Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Halge]

Maybe she could dance for the money they'd throw.

 

[Ornife]

Warren should ask the Cherokee Nation for donations.

The first Native American president would be an amazing milestone for the US.

 

[Orgasmo]

Warren should ask the Cherokee Nation for donations.

The first Native American president would be an amazing milestone for the US.

Get a native man to sneeze on Trump and the orange man will have more native DNA than Warren.

 

[Trotsky]

She's not a good candidate, so it's understandable if she's not getting the funding.

There are very good arguments to be made that she's the very best candidate.

It's unfortunate but unsurprising that she is having difficulty fundraising, though: she lacks the institutional donors of Booker/Gillibrand and she hasn't ran a recent election effort to corral the type of grassroots base that Sanders and O'Rourke have.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's a pity. Much of what I've seen suggests she would likely be one of the best actual political leaders out of the current crop but she'll never get a shot because of the politics surrounding her and the selection mechanism in place. I guess that's true of someone most elections though. Onward to Trump VS whoever ticks off boxes for the Democratic voter base...

Biden is the current favorite of the base. The boxes he ticks off are experience and perception as a moderate, decent guy. I agree that Warren is the best current candidate running for president in 2020.

 

[Not A Theist]

Biden is the current favorite of the base. The boxes he ticks off are experience and perception as a moderate, decent guy. I agree that Warren is the best current candidate running for president in 2020.

I'll be curious to see how long Biden lasts - and, granted, that may be until the finish line. If the more progressive wings of the Democratic base have enough influence and/or are stubborn enough, another old white male being the candidate might drive away a crucial portion of the democratic voters. It would be the last election all over again, just with a different group of people being the ones who didn't show up. The recent #MeToo thing has me a bit concerned for his ability to bring out a more sensitive portion of the female vote and a younger progressive crowd. Has Obama endorsed him yet? I guess that doesn't matter yet - if he hasn't, he will if Biden makes it far enough.

 

[HockeyBjj]

It's unfortunate but unsurprising that she is having difficulty fundraising, though: she lacks the institutional donors of Booker/Gillibrand

Not that those two aren't deep in big donor's pockets, but the finance manager seems like she was having no problems getting institutional donations but when Warren instructed her to steer clear of those (and I wish more would do/laws to force them to do so) Warren couldn't get any more without the Big Corporate donors.

 

[Son of Jamin]

Just goes to show that she is no real Native American since she can’t make it rain...

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'll be curious to see how long Biden lasts - and, granted, that may be until the finish line. If the more progressive wings of the Democratic base have enough influence and/or are stubborn enough, another old white male being the candidate might drive away a crucial portion of the democratic voters. It would be the last election all over again, just with a different group of people being the ones who didn't show up. The recent #MeToo thing has me a bit concerned for his ability to bring out a more sensitive portion of the female vote and a younger progressive crowd. Has Obama endorsed him yet? I guess that doesn't matter yet - if he hasn't, he will if Biden makes it far enough.

I don't think Biden is as smart as many of the other candidates, and his past presidential campaigns haven't gone too well, so I wouldn't be surprised if he struggles under increased scrutiny. In fact, I expect it. But as I just said in another thread, I think your comments reflect a really deep misunderstanding of the Democratic voting base. The reality is that 99% of Democratic base voters would take Biden over Trigglypuff or whatever.

 

[Not A Theist]

I don't think Biden is as smart as many of the other candidates, and his past presidential campaigns haven't gone too well, so I wouldn't be surprised if he struggles under increased scrutiny. In fact, I expect it. But as I just said in another thread, I think your comments reflect a really deep misunderstanding of the Democratic voting base. The reality is that 99% of Democratic base voters would take Biden over Trigglypuff or whatever.

Yes, I do recall that thread. You may have a point and I will be observing how this plays out to see if my assumptions are based on false grounds. Given where I spend my days I may vastly overestimate the power of intersectionally sensitive people to influence a vote.

That being said, it's not about the mass of Democratic voters but the strategically important minority. I've read it suggested that it was only 12% of the Bernie voters who went and voted for Trump but with the way the electorate is set up, that fraction might be a crucial vote. There is an NPR article I read a while ago which speaks to this a bit...

"Specifically, if the Sanders-Trump voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had voted for Clinton, or even stayed home on Election Day, those states would have swung to Clinton, and she would have won 46 more electoral votes, putting her at 278 — enough to win, in other words."

The article rightly points out that it isn't as simple as just swapping those votes though.

"But then, it's not as simple as that. First off, this counterfactual world in which these voters didn't vote for Trump rests on a few ifs. If the Sanders-Trump voters in these three states had defected and if nothing else had happened to somehow take electoral votes from Clinton elsewhere and if this survey is correct ... then yes, Clinton would have won. (Some would also argue that if Clinton had campaigned more in the so-called "blue wall" states, she also could have picked up more votes.)"

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/5458...voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

If a fair bit of the voting base is crystallized, then the vote of purple haired feminist voters in certain states might be crucial to the election. Biden won't be popular with them. I'll be paying attention to see if your assertion is accurate though.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That being said, it's not about the mass of Democratic voters but the strategically important minority. I've read it suggested that it was only 12% of the Bernie voters who went and voted for Trump but with the way the electorate is set up, that fraction might be a crucial vote. There is an NPR article I read a while ago which speaks to this a bit...

Yeah, the problem is even deeper than that. Remember that in 2008, Clinton was the candidate who got the white working class and was seen as the one who would play stronger in swing states. What people miss is that there is a portion of the base that is driven by hipsterism more than anything else. They're always going to favor the losing candidate and say that they would have voted for him if he'd won. They support liberal policies but hate the "Democratic establishment," which means that they're necessarily going to oppose whoever wins.

 

[Stoic1]

Was there more wampum to be had elsewhere?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Was there more wampum to be had elsewhere?

Gotta admire the message discipline here.

 

[Not A Theist]

Yeah, the problem is even deeper than that. Remember that in 2008, Clinton was the candidate who got the white working class and was seen as the one who would play stronger in swing states. What people miss is that there is a portion of the base that is driven by hipsterism more than anything else. They're always going to favor the losing candidate and say that they would have voted for him if he'd won. They support liberal policies but hate the "Democratic establishment," which means that they're necessarily going to oppose whoever wins.

It's a bit of a conundrum for the Democratic party. As an establishment party they're in a somewhat unique position to be the establishment party that can tap into the anti-establishment base through running a bit of a kooky candidate, or running an establishment candidate that ticks off some identity politics boxes. The politics surrounding such candidates are messy though and what we saw with Bernie was a hostile backlash to that kooky candidate not making it. If the Democrats want to push a candidate that appeals to that base this time they'd better make sure they do it carefully or they risk a similar backlash.

 

[Madmick]

It's a little late to try to be Bernie, isn't it Elizabeth?

You cut it close: only by about 60 years.

 

[JamesRussler]

FTR, I believe his title was “Chief Financial Officer.”

 

[Lead]

‘He’s disrupting the entire 2020 race’: Buttigieg’s $7m haul puts Dems on notice
Politico

Pete Buttigieg’s Monday fundraising announcement carried an unmistakable message to his 2020 rivals: He’s here to stay.

The South Bend (Ind.) mayor has jolted the 2020 presidential campaign with growing media attention and rising public polling, and he did it again Monday by saying he raised over $7 million during his first months on the trail, seeding his campaign with the resources to take advantage of the early burst of national attention.

 

[Lead]

Elizabeth Warren Loses Finance Director as She Struggles in Early Fund-Raising
New York Times

On a Sunday afternoon earlier this month, Senator Elizabeth Warren began a swing through the South by proclaiming that she was running “a different type of campaign” — one that did not include high-dollar fund-raisers but was entirely reliant on grass-roots contributions.

“If you think that’s a good idea, go to ElizabethWarren.com,” she told about 500 people at a town hall-style event in Memphis, adding: “Pitch in five bucks, do whatever you can.”

 

[PEB]

‘He’s disrupting the entire 2020 race’: Buttigieg’s $7m haul puts Dems on notice
Politico

This has a Beto feel to it I would be interested in number of actual donors. Beto said he received 128,000 individual donations but not 128,000 different donors. Meaning you could take 50 dollar donations from one person an max out to 2,500 so far fewer donors but large number of donations.

 

[VivaRevolution]

‘He’s disrupting the entire 2020 race’: Buttigieg’s $7m haul puts Dems on notice
Politico

Ha!

Where did that money come from, because if it wasn't from small donors, he has opened himself to calls of being co-opted.