The epidemic of random white men running for president, explained.

[Shrek]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/16/18623083/democratic-presidential-candidates-2020-election-bill-de-blasio

We asked Kyle Kondik, who helps run the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, why a politician would decide to jump into the 2020 campaign when there are already 20 other candidates. He named three factors.

1) There isn’t exactly a big favorite.

2. With so many candidates already in, why not take the chance?

3. Democrats really think they can beat Donald Trump.

[LongtimeAZDem]

1. "There isn't exactly a big favorite"

[crazytown]

11. It'S WiThIn tHe MaRgIn oF ErRoR!

(apologies InABlueState, I could not resist)

[mr_lebowski]

2. Why is their 'whiteness' of any import in this equation?

[oldsoftie]

7. It's not, of course. But its the go-to when you want clicks to a half-assed article.

"no big favorite"
I guess the writer hasnt looked at any polls. ANY of them.

[mr_lebowski]

9. OK, just checking ;) (nt)

[stonecutter357]

3. Joe Biden 2020 !

[Vidal]

4. Sorry

None of those answers make any sense.

They certainly don't explain anything.

[Hortensis]

12. Doesn't ping. Especially the supposed "identity crisis."

I've always been strongly liberal as eras shifted and literally never had an "identity crisis," not even during the grim 1990s when the party had to shift somewhat right with most Democratic voters to keep any power at all. I stayed steady but understood why it was being done, and since I believe in REPRESENTATIVE democracy didn't even disapprove all that much. And "mainstream liberal Hillary Clinton and the socialist populist Bernie Sanders" didn't create one in 2016. I was happy and proud to follow Obama with Hillary heading up our ambitious agenda for the next 8 years.

This article pretends that Sanders was a strong candidate instead of a weak "sorta-socialist" one using populism to gain dissident support because most Democrats weren't impressed with him. He was given enormous lift by the combined efforts of the Republican Party, enormous investment by our wannabe kleptocracy and their agents, the Russians, the FBI, the hostile conservative- and profit-serving media (including the NYT, MSNBC and CNN), and hostile LW radical media.

And of course by a flood of primary spoiler voters who had no intention of voting for Sanders in the GE. Pew's analyses all had to estimate and subtract the spoilers in each race from genuine support in order to arrive at figures for him.

In spite of that, though Sanders did appallingly well against Clinton with all that hostile interference and myth making, he still lost by a wide margin.

And here we are today with every candidate generally united on the same ideals and general goals, including for the most part our blue dogs.

Heck, Sanders himself -- the person who's supposed to be emblematic of our "identity crisis" -- claims the same goals popular with mainstream Democrats, first adopting Elizabeth Warren's in 2016, and now trying to take down other Democrats from within their own fortress of ideological mainstream strength by claiming they don't belong. Absolutely none of our supposedly more left goals conflict in any way or change direction from with the Democratic Party's ideals and goals of the past 70 years. They're merely continuations, tweaks, to meet the needs of this era.

Our magnificent blue wave of the midterms was no more an "identity crisis" than our preference for the positive candidate over the cranky downer who kept insisting we were corrupt and had to fix ourselves in 2016. Both chose for positive liberal values and goals and sensible government to achieve them.

And that's why the "identity crisis" is just more hostile mythology. Like the other hackneyed phoniness that Democrats are feuding and in disarray. And that we don't try to represent "the people." Strange that our vast, diverse alliance that IS all of America's electorate that hasn't fled to the white supremacy party somehow doesn't include any of those also.

[Quemado]

5. My three reasons why so many candidates are in this race.

1. Book deal, make the talk show rounds, maybe land a gig on MSNBC.

2. Cabinet position.

3. Setting up name recognition for a run in 2024.

[msongs]

6. which of those 3 apply to inslee? nt

[oldsoftie]

8. But #3 would imply losing to trump in '20.

[crazytown]

10. A frontrunner closing in on 50%

who has been in the lead all year is not a “big favorite”?

[DrToast]

13. Maybe it's time to give a white man a shot.

I mean, it’s been 15 years since the Dems nominated a white guy. And it’s been over 20 years since there’s been a white man as a Democratic President.

Give white men a chance!

[oldsoftie]

15. Its been over 10 yrs since a Republican MAN was president.

[DrToast]

16. Indeed, but I didn't want to take credit for him!

[Celerity]

14. If Abrams gets in, we will have 11 non white males running, plus 2 other minorities (Pete is gay,

Bernie is Jewish).

12 out 25 who are non minority white males is hardly something that I am going to worry about simply based off the numbers.