Agree that Democrats have elected relative moderates, who have run as moderates, since probably Dukakis. That may or may not change this time, but candidates seem to be more showing off their progressive credentials than hiding them now.
My memory of presidential elections goes back to Reagan-Carter. For better or worse, I think at least since then the candidate with more charisma (by default with H.W. vs. Dukakis) has won each time, whether conservative, moderate, or liberal. That may also change this time in a Trump vs. a Democrat to be named later election.
I think it would be interesting to do periodic polls (starting bi-monthly) of people's picks of the Republican nominee, Democrat nominee, and if there will be a significant 3rd party nominee and, if so, who.
Well, MAYBE. The 2016 election was essentially won by less than 100,000 votes (the combined vote difference in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, the 3 states that swung the election), despite running a very vanilla and pretty moderate (and fairly controversial and unpopular) candidate. With changing demographics, I'm not sure that they (the Dems) necessarily need to lean even more centrist to win. Put another way, Trump won only 46.1% of the popular vote in 2016, compared with 47.2% of the popular vote won by Romney in 2012 and 45.7% of the popular vote won by McCain in 2008. Clinton got 48.1% of the popular vote in 2016 compared with 51.1% for Obama in 2012 and 52.9% for Obama in 2008.
But if they (the Dems) are going to go with a more progressive candidate than Clinton was (and she wasn't at all progressive), it's going to have to be someone who can draw out some of the support that Obama got. Because they'll need to inspire the progressives in those Midwest states to come out and vote in 2016.
Now, maybe an argument could be made for a Biden/O'Rourke ticket being a safer bet, sort of splitting the difference between getting a Midwest tough guy to battle with Trump in the swing states and an inspiring progressive as running mate to draw out the progressive vote. Though I'm not sure how much that would do for drawing out the progressive support, in which case you're really hoping that Biden can upgrade the Midwest vote (he'd very likely win Pennsylvania at least) without costing any support elsewhere due to being boring (politically at least, he's entertaining outside of politics) and old.
I can certainly see how a Biden/Beto ticket would be attractive, but I think the odds are against the Dems putting two white males on the ticket. The Democratic party is increasingly dominated by women and minorities and the Dems cannot win the presidency without strong turnout in those two arenas. Unless Trump looks dead in the water thanks to a withering Mueller report, the Dems will likely say there needs to be some kind of representation of minorities or women on the ticket.
-Jason "that's why, if she does not get the nomination, I really like Kamala Harris as VP... she checks both boxes" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
Flip side argument is that if the Dems happen to have white male candidates, it takes away Trump's argument that the election is really a cultural war thing.
Personally, I think the Dems would be best-served by focusing on core competencies instead of what box a candidate checks. A competent, moderate candidate with some charisma and return to normalcy (whoever that is) should be heavily favored against Trump absent some big upswing for him. The further the Democrats stray from that, the greater degree of difficulty they add IMO.
Oh, and economic/trade plans that work for the middle class would be a big plus given the looming bumpy road for 2019.
The VP pick is almost always about finding balance.
- Trump was seen as struggling with evangelicals and true conservatives so he picked a Christian conservative in Pense.
- Hillary was a woman from the Northeast so she took a man from the South in Virginia's Tim Kaine.
- Obama was a young and inexperienced minority so he picked an experienced white Senator in Biden.
- McCain was an old, experienced guy with a moderate reputation so he took a woman that arch conservatives loved in Palin.
- GWBush was seen as young and inexperienced so he took a steady hand who had been around for decades in Cheney.
Heck, other than Romney/Ryan, and Kerry/Edwards (in both cases, there was a 'pick the attractive young fella' thing going on there) we see nothing but balancing picks for VP in the past 20 years of elections. And while Beto is young to Biden's old, I think the sex/race thing is just too important to the Democratic party.
In the 2018 midterms, Dems took 59% of the female vote, 90% of the black vote, and 69% of the Latino vote. Meanwhile, Republicans won white males by 21 points (60-39). How can Dems ignore the folks voting for them to pick two white males? I get having one white dude to mute some of Trump's dog whistle kinda stuff, but two?!?! I just don't see it happening.
-Jason "I think Beto is more likely to be on the ticket than Biden... even if Beto does not get the nom, I think he will be a leading VP choice and he could put Texas really in play" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
I think that the odds of the Mueller report having a major impact on Trump are very slim. Most people already have their opinion formed about him. I keep coming back to his comment about shooting someone on 5th Ave. - it holds very true.
If Biden were to run for President, the VP choice holds extra importance as due to Biden's age, there is a decent chance that if they win, the VP will be running at the top of the ticket in 2024. What box they are looking to check off could matter a lot. Though Harris helps with women and minorities, she does nothing geographically. Beto could help put Texas in play but does nothing for gender or race. VP doesn't have to be locked in until summer 2020 so others could emerge during that time.
I think that the relationship between the more progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic Party is going to be a huge issue. They have to avoid infighting and unify behind an Anyone But Trump/lesser of two evils plan. I think a more moderate candidate, particularly at the top of the ticket, will play better nationally, but the primary process might make that difficult.
No, this was my subtle way of saying I don't think Biden will get the nomination and I think the only white male who has a good shot at it is Beto. I was saying that when Harris or Booker or Gillibrand or whoever does get the nomination, Beto will look like a very attractive running mate.
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
And I would not discount the chance that it is Beto who is picking the running mate. I['m not sure how many of you watched his debates or have seen his speeches -- he is the real deal when it comes to old-time political stumping and speaking.
So maybe Uncle Joe will be VP again, who knows.
But I do think Joe is in the mix, as well as Harris and Klobuchar (if she can get some early traction). I just don't see Booker, Warren or Bernie getting far. Don't know enough about Castro, he was once hyped as the next big thing but Beto may have eclipsed him (and they're both from Texas). Have not seen enough of Gillibrand to judge, although her work in a NY law firm representing Phillip Morris in litigation and ties to Andrew Cuomo is gonna make it hard for her to please any wing of the party it seems to me.
Rich
"Failure is Not a Destination"
Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016
I'm tanned, rested and ready.
Just sayin'
So are we of the mind to say Bernie won't run again? He was close last time and probably would have beaten Trump in 2016 if Hillary wouldn't have gotten the bid over him. I have a feeling there won't be many "fence sitters" this go around and that spells disaster for Trump. His followers will no doubt flock to the polls again but the biggest difference were the Hillary opposers who just wanted Trump over her but not necessarily Trump himself. Bernie is well loved but might be too old in 2020 but would make a fine VP for somebody.
Beto to me is the most interesting, I've only seen a small amount of him but he does seem to have an "it" factor that grabs more moderate people. With as close as he was to taking down Cruz in Texas of all places I think he stands a great chance at taking the presidency.
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge" -Stephen Hawking
I expect Bernie to run again, but I don't think he has a great shot at it. There are younger, sexier, more electable standard bearers for the progressive wing of the party, starting with Beto.
If they miss out on the top of the ticket, Bernie and Biden (someone else mentioned him) will not be in the VP conversation. Biden doesn't want to do that again and Bernie has too much baggage.
I am far from convinced that Bernie would have beaten Trump. Yes, it is possible**, but I don't take it as some given the way many others do. Bernie would have been attacked pretty thoroughly for being a Socialist. There are Republicans who stayed home or who voted for someone else instead of Trump who would have been much more worried about Bernie than they were about Hillary.
-Jason "** - Trump won by such a small margin that any change could have tipped the election, heck, a different weather forecast in the midwest could have tipped it" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?