2020 Democratic presidential primary

Those surveyed included campaign donors (48.5%), current and former elected officials (10.6%), campaign managers (5.7%), electoral campaign strategists (8.7%), and women who run (23.1%) or work (23.5%) at politically-minded organizations.

Not a survey of the party base or general public fwiw

Lol xp

They need to focus on the fact that he is a criminal not a businessman.

Hillary's campaign ads about Trump ripping off every contractor who ever worked for him were super effective, after all.

imo the only ads a Dem candidate will need to run are variations of "aren't you tired of all this fucking crap"

i think simon nailed the 'what the heck does progressive even mean' question p well but to refocus specifically on beto, here he stands pretty plainly revealed relative to the rest of the house:

https://i.imgur.com/I4Ic1H2.png

on the left side on so-called "social" issues, but the relative right side on redistributive questions

more on Beto's record

Beto O’Rourke’s spirited run for the US Senate in Texas last month has prompted powerful voices in the Democratic party establishment to tout the outgoing Texas congressman as a 2020 presidential candidate who, as the party’s standard-bearer, would offer a vision of America contrasting against that of Republicans.

However, a new analysis of congressional votes from the non-profit news organisation Capital & Main shows that even as O’Rourke represented one of the most solidly Democratic congressional districts in the United States, he has frequently voted against the majority of House Democrats in support of Republican bills and Trump administration priorities.

Capital & Main reviewed the 167 votes O’Rourke has cast in the House in opposition to the majority of his own party during his six-year tenure in Congress. Many of those votes were not progressive dissents alongside other left-leaning lawmakers, but instead votes to help pass Republican-sponsored legislation.

O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ anti-tax ideology, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/beto-orourke-congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main

They should do that with literally everyone potentially running for president, and then the left will be left with nobody.

Except Bernie Fucking Sanders, the only old white male who will primarily alienate old white males.

iirc "the left" has never "had" basically anyone, and has held their noses in voting booths since time immemorial, no idea why this cycle should be any different. doesn't make the way candidates actually vote irrelevant

Nitpicking about past voting records in an upcoming race where the number one bona fide will be how much not like Trump you can be seems to be self-defeating, which for sure is something "the left" knows all about.

Like, I don't think being a "centrist" is necessarily a bad thing. I would much rather have a "centrist" win the White House and have to make compromises to get support from the left than have a right wing government that tries to get support from right-leaning centrists.

outing this guy as a faux progressive is not "nitpicking", I'm sure as hell not voting for him in a primary unless the other choices are really dire

and centrists are bad, full stop. that doesn't mean I won't vote for one if it's all I get.

was thinking about your "what is a centrist" question earlier and my answer is "someone who uncritically supports the military budget"

Hmm, that might be a good distinction. Which of the potential candidates doesn't fall into that trap? And aren't all of the candidates faux progressives? Harris, Gillibrand ...they've definitely been drawn left, which means they used to vote more ... centrist.

I would much rather have a "centrist" win the White House and have to make compromises to get support from the left than have a right wing government that tries to get support from right-leaning centrists.

having trouble understanding this point, since the latter scenario (having to get support from right-leaning "centrists") has been the environment for every Democratic president since... LBJ? Like, any Dem "centrist" in the WH is going to have problems appeasing the right, not the left, who have been reliable party votes for several generations.

I mean, Obama was p much a centrist, and his biggest problems getting legislation through were a) foolishly trying to appeal to GOP votes that never, ever materialized and b) Democrats that were more or less Republicans anyway (Lieberman, Ben Nelson). He didn't bother trying to appease the leftists cuz they were already on-board and knew he was giving them the best deal they would ever be able to get.

but with partisan polarization becoming so entrenched, trying to get votes by presenting as someone who can "work across the aisle" feels like a total fool's game. The real way to get legislative success is to do what the GOP did - get solid, partisan majorities in every branch of government, and then ruthlessly exercise power over the objections of a disempowered minority.

Of course. The only reason Trump has not been able to get much done is that he has been unable to pick up support from even a handful of Democrats (ie working across the aisle). But that's what's happened in most GOP WH scenarios, GOP presidents getting a modicum of "centrist" support while the left waves its fists. So my point, I guess, is that I'd much rather a "centrist" Dem get in the WH *with* the support of the progressive left who can then pull that person to compromise further to the left, rather than have the progressive left discount a centrist for being too (economically? militarily?) conservative and thus force that person to reach out to more conservative centrists and Republicans to get elected and/or get policy passed.

Josh

What is a primary for

Absolutely nothing! Say it again ...

I mean, we know who is likely running for GOP president in 2020, and that person is the worst in every sense, so *any* candidate's policy or record is going to better than his. Which is why I'm not sure, in this (hopefully) rare instance, someone's past voting record matters that much. They will all be degrees of "not Trump," personality and policy-wise, but in the age of ignorance I think (worry?) it will be personality that gets them the votes, and not necessarily policy.

I have no idea, obviously. It really shouldn't be that hard to beat the worst person ever, but it doesn't seem like a sure thing, either, even admittedly this early, which isn't that early anymore. I guess it will help to see what kind of check the Dem congress will really have on him.

Seriously, though, we saw in 2016 that the primary was mostly bullshit that ultimately sowed (still simmering) divisions among the Dems, resulting in a bad candidate who lost to the worst person in the world, who somehow faced a million people in his own party's primary and won.

If your answer to the question "what is a primary for" is "mostly bullshit that ultimately sowed division" I'm not sure you're gonna see eye to eye with people who see primaries as a way to contest for power, which is exactly why one would be nitpicking bona fides -- in a contest for power you want someone who's *actually* one of your own representing you.

Voting records aren't the only thing to consider, I think you're totally right to point out that people like Gillibrand and Harris have tacked left and that it indicates *either* willingness to hear & move *or* bald cynicism.

It's just that past voting records are among the few available barometers to determine which of those two things is happening

Fair enough. The question remains whether 2016 was an anomaly or the new normal. I want a candidate that will beat the current president like he deserves to be beat, by a significant humiliating margin.

heck yeah

I can’t believe campaign season starts in like six weeks

*either* willingness to hear & move *or* bald cynicism.

this is true of both, but I don't care what the motivation is tbh, and it bothers me when leftists bring up the motivation as something critical to determining whether they can "trust" the candidate or not. Trust no one, is what I say! What you want is someone who responds to pressure, the results are what matters.

I mean I get that a sizable majority of people vote based on their feewings and personal impressions of a candidate but fuck that, policy is what counts, and what I want is a candidate that will deliver that policy - whether because of deeply held principles or craven political calculation, I don't care. Why LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act is way less important than the fact that we got the Civil Rights Act.

that's a fair point

that ol' devil intentionality

a scourge of record listening and primary season

yeah, vote trust no one in 2020. I am less interested in how someone voted 5 or 10 years ago and more interested in what they will or won't sign as president. Fuck John Kasich, as far as I am concerned, but if I heard correctly he just shot down a stand your ground law in Ohio. That's cool with me.

there will be 12 debates

i hate myself for the little thrill i just experienced upon reading that

12 debates with 24 candidates, everybody gets 2 seconds to speak

Democrats will hold at least a dozen presidential primary debates starting in June 2019 and running through April 2020, with party Chairman Tom Perez promising rules that will give everyone in a potentially large field a fair shot at voters’ attention.

Making public his first in a series of decisions over the 2020 debate calendar, Perez said Thursday that the national party will sponsor six debates in 2019 and six more in 2020. That could be extended if the nomination process drags deep into the spring.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-20/urgent-democrats-to-start-presidential-primary-debates-in-june-2019

oh,joy

the real question is what is the threshold for participation

breathing, unsatisfied with Yam

supports medicare for all is increasingly looking like the threshold tbh

Except Bernie Fucking Sanders, the only old white male who will primarily alienate old white males.

Speaking of, https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/yes-bernie-should-run-771260/

He should run and lose imo lol

And aren't all of the candidates faux progressives? Harris, Gillibrand ...they've definitely been drawn left, which means they used to vote more ... centrist.

So they're learning that they have to be responsive to the majority of the party that is well to the left of Congressional Democrats and donors? I don't see that as a negative, if they're pushed left and held there.

They'll be held there right until the end of the primary.

Perhaps, unless the realpolitik of the situation favors them staying left - which includes maybe getting primaried in 2024 if they don't (as unlikely as that is). Unless you're going full Bernie-or-bust, you have to start thinking about which possible candidates can be made better with the right pressure.

beto being a bland can-win-in-texas centrist was fine when he was running to replace ted fucking cruz. it would also be tolerable if he wins the primaries and is then running to replace donald fucking trump. but until then he'd be running to secure the nomination against other people who might be much more progressive than he is, so his track record (and anything else abt him really) wd be fair game. and anyway if "how not-trump they are" is important, then surely "they voted for trump's initiatives a lot" is relevant.

yeah he'll get pilloried for it. voting in the House is p different than it is in the Senate, and compounds the difficulty of leap-frogging from the House to the Presidency (which is exceedingly rare)

They should do that with literally everyone potentially running for president, and then the left will be left with nobody.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:00 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Except Bernie Fucking Sanders, the only old white male who will primarily alienate old white males.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:01 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

iirc "the left" has never "had" basically anyone, and has held their noses in voting booths since time immemorial, no idea why this cycle should be any different. doesn't make the way candidates actually vote irrelevant

― resident hack (Simon H.), Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:05 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Nitpicking about past voting records in an upcoming race where the number one bona fide will be how much not like Trump you can be seems to be self-defeating, which for sure is something "the left" knows all about.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:12 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

another way of looking at this is we should look at everyone’s past votes and actually see whose record is most in line with progressive priorities!

also, lol at the idea of all those GOP-killing candidates the left have torpedoed over the years, which would be....who, exactly?

this is true of both, but I don't care what the motivation is tbh, and it bothers me when leftists bring up the motivation as something critical to determining whether they can "trust" the candidate or not. Trust no one, is what I say! What you want is someone who responds to pressure, the results are what matters.

― Οὖτις, Thursday, December 20, 2018 4:59 PM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Agreed totally, and maybe I spoke poorly if I gave you the wrong idea -- the point of parsing cynical ploy vs submission to pressure is not "are they sufficiently pure" but "are they moving because *responding to pressure is something they do* or because *they want to win this specific contest and won't respond in this way again*.

Hillary Rodham of course

Bernie mortally wounded her

xp