Here's What I Think: The 2016 Presidential Candidates Are Wasting Their Time

[MineralMan]

2016 happened. It worked out poorly for Democrats. 2018 worked out better, and we regained control of the House of Representatives. I think the candidates who ran in 2016 are going to be shuttled off by the primary voters, with their supporters shifting to a new class of presidential hopefuls.

That's not to say that some, like Warren and Sanders, won't have support, but I don't think it will be enough to carry them past super Tuesday. The Democratic voters, stung by a stunning loss in 2016, are not going to be interested in a replay.

That's why I believe that Joe Biden, who stood out in 2016, after agonizing over a late decision to run, will find considerable support from people looking for a stable, well-known candidate with White House experience. If he ties his campaign to a rapidly rising younger star as a running mate, like Kamala Harris, I think he'll win next November.

Here on DU, we often ignore the mass of Democratic voters who are not vocal progressives. We do that at our peril, because they are truly the ones who will vote us to victory in 2020.

Don't like what I said? It's just my opinion, like everything I write here. Yours might differ from mine. Tell us about that.

[aikoaiko]

1. There are other benefits to running besides winning.

It is not a waste of time for any of them.

[Horizens]

5. REALLY ?

And just what are the benefits of a second term trump?

[aikoaiko]

8. Sigh. We are talking about the primaries here.

[Demsrule86]

11. Sorry...my mistake Mea culpa.

[Demsrule86]

6. No there is no benefit in losing 2020...none.

[aikoaiko]

7. We're talking about the primary.

[NurseJackie]

13. I see absolutely no benefit in giving anyone a platform to smear the Democratic party...

There are other benefits to running besides winning.
It is not a waste of time for any of them.

I see absolutely no benefit in giving anyone a platform to smear the Democratic party. What "benefit" is there in making false claims that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt" or "feeble". What is the "benefit" for anyone to publicly insinuate that Democrats are "corrupt" or to characterize the Democratic party is an "absolute failure".

Honestly, I struggle to see what good there is in cheering anyone who who says false things like the Democratic party is "the party of the one-percent" or that Democrats are the "party of the elite". These things are blatantly untrue.

This type of argument that promotes the myth that there's "no difference between Democrats and Republicans" is harmful. It tarnishes the "brand" of the Democratic party... it creates distrust and divisions... resentments form, old wounds are opened... and that weakens the party. A weakened Democratic party only benefits the GOP, and Trump, and Russia.

All I'm saying here is that this type of negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections. What good purpose does that serve?

I hope that everyone has learned from the mistakes of the past and that anyone who's inclined to do so can resist the urge to indulge themselves in such vanities and lies.

[aikoaiko]

14. Because we're stronger together.

And I mean that. Including people who align with the party, but who criticize the party or Democratic politicians makes us more legitimate to voters who are outside the party (left-leaning independents) and even to registered party members like myself.

The days of unexamined party history and tactics are over. No one

I may not like some of the word choices used in the criticisms you quoted, but I understand what is at their root.

If these words generate apathy why do the speakers get so many votes in polls and elections?

At some level, you must recognize that the speakers of these criticisms of the party are resonating with Democratic voters and they are voting.

The 2018 blue wave was the embodiment of the best parts of our 2016 Democratic primaries.

[NurseJackie]

18. Oh good grief! GMAFB! Anyone who calls the Democratic party "corrupt" or "an absolute failure"...

but who criticize the party or Democratic politicians

Oh good grief! GMAFB! Anyone who calls the Democratic party "corrupt" or "an absolute failure" is not innocently "criticizing" the party. Don't try to feed me that load of bull. I wasn't born yesterday. I see that type of behavior for exactly what it is.

The days of unexamined party history and tactics are over. No one

LOL! That's not "examination" ... there's nothing thoughtful or helpful about that type of "examination". The type of anti-party rhetoric follows a well-known philosophy that the party must be "destroyed" in order to be "rebuilt". Anyone who publicly claims or insinuates that there's "no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans" is diminishing and denigrating the Democratic party.

us more legitimate to voters who are outside the party

Lord. No it doesn't. What an absurd thing to suggest. The accusations of "there's no difference" and the "both the same" insinuations, and the "Democrats are corrupt" smears, and the "Democrats are failures" lies only serve to harm the party.

Those lies may generate fist pumps and cheers from those who already have the greatest of contempt for the Democratic party... but it certainly does nothing to promote or encourage voters to support Democrats. It does nothing to generate enthusiasm or optimism. It doesn't motivate people to volunteer or to donate.

All I'm trying to say is that things like that are not in the best interests of the party. That's a perfectly reasonable observation.

If these words generate apathy why do the speakers get so many votes in polls and elections?

Ha! OMG! Seriously?

I may not like some of the word choices used in the criticisms you quoted, but I understand what is at their root.

It serves no good purpose to defend anyone's lies and or his (or her) contemptible words and behavior. Nor does it help to try and falsely characterize that type of harmful and divisive behavior as being "good for the party". It's not good for the party. (Unless the goal is to, as mentioned above, to "destroy and rebuild".)

[LongtimeAZDem]

26. +∞

[LongtimeAZDem]

27. Only if a candidate works to strengthen the message of the party, and concedes when defeated

[calguy]

2. You may well be right

But that's why we have primaries. To let the people decide who's wasting their time and who is not. Let the dialogs begin!

[bigtree]

3. it's Warren's first run

...and Biden is a two-primary loser.

Maybe he can reinvent himself as a newcomer, but he's a known quantity.

My feeling is that his name-rec will carry him just far enough to fall in the political fire and flutter away like he did before. He has no natural constituency which would generate some kind of new energy. He was a dud in Dem primaries because he was seen as just another ho-hum pol.

I've yet to see or hear about some agenda of his that's going to excite and attract the voters we need. The last decade's strategy of peeling off republican moderates and independents is hampered by the revelation in the Trump era that there are no more republican moderates to be had.

You aren't going to get young Democrats to the polls like the midterms by reverting back to the 'moderate' half of the Obama administration. And no sunglasses or cocky banter can cover for Joe campaigning like a '90s senator.

[MineralMan]

4. I suppose we'll see.

Warren? I don't think she can attract enough followers to even get started, really. She's sort of boring, when you get right down to it.

[jcgoldie]

32. boring?

Your premise was that 2016 candidates would be rejected by voters and you named her explicitly despite the fact that she didn't run. The "boring" charge is just a personal attack that you provide no support for.

Edit to add: I'm not altogether against the idea that we need a younger fresh face... but of all the candidates Joe Biden is absolutely not that.

[MineralMan]

33. No, it's not an attack at all. It's an observation.

[jcgoldie]

34. Ok

Not altogether unlike the oft repeated "observation" that HRC was "unlikeable."

[MineralMan]

35. Well, it's similar to that, anyhow.

Frankly, I do think Hillary Clinton was seen as "unlikable" by many people. I'm sure some of those people didn't vote for her. Being "unlikable" is a definite negative description. "Boring" is less so, although being boring does work to damp down enthusiasm to some degree.

I'd call Joe Biden "unpredictable." Sometimes, he gets his foot stuck in his mouth. However, he is fairly "likable," and isn't "boring."

I'd call Bernie Sanders "wooden." His constant repetition of the same gestures during his speeches puts me off. He is "likable" to some people, though, and says interesting things sometimes, to prevent boredom.

Then there's Kamala Harris, who owns the "likability" market. She's also not boring, and gives a heckuva speech. She's relatively "unexperienced," which some will see as a negative. That's one reason I like her as a VP candidate. A term in office in that role would remove that "unexperienced" label.

You might notice that I haven't mentioned any positions on issues for any of the candidates. There's a reason for that. All of them would support a Democratic Congress in enacting laws that take a progressive stance. The Presidential election is often more of a popularity contest than an ideological contest. Those other attributes make a big difference in who wins enough electoral votes to move into the White House.

[Demsrule86]

9. It was moderates that gave us back the house...so you are wrong. We need to attract independents in

order to win. I want Biden on top of the ticket and Kamala Harris as VP...great ticket. Checks all boxes...those who call themselves socialist or want to take down social media or banks or are running on reparations simply will not win a general. And you can't run on the green new deal either...this is not to say climate change isn't important and it should be an issue...but you have to have a good plan that won't scare voters to death...Run on improving the ACA with a public option. I intend to change my status from undecided to supporting Joe Biden. He is the only one of the Democrats running who can win a general IMHO...and we must win.

[bigtree]

15. those 'scary' people advocating for health care coverage and curbing pollution

...to save our planet attracted a lot of new Democrats to the party. Anyhow, the split between moderates and progressives in the House is about even.

It didn't go so well for moderate, red-state Democrats in the Senate who tried to court Trump voters and lost.

Vox:

“When we run moderate candidates, we are not succeeding in peeling off the Trump voters,” (Vox’s Tara Golshan) wrote, “It’s hard to look at the results in the Senate and say Beto [should have] run a campaign like [Indiana’s Joe] Donnelly, [Missouri’s Claire] McCaskill, and [Arizona’s Kyrsten] Sinema

You make me want to advocate even harder for those things you're claiming are too scary for voters. If this is his campaign, repressing progressive change to avoid upsetting conservatives, he'll have quite a fight on his hands. I haven't seen one voter in the field of ANY of these Democratic candidates to tone it down.

It just sounds too convenient to complain that advocating for progressive changes - not mamby-pamby lip service to placate the Libs, but real reform that actually challenges the political system - is going to upset someone's apple cart. It's partisan fearmongering, imo.

If we're going to attract a following that will upset Trump, it will need to be someone who's doing more than trying to tweak the status quo.

[Demsrule86]

21. It is not what they say but how it will be portrayed... there is no point on runing on things we

don't have a chance in hell of getting right away....leaving ourselves open to attacks. I know a great deal about Medicare for all and for people with workplace or family plan insurance, it would cost way more....and there would be higher taxes for all...we need to move towards universal coverage in a way that can work...as for the Green new Deal, I don't want to scare the crap out of Americans and have them reject everything...let play this smart and win because nothing matters....if you don't win. You can only pass legislation that Americans agree with...and they don't want Medicare for all if it includes losing workplace insurance...how about lowering the age as a start with a public option. You won't get it all ….no one ever does.

[bigtree]

22. there's Biden's slogan!

...

"You won't get it all!"

"You don't have a chance in hell," running a close second.

[Demsrule86]

10. He was a vice president who was trusted with many important things...he also pushed

LGBTQ rights when Pres. Obama was still reluctant...people want to post Anita Hill crap have at it...it is old news- forty or fifty years old...not changing my mind. Biden has experience, the ability and most importantly the compassion to lead this nation.

[borgesian]

12. Makes sense. Voters looking for a "new class of presidential hopefuls"

would naturally be drawn to a young, charismatic, up and comer like Joe Biden.

[BlueStater]

16. LOL!

[Garrett78]

17. Warren hasn't run before. Biden ran twice before.

I think Biden will outlast Warren, but mentioning those 2 doesn't really jive with your premise.

Sanders, of course, is the only candidate who ran in 2016. I suspect he'll also outlast Warren and some others, but Super Tuesday won't go well for him.

[R B Garr]

19. I think you're right. Biden will appeal to the masses who can't

be bothered with socialism distractions and just want experience and familiarity. All the other distractions have worn thin and we know they lost — lost in 2016 and 2018. People voted to govern and not for purity of ideas that means nothing in the end if you can’t govern.

Looks to be why Biden is consistently number 1 in the polls. Great thread. 👍

[R B Garr]

20. Oh, and yes to what you said about Harris!

What a great ticket—Biden/Harris.

[dsc]

23. Warren ran in 2016?

who knew?

[MineralMan]

25. No, she did not. However, her name was prominent in discussions

on this website during that primary season, all the same. This looks to be a very different primary season.

[peggysue2]

24. I think Joe's electability quotient is the highest among all our candidates.

I've no doubt that Joe Biden could flatten the Trumpster and his nonsense. With a young, up and coming VP, he'd give a hard nod to the future while assuring people that we can repair the damage done and get back on track as a country, as a friend to our western allies, as a defender of democracies around the world. Biden stood before the recent Munich Security conference and strongly stated: "We (the United States) will be back. No doubt about it, we will be back."

I believe him when he says that. He has the experience and know-how to absolutely make that happen.

The only reason I've not jumped aboard is that Uncle Joe has to win the primary first, has to address his own past in a strong and credible way to reach the finish line. I have few doubts about his capability to do that but I want to wait until he does.

Maybe a national speech, the sort that then candidate Obama made when he addressed the Jeremiah Wright controversy, eloquently weaving the questions of race and Reverand Wright's comments into a national moment of reflection. It was a master class in what words can do and it deflated the political frenzy. I read a similar suggestion just the other day.

Joe Biden is going to be under the Big Guns because he is a threat to a dozen wanna-be hopefuls but more importantly to the Trumpster himself. I hope once he announces he comes out strong and decisive and ready to take on anything and everything. And that he speaks to his past decisions/policy stands--the good and the bad.

He does that, he'll have my support. Because in the General, he can win this thing. And winning in 2020 is everything.

[watoos]

28. We won overwhelmingly in 2018,

because we ran to the left, which is in realty the center.

Tax dollars that benefit the poor is called Socialism, but tax dollars that benefit the rich is called capitalism.

Have you seen Trump's budget proposal? Billions more for defense, billions more for his wall, and trillions in cuts to social programs.
Trump already gave away 1.5 trillion to corporations and the rich, tax cuts that never expire. The CBO estimates future GDP growth at 1.9%, Trump's budget projects growth at 3%. Trump promised his tax cuts would produce 5%, 6% growth. If that's capitalism I want out. Our country hasn't been capitalistic for decades. Our country's economy is crony capitalism. Dylan Ratigan was explaining that to dummies like me. MSNBC fired him because he strayed from the far right narrative.

Income inequality is going to destroy America.

[brooklynite]

31. No we didn't...

We won in 2018 because we picked up marginal Republican seats in the suburbs, with largely moderate Democratic candidates.

FWIW: Our Revolution's track record of endorsements was: only 37% of endorsed candidates won their Primary; only 14% of their candidates won the General Election. For Justice Democrats, the numbers were 31% and 17%. Conversely, the centrist New Dem PAC scored 86% in Primaries and 55% in the GE.

[brooklynite]

29. Why do you consider Warren a "2016 candidate"?

[MineralMan]

30. I don't. She wasn't. However, her name came up very frequently

in discussions about 2016, as I remember. She had a lot of fans. She chose not to run that year. Had she run, Sanders would probably have lost many votes to her. I don't know what her decision not to run was based on, though.

She's running for 2020, though. It doesn't appear to me, though, that she has gained any additional popularity. I'm not seeing much enthusiasm building for her.

I think it's interesting that Biden is delaying his announcement. That seems to be generating more buzz for him than if he had announced earlier.