Will There Be Too Many Democrats Running In 2020?

[applegrove]

https://politicalwire.com/2018/01/18/will-many-democrats-running-2020/

"SNIP..........


Matt Bai: “If half the untested politicians and zillionaires who’ve signaled some interest in the Democratic nomination actually follow through, we’ll have to turn around the debating halls so it’s the moderators who sit on the dais and the candidates who pack the house.”

“All of which might be good for Democrats, whose public brand could certainly use a little reimagining. But I see a very real danger here for them, which is that if no one in the upper echelons of the party starts thinking about how to contain this field, they might be setting themselves up to relive the Republican experience of 2016.”

............SNIP"

[NurseJackie]

1. I only ask that they actually be loyal Democrats.

[justhanginon]

5. Definitely!

[emulatorloo]

2. Quite a few ran in 08 and we somehow managed to survive

[Hekate]

3. The more the merrier, as long as they have been Dems for more than 5 minutes...

... and not Greens, Indys, or Libertarians -- if you know what I mean.

[justhanginon]

6. Agree wholeheartedly!

[NewJeffCT]

4. Repeating the Republican experience of 2016?

You mean where they won the presidency?

[BoneyardDem]

31. not just that, but many Republicans wished they had the same fail safe as Dems....

.....Super Delegates

[NewJeffCT]

32. Republicans do have super delegates

they don't have as much power as Democratic superdelegates, but they do have them.

and, as far as I know, Democratic superdelegates have voted along with whatever the majority of regular delegates have decided anyhow.

I doubt Democratic superdelegates would have done much to stop an Oprah, Jerry Springer, George Clooney or similar star if they had won an overwhelming number of regular delegates by crushing everybody in the state primaries and caucuses like Trump did on the Republican side.

[BoneyardDem]

36. I was recalling things more like this...................

At least in name, superdelegates are not involved in the Republican Party nomination process. There are delegates to the Republican National Convention who are seated automatically, but they are limited to three per state, consisting of the state chairsperson and two district-level committee members.
Superdelegate - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

[uponit7771]

7. Wont be enough, need every zip code if possible

[spanone]

8. I hope so!

[DrDan]

9. 17 repubs ran in 2016 and it worked out well for them

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. Exactly... a wide open primary with genuine debate is a GOOD thing!

[LiberalFighter]

16. Except they were all debating DT.

[StevieM]

37. It worked out badly. The FBI and James Comey had to rig the election for them. (eom)

[DrDan]

39. badly for us . . .

[StevieM]

41. We kicked Trump's ass. But the FBI and James Comey's lies made the election unwinnable. (eom)

[DrDan]

43. oh yeah . . . I forgot . . . a GREAT win for us - thanks for the correction

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. Except of course that the Republicans/Trump "won" in 2016

I don't see a huge crowded Democratic 2020 field, honestly. We have a few potential contenders out there, but nobody has seriously emerged yet (and won't until 2019 probably). Hopefully, nobody in (or out of) the Democratic Party wants to endanger our chances of beating Trump in 2020.

[demmiblue]

11. No, the last primary was an embarrassment for our party.

We could have introduced and given a nation-wide platform for a lot of new names. But, no... turns

[NurseJackie]

12. Good grief, just stop with the passive aggressive smears of Democrats! We had a couple...

... of fine and outstanding Democrats vying for the party's nomination and the best candidate won!

I really don't know what you'd find embarrassing about it.

[mcar]

20. Yes, but "let's slam Dems" seems to be the mantra

Among some.

[George II]

17. Rather sweeping assumption. It wasn't embarrassing to Democrats.

[Cha]

25. Damn Straight!

[NurseJackie]

28. Boom!

[Hekate]

18. Please tell us how,,exactly, was it an "embarassment" since we had a number of contenders...

...they all had an opportunity to show us their stuff, we even included an Independent who showed little gratitude (I admit that was embarassing and I hope we learned).

Everybody had a chance to be voted on. Hillary WON the primary based on votes. Then she went on to WIN the General Election and got 3 million more votes than Trump.

It took voter suppression measures galore, infiltration, and treason to stop her from being President. I am really embarrassed for my country that we let this happen. Is that what you meant?

[BoneyardDem]

30. I completely disagree, the Primaries were NOT an embarrassment

Trump winning the election is the national embarrassment I wish true Dems would remember

[ehrnst]

35. Any names in particular? (nt)

[StevieM]

38. Anyone who wanted to run was welcome to. Those who chose to did.

There was nothing embarrassing about it.

[StevieM]

40. The Democratic electorate never votes based on whose turn it is.

And that didn't happen in 2016. The claim that it did was nothing but an attack on our party's nominee, not a legitimate reference to an actual event.

It is disgraceful that the first time a woman won a major party's nomination her accomplishment was completely dismissed and we were told that she had it handed to her, rather than having earned it like everybody else.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

13. Too much democracy? Get to the bad part.

[DavidDvorkin]

15. The field always shrinks quickly

Once the primaries begin.

Moreover, I don't think there's a chance of the Democrats rallying behind the equivalent of Trump.

[mcar]

19. Mid-terms,mid-terms, mid-terms

Lather, rinse, repeat. The focus must be on GOTV for our great Dem candidates and nominees.

[Bucky]

22. Yes yes yes!

Making Trump accountable to Congress is Step 1 in saving our democracy. Plus it will allow a few new stars to shine the Democratic galaxy. We need fresh blood.

[mcar]

23. We've got a deep bench

and they are acquitting themselves quite well.

Yes, let's take back Congress and get the real investigations started!

[Awsi Dooger]

21. Huge field is great

Requires more debates, inspires more arguments, and therefore exponentially more national attention.

My aunt switched to Republican in spring 2016 largely because the GOP primaries were receiving so much daily coverage on the local news that she got taken in, deciding that must be the place to be. Meanwhile she didn't know a damn thing about the issues, and still does not. Once Trump emerged as the frontrunner on her newly favored side then she embraced all of his policies and now stubbornly won't let go.

I'd like to win. I don't care about being pure. We already have much more of an uphill climb in 2020 than conventional wisdom allows.

[JNelson6563]

24. Easy to see who is already testing waters.

Political theater reveals all.

[vi5]

26. "setting themselves up to relive the Republican experience of 2016"

By that do they mean winning the election? Then count me in. Especially if the other option this writer refers to is the "upper eschelons" of the party making decisions for us.

[GaryCnf]

27. I only ask that our candidate

be able to inspire black voters, and other people of color, in a way Obama, and ONLY Obama, has managed to do ever since we turned to the middle in 1992.

[bullwinkle428]

29. The weaker candidates will get weeded out quickly. The stress is much ado over nothing.

[Sunlei]

33. never to many for the 'good team', if we can weed out rw supported fakers & spoilers early enough.

[NCTraveler]

34. It will be a large field, in my opinion.

I don't think it is possible for the field to be too large. There are many advantages to a large field and if that is the case a large chunk of them will be out half-way through the process. We need a lot of voices. Many are going to want to be the one to take Trump on.

[StevieM]

42. I think we will have 20 candidates, give or take a couple.

Which is fine.