Will the Democrats nominate a George McGovern or a Bill Clinton in 2020?

[Derec]

Not literally of course, the one is dead and the other served two terms. No, the question is what type of candidate will emerge after Democratic Party spends 3 years in the wilderness. In 1972, after 1968 loss to Nixon, Democrats nominated a creature of the base who then lost everything but Massachusetts and DC. Except for the brief Carter intermezzo, that led to a 20 year wandering of the Democratic Party, until they nominated Bill Clinton who went on to serve two terms.
Do Democrats need to spend a lot of time in the wilderness to make a smart choice or can they wise up after only three years?

 

[Trausti]

Carlos Danger '20. Make it happen.

 

[Elixir]

Not literally of course, the one is dead and the other served two terms. No, the question is what type of candidate will emerge after Democratic Party spends 3 years in the wilderness. In 1972, after 1968 loss to Nixon, Democrats nominated a creature of the base who then lost everything but Massachusetts and DC. Except for the brief Carter intermezzo, that led to a 20 year wandering of the Democratic Party, until they nominated Bill Clinton who went on to serve two terms.
Do Democrats need to spend a lot of time in the wilderness to make a smart choice or can they wise up after only three years?

It will depend greatly on the status of Congress after the 2018 elections. I suspect that there are up-and-comers on the progressive left who might have a bit more charisma than McGovern and less baggage than a Clinton. Don't know who they are, but I expect some to emerge over the coming years.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that they will nominate a centrist and they will lose. The reason that I think this is that we're a week from the election and zero heads have rolled over their performance. The leadership of the DNC have proven that they're incompetents who don't know what they're doing and yet they are, for the most part, going to remain in charge of the DNC.

The base are talking angrily about how they're going to take over the party and primary anyone who compromises with Trump's agenda, but they haven't displayed an ability to translate their anger into actual votes, so I think that the DNC leadership will be able to sideline them for at least a couple more voting cycles and be able to fail miserably again.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Too early to tell, to hard to tell at this point.

The Democratic Party needs to do its soul searching and self-analysis on the recent defeat. Some people are doing this, others are blaming everyone else. Remember, the first step in recovery is to admit that everyone else has a problem.

Successful self-analysis will result in a strong candidate. Fixating on an external cause will result in a weak candidate.

Also, who do the Democrats have? This is a serious question, and I know they have potential candidates, but it needs to be stated plainly. The Clinton machine spent the last 8 years working its hardest to make sure there was nobody who would or could run against Clinton. The in-party primary opponents were nobodies. Sanders wasn't supposed to happen, and even with the entire machine against him he did far better than expected. Sanders is old and probably won't run again, and Hillary won't be the 2020 candidate even if she does run again.

Someone needs to be ready to step up to the role. Who would that be? Who is prominent enough, and undamaged by the Clinton machine? Of course I would like to see Schweitzer run, but my supporting him means he is very likely to not get the nod.

 

[dismal]

I think next time is designated to be a Black transgender woman's turn.

Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner could probably be black by then, but zir is Republican.

 

[Sarpedon]

Klobuchar 2020.

 

[Derec]

Klobuchar 2020.

She wants federal government to crack down on porn. We do not need such progresso-authoritarians.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Klobuchar 2020.

She wants federal government to crack down on porn. We do not need such progresso-authoritarians.

That's not a big deal. Most of the good porn is German anyways.

 

[Sarpedon]

Huh, I didn't know that. Will have to check.

I was half joking anyway. I'm going to be focused on supporting my congressman becoming DNC chair, if he ever writes back. (I know he's busy, I can wait) I have no idea what an ordinary voter can do to affect that process. That's one of the things I hope he'll fix.

We might just have to nominate another man next time to take the post and kill some time until enough of the blue dogs die off and we can have a woman candidate who they won't sabotage. So my vote is another Bill. Hopefully we can get a less handsy version. Ideally, we will find another Obama, but I know not where.

 

[bilby]

Huh, I didn't know that. Will have to check.

I was half joking anyway. I'm going to be focused on supporting my congressman becoming DNC chair, if he ever writes back. (I know he's busy, I can wait) I have no idea what an ordinary voter can do to affect that process. That's one of the things I hope he'll fix.

We might just have to nominate another man next time to take the post and kill some time until enough of the blue dogs die off and we can have a woman candidate who they won't sabotage. So my vote is another Bill. Hopefully we can get a less handsy version. Ideally, we will find another Obama, but I know not where.

Kenya?

 

[skepticalbip]

Unless there is a major shake-up in the DNC hierarchy, I wouldn't be surprised to see the nomination turn out to be Nancy Peloisi.

 

[Sarpedon]

A major shake-up in the DNC hierarchy may be underway. Today the Republicans voted to retain Paul Ryan as Speaker. The democrats chose to delay their vote for a few weeks...

Bernie Sanders has backed Keith Ellison to be the new DNC chair. Howard Dean, formerly a rather successful chair, is running for the position again.

 

[Deepak]

Unless there is a major shake-up in the DNC hierarchy, I wouldn't be surprised to see the nomination turn out to be Nancy Peloisi.

Pretty unlikely in my opinion - at most I could see DNC chair but even that I wouldn't bet money on. Keep in mind she'd be 80 in 2020.

Bernie Sanders has backed Keith Ellison to be the new DNC chair. Howard Dean, formerly a rather successful chair, is running for the position again.

Ellison would be a lightning rod for opponents. Dean I'd be more than happy with.

 

[blastula]

Not literally of course, the one is dead and the other served two terms. No, the question is what type of candidate will emerge after Democratic Party spends 3 years in the wilderness. In 1972, after 1968 loss to Nixon, Democrats nominated a creature of the base who then lost everything but Massachusetts and DC. Except for the brief Carter intermezzo, that led to a 20 year wandering of the Democratic Party, until they nominated Bill Clinton who went on to serve two terms.
Do Democrats need to spend a lot of time in the wilderness to make a smart choice or can they wise up after only three years?

You seem to be saying, a Clinton would be a smarter choice, but they just did that and lost.

What they need is a charismatic person of whatever wing, because voters are children. And maybe only a man could win in America.

 

[bilby]

Clearly the Presidency is a pure popularity contest. Politicians are always going to lose to someone famous.

The top rated non-sports TV show in the US last year was The Big Bang Theory. Perhaps the DNC could nominate Jim Parsons - All he needs to do is record an ad where he walks into the oval office and says to President Trump "You're in my spot".

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes he would. This election has made me rethink the idea of going with the 'safe' choice.

 

[Elixir]

Not literally of course, the one is dead and the other served two terms. No, the question is what type of candidate will emerge after Democratic Party spends 3 years in the wilderness. In 1972, after 1968 loss to Nixon, Democrats nominated a creature of the base who then lost everything but Massachusetts and DC. Except for the brief Carter intermezzo, that led to a 20 year wandering of the Democratic Party, until they nominated Bill Clinton who went on to serve two terms.
Do Democrats need to spend a lot of time in the wilderness to make a smart choice or can they wise up after only three years?

You seem to be saying, a Clinton would be a smarter choice, but they just did that and lost.

What they need is a charismatic person of whatever wing, because voters are children. And maybe only a man could win in America.

I have heard that Hillary is considerably charismatic in one-on-one situations. Dems need someone with crowd charisma like a Trump or a Bernie. And someone without thirty years of republican attack-dog scars all over them. And definitely someone who doesn't sound fingernails-on-chalkboard screechy every time they try to be emphatic. So yeah - prob'ly a male.

 

[skepticalbip]

You seem to be saying, a Clinton would be a smarter choice, but they just did that and lost.

What they need is a charismatic person of whatever wing, because voters are children. And maybe only a man could win in America.

I have heard that Hillary is considerably charismatic in one-on-one situations. Dems need someone with crowd charisma like a Trump or a Bernie. And someone without thirty years of republican attack-dog scars all over them. And definitely someone who doesn't sound fingernails-on-chalkboard screechy every time they try to be emphatic. So yeah - prob'ly a male.

I have heard the opposite, that she is more charismatic when speaking to a crowd (as hard as that would be to believe). But then I doubt that either of us will ever have the chance to know which is true.

 

[TSwizzle]

After Trump has fucked everything up, the Dems could put forward a strategically shaved monkey and be in with a chance of winning. I am not too concerned who the Dems pick for 2020 but I think winning the presidency will depend on how badly the Repub administration does and whether Trump stands for a second term. I could tolerate a Bill Clinton 2.0.