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

[skepticalbip]

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.

I'm waiting for a couple years to see how things go. Trump certainly looks like a clown but then so did Ronald Reagan when first elected. Who knows, by the end of his four year term he may be as loved by the Republicans and most independents but hated by Democrats as Reagan was when he ran for his second term. Then, on the other hand, he just may demonstrate that there is nothing under that hairdo.

 

[TSwizzle]

The Dems have time to groom a candidate appropriate to the conditions. I quite like Adam Schiff, he would do for me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I wasn't aware that the DNC conspired with the Russians to hack the DNC email server, then conspire with Wikileaks to publish the illegally obtained emails. I was also unaware that the DNC was in charge of energizing racist fuckers who get upset about uppity blacks angry when an unarmed black teen is shot and killed by an officer who had been previously fired from another police department for being too immature to handle a gun. Or that the DNC helps run the massive propaganda machine on the AM Radio to help steer their voters a certain direction. Or how about that whole FBI thing about the imminent indictment for the Clinton Foundation, another DNC caused story.

Hillary Clinton performed exceptionally well in the debates, not falling for any of the trolling by Trump.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by over 1 million votes and is going to make history for winning by the largest percentage of popular vote but losing the electoral college. She narrowly lost several states which gave Trump a very unique and never seen before type of victory in the electoral college.

The American people are to blame for this outcome, not Clinton. Clinton did make a few unforced errors, but the largest problems came from Wikileaks and the FBI. However, the people didn't turn out (for either candidate like in 2012). And ultimately they traded the cow for the three magic beans.

 

[Arctish]

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.

Julian Castro, Corey Booker, Jeanne Shaheen, and Elizabeth Warren fit that bill, especially Booker and Warren. Kathleen Sebelius might give it a go. She was damaged by the buggy Obamacare roll-out, but not too badly to make a come-back.

Joseph P. Kennedy III comes with a fair amount of baggage, most of it not his doing, but it's the kind of baggage that could work for him. If he manages to channel Bobby and Jack while still being his own self, and update their policies to suit current events, he'll be very appealing to a lot of Democrats.

 

[Will Wiley]

Is there anyone who doesn't amass a fortune giving speeches to Goldman Sachs or who doesn't take 20% of their campaign funding from Saudi Arabia? Anyone who doesn't laugh when leaders of sovereign nation are murdered and their countries descend into chaos? Anyone who doesn't ignorantly support the war machine?

Do the democrats have anyone like this?
They only need one.

 

[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.

I wasn't aware that the DNC conspired with the Russians to hack the DNC email server, then conspire with Wikileaks to publish the illegally obtained emails. I was also unaware that the DNC was in charge of energizing racist fuckers who get upset about uppity blacks angry when an unarmed black teen is shot and killed by an officer who had been previously fired from another police department for being too immature to handle a gun. Or that the DNC helps run the massive propaganda machine on the AM Radio to help steer their voters a certain direction. Or how about that whole FBI thing about the imminent indictment for the Clinton Foundation, another DNC caused story.

Hillary Clinton performed exceptionally well in the debates, not falling for any of the trolling by Trump.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by over 1 million votes and is going to make history for winning by the largest percentage of popular vote but losing the electoral college. She narrowly lost several states which gave Trump a very unique and never seen before type of victory in the electoral college.

The American people are to blame for this outcome, not Clinton. Clinton did make a few unforced errors, but the largest problems came from Wikileaks and the FBI. However, the people didn't turn out (for either candidate like in 2012). And ultimately they traded the cow for the three magic beans.

Yes, thank you. This illustrates the point I was making better than I was.

The job of the DNC is to win elections, not to win the popular vote, not to have their candidate win the debates and not to do any of the other things which aren't winning the election. It was their job to recognize the weakness in the rust belt states and do something to shore up their support there instead of just ignoring it. They spent hours late on election night telling all the news organizations that Michigan and Wisconsin weren't lost because the results from the inner cities weren't in yet and they were expecting truckloads of votes to come in from those places to outweigh Trump's support in other parts of the states, but hadn't done anything in the months beforehand to get those voters out instead of having them stay home. It was their job to respond to the pleas of Hispanic organizations who were screaming at them for months to help them out with their voter registration drives instead of ignoring those organizations and not helping them get those voters signed up. In an election which turned out to be about wanting change, they missed that entirely and rehashed three former Senators to run, all of whom lost and cost them the Senate. When the polling results for those Senators started to drop, they did nothing to help them out and turn the races back around.

The job of the DNC is to recognize where the problem areas are in races and take action to shore up those problems and do all the little things which can help flip close races for their candidates. They didn't do any of them. While there is certainly enough blame to go around in regards to this result, the failure of the DNC to do the things that they needed to do in the places where they needed to do it is at the top of that list.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wasn't aware that the DNC conspired with the Russians to hack the DNC email server, then conspire with Wikileaks to publish the illegally obtained emails. I was also unaware that the DNC was in charge of energizing racist fuckers who get upset about uppity blacks angry when an unarmed black teen is shot and killed by an officer who had been previously fired from another police department for being too immature to handle a gun. Or that the DNC helps run the massive propaganda machine on the AM Radio to help steer their voters a certain direction. Or how about that whole FBI thing about the imminent indictment for the Clinton Foundation, another DNC caused story.

Hillary Clinton performed exceptionally well in the debates, not falling for any of the trolling by Trump.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by over 1 million votes and is going to make history for winning by the largest percentage of popular vote but losing the electoral college. She narrowly lost several states which gave Trump a very unique and never seen before type of victory in the electoral college.

The American people are to blame for this outcome, not Clinton. Clinton did make a few unforced errors, but the largest problems came from Wikileaks and the FBI. However, the people didn't turn out (for either candidate like in 2012). And ultimately they traded the cow for the three magic beans.

Yes, thank you. This illustrates the point I was making better than I was.

The job of the DNC is to win elections, not to win the popular vote, not to have their candidate win the debates and not to do any of the other things which aren't winning the election. It was their job to recognize the weakness in the rust belt states and do something to shore up their support there instead of just ignoring it. They spent hours late on election night telling all the news organizations that Michigan and Wisconsin weren't lost because the results from the inner cities weren't in yet and they were expecting truckloads of votes to come in from those places to outweigh Trump's support in other parts of the states, but hadn't done anything in the months beforehand to get those voters out instead of having them stay home. It was their job to respond to the pleas of Hispanic organizations who were screaming at them for months to help them out with their voter registration drives instead of ignoring those organizations and not helping them get those voters signed up. In an election which turned out to be about wanting change, they missed that entirely and rehashed three former Senators to run, all of whom lost and cost them the Senate. When the polling results for those Senators started to drop, they did nothing to help them out and turn the races back around.

The job of the DNC is to recognize where the problem areas are in races and take action to shore up those problems and do all the little things which can help flip close races for their candidates. They didn't do any of them. While there is certainly enough blame to go around in regards to this result, the failure of the DNC to do the things that they needed to do in the places where they needed to do it is at the top of that list.

You may have missed it where the polls by almost all companies were wrong, historically so.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You may have missed it where the polls by almost all companies were wrong, historically so.

Then they should have listened to their people on the ground who were telling them something different and were ignored instead of the polling companies. If a stockbroker listens to the wrong advisor and loses money, that's the stockbrokers' fault and not the advisor's fault since it was the job of the stockbroker to get it right and make his clients money. He doesn't have a second job and it's not someone else's fault when he fails to do it.

There were a lot of indications that things were going wrong and they didn't change their strategy to account for these things. It was their job to do this and recognize problems before anyone else does and work to correct them. If the DNC were being run by unpaid interns who were trying to get Clinton elected in their spare time after class, that would be a really good excuse for why they failed. For supposed political experts who were taking money to get her elected, it's not an acceptable excuse. The information was there for them to find but they chose not to find it and failed in their jobs as a result.

Let me turn the question around for you. What is it that you feel that the people working for the DNC have done in the last six years which would merit them keeping their jobs?

 

[Trausti]

nm

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You may have missed it where the polls by almost all companies were wrong, historically so.

Then they should have listened to their people on the ground who were telling them something different and were ignored instead of the polling companies. If a stockbroker listens to the wrong advisor and loses money, that's the stockbrokers' fault and not the advisor's fault since it was the job of the stockbroker to get it right and make his clients money. He doesn't have a second job and it's not someone else's fault when he fails to do it.

For a guy that was certain Clinton was always going to win, you seem pretty certain that Clinton should have known she was going to lose.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So who would they have as a strong candidate? Hillary and the DNC spent the last 8 years keeping anyone from being too up-and-coming lest they challenge her in the primary.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So who would they have as a strong candidate? Hillary and the DNC spent the last 8 years keeping anyone from being too up-and-coming lest they challenge her in the primary.

Strong candidate? Trump was the weakest, most inexperienced, most controversial, most pathologically lying general election candidate for a major party in American History. Still won the electoral college though.

I'm not certain what would need to happen for Trump to lose in 2020. Granted, I'm not sold on him managing to stay in power for 4 years... or fuck, even being inaugurated (though that would be quite an exceptional turn of events). His Chief Political Advisor is going to need to resign already due to working on Trump's campaign and being paid by a PAC, through shell companies, at the same time. His transition team is out in the wilderness right now. They just don't seem to understand how hard running a Government is.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So who would they have as a strong candidate? Hillary and the DNC spent the last 8 years keeping anyone from being too up-and-coming lest they challenge her in the primary.

Strong candidate? Trump was the weakest, most inexperienced, most controversial, most pathologically lying general election candidate for a major party in American History. Still won the electoral college though.

Trump didn't run as a Democrat, and my question was about Democrat candidates.

Hillary spent the last 8 years ensuring that nobody could challenge her. The in-party primary challengers were all nobodies putting on a show to make the voters think there was a primary. Bernie had to come from outside, and he gave her one hell of a run even though he had the entire party machinery working against him.

So Hillary made sure there wasn't anyone to challenge her. There are now, as a result, few people in the Democratic Party positioned to be a strong candidate in the next cycle. Unless you can think of some, which was my question, but you instead decided to talk about Trump in response to a post about Democratic Party candidates.

So, the question you ducked, avoided, and pretended wasn't there. Who for the Democrats? Not sure why that question is what you avoided, since it was the topic of both my post and this entire thread.

Clinton spent 8 years making sure there was nobody else. Now that she's lost, who is there?

Oh, by the way, it says something that Hillary lost to the "weakest, most inexperienced, most controversial, most pathologically lying general election candidate for a major party in American History." I think that technically that means Trump was the SECOND "weakest, most inexperienced, most controversial, most pathologically lying general election candidate for a major party in American History" and that the person he beat was the first.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Strong candidate? Trump was the weakest, most inexperienced, most controversial, most pathologically lying general election candidate for a major party in American History. Still won the electoral college though.

Trump didn't run as a Democrat, and my question was about Democrat candidates.

I'm not certain your point. Strength is a relative quantity and compared to Trump, Clinton was a juggernaut. Compared to Obama, Clinton was a relatively strong candidate.

Hillary spent the last 8 years ensuring that nobody could challenge her.

Oh... she had Beau Biden off'd.

The in-party primary challengers were all nobodies putting on a show to make the voters think there was a primary. Bernie had to come from outside, and he gave her one hell of a run even though he had the entire party machinery working against him.

Well, technically wasn't even a member of the Democrat Party.

So Hillary made sure there wasn't anyone to challenge her.

That is an oddly vague claim you continue to make. Besides having Beau Biden killed (Joe Biden), who else did she pressure out of running?

There are now, as a result, few people in the Democratic Party positioned to be a strong candidate in the next cycle.

Like President Obama in 2005?

Unless you can think of some, which was my question, but you instead decided to talk about Trump in response to a post about Democratic Party candidates.

I can think of a few. Booker (probably too early), Wyden, Cuomo, why not Spitzer?!, Kaine, Bullock, Malloy. I think Bullock would be atop the recklessly early list.

So, the question you ducked, avoided, and pretended wasn't there.

The question wasn't ducked. I noted that strength of a candidate wasn't an issue in 2016 and wondered why that'd change in 2020.

Oh, by the way, it says something that Hillary lost to the "weakest, most inexperienced, most controversial, most pathologically lying general election candidate for a major party in American History." I think that technically that means Trump was the SECOND "weakest, most inexperienced, most controversial, most pathologically lying general election candidate for a major party in American History" and that the person he beat was the first.

No, it doesn't. Your misunderstanding seems to explain why you are having trouble understanding my response.

 

[skepticalbip]

The job of the DNC is to win elections,

It should be their job, however, it seems that they believe their job is to guide and shape how Americans think. They have done a fairly good job on their dedicated Democrat followers but apparently forgot, and can't accept, that not all Americans are Democrats.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The job of the DNC is to win elections,

It should be their job, however, it seems that they believe their job is to guide and shape how Americans think. They have done a fairly good job on their dedicated Democrat followers but apparently forgot, and can't accept, that not all Americans are Democrats.

Wow... just wow. You must be talking about some other DNC, because the DNC I know doesn't give a shit about liberals.

 

[skepticalbip]

It should be their job, however, it seems that they believe their job is to guide and shape how Americans think. They have done a fairly good job on their dedicated Democrat followers but apparently forgot, and can't accept, that not all Americans are Democrats.

Wow... just wow. You must be talking about some other DNC, because the DNC I know doesn't give a shit about liberals.

They don't give a shit about anyone or what anyone wants - that was my point. they are only interested in trying to make everyone think like they want them to think. They did fairly good on controlling the minds of the Democrats evidenced by even after having Sanders mistreated by them, the overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters just accepted it and accepted the DNC original plans without raising holy hell.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Then they should have listened to their people on the ground who were telling them something different and were ignored instead of the polling companies. If a stockbroker listens to the wrong advisor and loses money, that's the stockbrokers' fault and not the advisor's fault since it was the job of the stockbroker to get it right and make his clients money. He doesn't have a second job and it's not someone else's fault when he fails to do it.

For a guy that was certain Clinton was always going to win, you seem pretty certain that Clinton should have known she was going to lose.

Yes. This is exactly what I just said. I am unpaid and was looking at the polling data in my spare time. It's not an issue that I was wrong because it wasn't one of my job requirements to delve deeper and see if there's anything which was being missed or any potential holes which needed to be plugged. For the people at the DNC, that's pretty much their only job. They are supposed to direct resources to the places where they are needed and develop strategies to appeal to the voters they need to have vote for them. Running up the numbers in New York and California while losing narrowly in Pennsylvania and Michigan to win irrelevant categories like the popular vote is like an Olympic coach responding to his sprinter's failure to reach the medal podium by saying "Hey, at least he can swim really fast" - it just doesn't matter.

The people at the DNC are paid to be on top of these things and they weren't on top of any of them. They don't hold the White House, they don't hold the Supreme Court, they don't hold the Senate, they don't hold the House and they have a minority of the country's Governors. So, I'll again ask the question you avoided - what is it that you think these guys are doing that they should keep their jobs?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Trump didn't run as a Democrat, and my question was about Democrat candidates.

I'm not certain your point. Strength is a relative quantity and compared to Trump, Clinton was a juggernaut. Compared to Obama, Clinton was a relatively strong candidate.

Hillary spent the last 8 years ensuring that nobody could challenge her.

Oh... she had Beau Biden off'd.

The in-party primary challengers were all nobodies putting on a show to make the voters think there was a primary. Bernie had to come from outside, and he gave her one hell of a run even though he had the entire party machinery working against him.

Well, technically wasn't even a member of the Democrat Party.

So Hillary made sure there wasn't anyone to challenge her.

That is an oddly vague claim you continue to make. Besides having Beau Biden killed (Joe Biden), who else did she pressure out of running?

There are now, as a result, few people in the Democratic Party positioned to be a strong candidate in the next cycle.

Like President Obama in 2005?

Unless you can think of some, which was my question, but you instead decided to talk about Trump in response to a post about Democratic Party candidates.

I can think of a few. Booker (probably too early), Wyden, Cuomo, why not Spitzer?!, Kaine, Bullock, Malloy. I think Bullock would be atop the recklessly early list.

So, the question you ducked, avoided, and pretended wasn't there.

The question wasn't ducked. I noted that strength of a candidate wasn't an issue in 2016 and wondered why that'd change in 2020.

Oh, by the way, it says something that Hillary lost to the "weakest, most inexperienced, most controversial, most pathologically lying general election candidate for a major party in American History." I think that technically that means Trump was the SECOND "weakest, most inexperienced, most controversial, most pathologically lying general election candidate for a major party in American History" and that the person he beat was the first.

No, it doesn't. Your misunderstanding seems to explain why you are having trouble understanding my response.

All that work just to say "Booker (probably too early), Wyden, Cuomo, why not Spitzer?!, Kaine, Bullock, Malloy." Wow.

When I say "who could possibly be the next candidate" you reply with "Trump stinks". When I say "Uh, the question was 'who could possibly be the next candidate' and you talked about Trump instead" you reply with "you're wrong, and it could be Booker, Cyden, Cuomo, Spitzer, Kaine, Bullock, Malloy."

I was right that you talked about Trump instead of the topic, and I have no idea why you keep talking about bumping off Biden. Why would you want to talk about bumping off Biden? That wasn't the topic either.

So, in a question about who the Democrats might run, your topics of discussion are "Trump stinks" and "bump off Biden." Wow.