results can ensue. I predict that unless we can get a bunch of candidates to drop out after the early races,* we will have a brokered convention, since no candidate will be able to gain the requisite number of delegates to gain the nomination. There will have to be horse trading and/or superdelegate intervention. A mess.

* The problem with this (as we unhappily learned in 2016), is that candidates who have no path to full victory can still obstinately stay in the race if they manage to raise a bunch of money from their supporters. Why is this a problem? Because such supporter blocs do not represent the larger body of Democratic voters.

See this article, with explanatory graphics, from today's NYT, which shows what kinds and numbers of people actually donate to Democratic campaigns. It's fascinating:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/08/upshot/democratic-electorate-twitter-real-life.html

What is wrong in staying in the race until the convention? Whoever the supporters of Candidate A is still part of the party, allowing them to follow their candidate until the convention should make them feel more of the process. Their candidate lost this time, it's a learning experience. Maybe next time. They are all democrats or democratic leaning. Shutting them out of the process to me does more harm.

I do agree that the more candidates you have the chances of it going to a brokered convention might be greater, but it's been decades since we had one of those. Some of the choices that came out of a brokered convention turned out to be some our greatest presidents.

I think it may be a point of view. I think the Democrats should be a big tent party, with room for everyone - so the more the more points of views to consider. How is that bad? More choice. A coalition is how one will win elections in the future. The time of the majority white electorate is coming to an end.

The NYT's article cited focuses on the "new" left and their apparent makeup on social media. However, come the primary they have only one vote. So the Democrats that show up to vote is a representation of the full party and hopefully will choose wisely.

nominated. Hillary beat tRump in 2016 even with a large number of Dems sitting out the election. Our nominee will beat him again -- but we also need to win the EC.

If we get every registered Democrat to pledge to vote and vote for our party's nominee, we should be able to do that.

In my mind, there's no question some of Trump's 2016 voters will abandon him in 2020. He cannot win with only 40% of all voters supporting him provided we get out every possible Democratic vote.

We need a massive pledge to vote D in 2020 campaign.

I got a post deleted two days ago, it was about comments on a certain Senator's charisma (or lack thereof) and before my post disappeared, I was blasted as being sexist. Because of the deleted post, I was not able to respond that other female candidates did not strike me as being possibly unlikable in the same way as the one I commented on.

We will have a LOT of ill feelings to have to swallow in November 2020, I'm afraid.

The Dems who are committed to voting for a woman have 3 good choices taking away the leverage of combined support for 1 woman candidate. A poll showing Biden leading Harris in CA is really bad news if that holds throughout the campaign.

that Sen. Harris and Sen. Klobuchar do have some charisma, but you are right. Hillary's vote is split between "someone who can win" (aka Biden) and the three top female candidates. It's a sad year for getting a woman President.

Harris was never going to dominate the California primary. I have no idea where that idea ever came from. It was a sloppy conclusion. She simply hasn't been prominent long enough and showed some weakness in her senate win, like losing the Hispanic vote despite winning by 23 points overall.

There are two candidates who will very easily wipe the floor with Trump with moderates...Biden and Beto. Those are also the two that are most frequently attacked by the right and twitter bots/ social media trolls.

To beat Trump the nominee MUST:

-Be more charismatic than Trump.
-NOT scare off moderates.
-Be genuine.
-Connect with voters.
-Able to unite people.
-Able to respond to tough questions about controversial issues with confidence, honesty and on the fly.

There are only two candidates that really fit those necessary qualities and Democrats have been talked into attacking one and ignoring the other. Democrats have got to stop doing the work for the Republicans.

Beto at this point.

Charisma is in the eyes of the beholder. Some people see being simple-minded, speaking in simple words and using humor as charismatic and genuine, e.g., Reagan and tRump. Biden has that ability, but I'm not convinced that Beto comes across to most as genuine. We'll see.

In such a crowded field with so many marginal 1% - 2% candidates if Biden doesn't get in the race I see us getting to the convention with no candidate having enough delegates for a win and Bernie in the lead. He had this scenario in mind when he pushed for a reduction in the number of Super Delegates. Biden taking his time to declare hasn't hurt him at all. It's looking like a smart play right now.

put our minor differences aside and choose the candidate with the best chance to defeat Trump. It doesn’t matter if a candidate isn’t your number 1 preferred candidate, if he or she will have the best chance to defeat Trump that’s who needs to be nominee. Getting that man out of office is goal number 1!

It's dangerous to even try to figure it out. Maybe you think you know, but why does that fact alone mean my candidate isn't better?

it’s ok for everyone to have their preferred candidate obviously. But as we get closer, polls and positive and negative news stories will begin to paint a clearer picture of who our candidate needs to be to give us the best chance to beat Trump.

only chance.

or are unsure, including 90% of DU. Biden will get a bump when he announces, but a year is a long time in politics.

Had we considered that any candidate must be able to win a general.

It is a stand in for most moderate, least objectionable, or best resume or some other characteristic thought to be appealing to rational general voters. But you can't read other people's minds, especially people who are perpetually uncertain about who they will vote for. Also votes are emotional as much or more than rational.

In a crowded field, it is in fact the one who stands out, who inspires the most emotional response who will win and is therefore the most "electable."

Which exactly how Trump won and how we will too. It probably won't be Biden, because he is seen as safe rather than inspiring.

Best progressive who ever lived and not be electable.

In this case you seem to be saying the candidate should be a moderate because of the assumption that voters want that. But how do you know that's what they want? And what if I think voters want something else? Then we both pick "electable" candidates who could be very different from each other.

If we don't rebuild the blue wall Trump wins the electoral college. Look at the electoral Map. If we don't run a moderate who appeals to the rustbelt, we lose.

In fact, I've in some of the crappiest places in this country. And you are still making the assumption that these people vote ideologically and that they are ideologically moderate, as opposed to simply looking for solutions that meet their needs regardless of ideology. Or perhaps they just want a dynamic inspirational candidate.

The mere fact that their factory towns are dead does not mean they will automatically vote for an old white moderate from Pennsylvania. Yet that's what the electibility argument seems to assume.

Biden was born in Pennsylvania and has Good rapport with unions. If we want to win,we rebuild the blue wall. Look at who is elected statewide and who won the house...moderates can win.

In 2004, under somewhat similar (but not the same, of course there were differences!) circumstances, we elected Kerry because of percieved electability, but that didn't work.

In 2016, our moderate candidate lost. Meanwhile the very progressive Sherrod Brown won in Ohio.

I agree that moderates CAN win, but I don't agree that it MUST be a moderate. Rather I look for someone who can speak to their issues, and several candidates qualify under this criteria. But then several other characteristics can come into play that make them more or less suitable than Biden.

In this approach, we are looking at everything the candidate has to offer or should do, rather than just making implicit assumptions about what those voters "must" think.

I like Biden but this is why I support him.

His main weakness is that his strategy and communication style don't seem to be made for the current era, so he will be skewered in the media.

This is why I support Buttigieg. He understands modern media better than any other candidate, and this is how he has gone from virtually unknown to a hot ticket in a short time. If I'm right, this isn't a fluke and his support will continue to grow.

You could be right and he is our best chance, but there is rarely a sure thing in politics either way.

If our country is so far gone that people will automatically vote for Trump over any other Democrat regardless of positions or abilities, qthen the most Biden could do in office is hold off the inevitable. We will go through 4 or 8 more years of paralysis and division, then Republicans will run a smarter version of Trump and kill off the Republic forever.

As a socislist... maybe Ryan...I can't think of anyone else...Nope if Biden isn't the nominee, we lose.

but you will argue that there is something wrong with all of them. What's the point? To prove which of us has the better crystal ball? Or which of us is better at reading the minds of millions of people we've never met?

And it's very unfair to take this attitude. If the candidate is anyone but Biden and that person loses, you will argue you were right all along. If it's Biden and he loses, you will argue that everyone else would have done worse, so you were still right. Of course, Sanders supporters and Harris supporters will do the same thing. In fact, Sanders supporters are still arguing about 2016.

And I have reasons to believe Buttigieg is our best shot. I'd rather convince you of that based on what is knowable as of today than pretend I have a crystal ball and I know for certain Biden would lose.

If you can know the political future with such certainty, I suggest you get off DU and make millions as a political consultant.

Nobody is perfect. Why does one pwrson's flaws doom them, while another person's flaws are irrelevant?

With help from the Russians caused our losses by refusing to vote for the nominee.. And Trump offered policy that appealed to the rustbelt ... a region we took for granted. A moderate didn't lose ( and Hillary was no moderate).

A populist who lied and promised to bring back manufacturing won in three key states. Look at the electoral map. I warned last time that a Democratic message that the jobs are not coming back was a bad message for us. I still thought we could win. I was wrong. And we lose this one too if we don't target the rustbelt with a message of hope and then follow through with policy when we win.

A left left progressive has no chance of winning in the rustbelt which means Trump wins if we nominate such a person ...and let's geographically balance the ticket while we are at it. We can win but not if we refuse to be realistic about how we win.

They will vote for moderates.

And until we learn that, we will struggle to win statewide or nationally. People want to believe that progressives can win red or even purple states, but they won't because they don't speak the same language. No one will listen to them or believe them. Run candidates who can win in a district ,statewide or nationally. Tailor candidates to their states ideologically and geographically.

And please stop believing progressives can win over such voters. They can't. Given an effort at the grass roots level we can begin to do that...make our case, but not now in statewide or national elctions. Dean's 50 state strategy was the most successful strategy ever used by Democrats.

I wish he had decided to run, but he didn't. I find Buttigieg speaks to their issues and in understandable form in a non-ideological package.

Dean was a progressive who lost to the "electable" Kerry, who was painted as out of touch left wing nut liar. Dean might have done better as a progressive just be his willingness to chase down every last vote wherever it was.


Something like that could happen to Biden. He could be painted a socialist even though he isn't. They've already announced this strategy. What his answer? Buttigieg has an answer already.

My assumption is simply that broad ideological classification matters less than other factors not that it makes no difference at all.

Working people...isn't for MFA for example or taking down banks...he has earned credibility. I doubt a first time progressive candidate could win.

If you don't see that, and many people in the midwest don't, it's not your progressivism that's a problem, but where you put your emphasis.

Brown is in fact very critical of banks and wants more regulation of them.

He also is somewhat to the right of the party for economic reasons, rather than racist reasons. No current candidate has picked up on this, but someone needs to, or we risk losing again, even with Biden.

I live in Ohio. Trumps popularity is slipping....with a candidate the rustbelt can support, we win. If we run someone who isn't supported, we lose.

supported as VP and Senator?

He was great on trade and helped President. Obama on the issue as VP nominee.



'He gives a strong message of real enforcement, with many great fair trade quotes. "I used to be a free trader, but have moved to being a fair trader because this administration does not enforce regulations . . . . Just apply the rules that apply to us." Also: "They need our market more than we need their T-Bills." Some downsides: "NAFTA created more jobs for us than we lost, but . . . we need free and fair trade."

His Voting Record:

Since the beginning of the Bush administration, Biden has cast several important votes against the free trade
status quo model, including opposition to CAFTA:

2003: voted against Singapore FTA
2003: voted against Chile FTA
2005: voted against Dominican DR-CAFTA
2006: voted against Oman FTA'

But he won't be the only one advocating fair trade over free trade. He will be the only who has to explain his changed position because of his long record. Clinton had the same handicap.

There's a lot of pent up energy to oust Trump and his whole enterprise. And, I'm confident that no vote will be taken for granted as they seem to have been in 2016.

And, we need to run a strong field of candidates in local races so we capture more statehouse seats.

You might very well be right but I'm not seeing a way around it.

..hell any of them would make great prez...whomever we choose, if we ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL stand up and support that person, then their strength to be the perfect candidate will come from us. And we will prevail.

We have what reoublicans did not. The dominant base of our party consist of rational, sane voters.

As long as African American voters show up in primaries, Bernie won't win. The exception will be if AA don't show up in sufficient numbers and people that are dreamers with dreams detached from hard realities show up and distort the result.

We need someone who can win.

My fear is the opposite. My fear is our party will prop up another candidate that can't win and we'll be stuck with Trump for another 4 years. Then when that candidate loses, everyone but the candidate themselves will be blamed, but most of all Bernie.

to me. If we lose we are fucked. We rebuild the blue wall or we lose. Biden can do that ... Sanders can't.

and in that case, then yes, Bernie SHOULD get most of the blame.

People will vote for the candidate they like best or the one they think has the best chance of winning. What other system of selecting a nominee do you thing would be better?

This is how we choose our party's nominee. If you think it is a poor system, how about recommending a replacement and explaining why it would produce better results? I'll wait here.

There is no evidence that the modern primary system produces better candidates and Trump is evidence that it can produce dangerous populists.

If we must have a primary, I would prefer a national mail-in primary using instant run off voting, say picking your top 1 through 5.

in a small way for many, many years, I'm not really a fan of machine politics. I consider Donald Trump to be an anomaly, rather than a result of popular choice of party nominees. I suspect we have learned a valuable lesson because of him. I sure hope so, anyhow.

I think the "shotgun start" of the 2020 primary season, with a very large field of presidency seekers, is interesting. It's similar to what happened to the Republicans in the 2016 cycle. I think Democrats will do a better job of winnowing out the chaff in this round.

I think we're going to end up with a solid, stable nominee when the whole thing is over, and a capable, independent VP nominee. I think people are going to recognize what a horrible mistake was made in 2016 and show up to point that out with their votes.

I'm not all that concerned, to tell the truth, about the Democratic nominee. I think I know who it will be, and am supporting that person. But, however it turns out, I will be working my ass off, as much as I'm able to, with this goal:

VOTE HIM OUT!

I can almost guarantee that process would have preferred Gwen Graham over Andrew Gillum here in Florida. We turned a victory into a defeat.

Party insiders have a more logical view of what type of candidate is needed depending on the district or state, or landscape. Right now the more liberal wing has blinders on like a racehorse and is determined to force nominees where they don't fit. Heck, I saw a Joe Mancin thread in General Discussion with posters emphasizing that West Virginia would be better served with a progressive senator.

Yeah, if you can figure out how to be better served by a candidate who loses by 30 points in November.

If we nominate another liberal firebrand with no experience like we did in 2016 we will lose again!!

What's that you say?

We what?

We did?

Huh........how about that.

All one has to do is look at the electoral college map, to see that a liberal firebrand has no chance in a center left country.

I don't care about Sanders at all. But if everyone on here is going to be saying that we need to nominate a moderate/centrist or that we need to have someone with experience without then looking at 2016 (when we had a moderate candidate with plenty of experience).

I wish people would just be honest and say what they mean which is that we need to nominate a straight white guy to appease the bigots in the midwest/south.

I do agree with you to a point, but candidates will probably be weeded out quickly. That being said, I do not at all think Bernie is capable of beating Trump. Perhaps I am jaded by living in a very red state.

Might remind us that desperate times may not call for moderate leaders.