Should a White Man Be the Face of the Democratic Party in 2020?
White men have largely ruled both the Democratic and Republican parties throughout American history, even as they have declined to roughly 30 percent of the population, and many voters still have preconceptions of presidents as white and male. Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders are starting off with other advantages as well: They are the best-known candidates at this stage, both with experience running for president, and they are well positioned to have the money and resources to compete through the 2020 primaries.
But as older white men, they are out of step with ascendant forces in the party today.
Women, minorities and young people are fueling much of its energy, and they are well represented by multiple well-qualified, politically savvy female and nonwhite Democrats who are running. Ms. Harris in particular has had a strong start in fund-raising, and only Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders consistently outpace her in polls.
The party also has a new primary calendar for 2020 that could help these candidates: The diverse Democratic electorates in California and Texas will vote earlier than usual, and candidates like Ms. Harris and Mr. Booker could also benefit from the sizable black vote in the early primary state of South Carolina.
Many of the voters interviewed said that the most important qualification was the ability to defeat Mr. Trump, who has come away from the recent release of the Mueller report more angry than elated and wants a political victory untainted by questions of legitimacy. To some, the best Democratic candidate will be one who can wrest voters who backed Mr. Trump in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as Democrats did somewhat successfully in 2018 to flip the House.
--------------------
The Democratic Party has divided itself into small factions of self interest. That may be a legacy from nominating a divisive candidate like Hillary Clinton in 2016 who appealed to a specific self interest within the Democratic Party. Don't you want to elect the first woman President? But that aspirational goal for a specific self interest also included a message of guilt and shame for other self interested factions within the Democratic Party. That goal of electing the first woman President also gave rise to the MeToo movement which has done more damage within the Democratic Party than it has damaged Republican opposition.
Democrats need to be united so the party has a competitive chance to win the White House. But there isn't unity within the party. If the identity of 'old, white men' has become a disqualifying measure for the Democratic nominee then what is the unifying measure? So far there isn't one; each faction pursues its own self interest using guilt and shame as a divisive political argument. That's the legacy of the Clinton campaign.
So the Democratic Party has adopted the strategy of unifying Democrats around the idea of defeating Trump in 2020. What happens if Trump is removed from office? What happens if Trump decides not to run? How will Democrats unify around any nominee without Trump?
Democrats have divided themselves into winners and losers within their own party. Democrats desperately need Trump to run for reelection because they haven't got anything else to hold the party together.
Independents need some good Republican candidates to run against Trump so that we're not stuck with his lying, corrupt ass for another 4 years.
Last election sucked. Wouldn't it be nice if we could actually have two decent candidates to choose from, both of whom would actually qualify for a security clearance if they were a normal person?
As an independent, I couldn't agree more. I think that the Dems have some decent people running, but I who gets to the top of the heap should be interesting.
Yep, 2016 was the worst election I've experienced. And I remember the Kennedy-Nixon contest in 1960 (although I was far too young to vote).
Wild arsed speculation: What happens if Republicans somehow convince Nikki Haley or Joni Ernst to run in 2020?
There aren't any guarantees that Trump will run in 2020. What will Democrats do if they can't run against Trump? So far, only the Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party are putting forward any policy ideas.
I don't think his ego will permit him to not run in 2020. One Republican has already announced a primary challenge - Hogan is discussing it, but I don't know if anything will come out of it. The GOP is doing everything they can to stamp it out, including threatening to cancel primaries in certain states (such as SC).
I am unconvinced. A lot of Republicans have been leaving politics. Paul Ryan simply quit; he wasn't removed.
Trump has not been kind to the old guard of the Republican Party, either. The 2016 Republican field was as diverse as the 2020 Democratic field appears to be. The Republican Party is changing and its too early to tell what the end result will be. I mean, some Republicans are actually beginning to talk about issues like income inequality, unfair trade, and the need for taxes. IMO only the Reagan clingers are still stuck on things like 'welfare queens'. Trump has been the asteroid that is forcing those Republican dinosaurs into extinction. Ronald Reagan is dead.
It's not like Trump has never walked away from a bad deal. Trump's ego is about 'winning' but everything Trump does can be twisted into a win. Trump could simply quit and declare victory which is his usual style.
Trump uses unpredictability as a political weapon. IMO it is unwise to make plans that depend on Trump's predictability.
Good point.
Wild arsed speculation: What happens if Republicans somehow convince Nikki Haley or Joni Ernst to run in 2020?
Well there's already one Republican who's announced a run for president-- William Weld:
William Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts, announced Monday that he will challenge President Donald Trump for the Republican nomination for president in 2020.
Weld, who ran for vice president on the 2016 Libertarian Party ticket headed by presidential nominee Gary Johnson, is the first Republican to declare a bid to deny Trump a second term in the White House.
"Creepy WHITE Joe" is the front runner..... and he hasn't even said he would run yet.
Sums up how Donald Trump got elected.
The primary issue concerning Democrats about their prospective nominee is not issue based, but rather race. Sad to see their race obsession consume the Democrat party.
Yuppers. Democrats do not want to admit to themselves that Clinton lost because she divided the Democratic Party. That's why Clinton was beaten by a clownish buffoon who would have been laughed off the political stage under normal circumstances.
Trump won the election simply because he wasn't Hillary Clinton. Everyone knew Trump was a clown; he demonstrated that every time he opened his mouth. The 2016 election was a referendum on the Clinton style of politics.
If that's true the dens should easily win the WH in 2020. I'll be waiting with baited breathe
Apparently Democrats are not finished dividing their own party. That's the only reason the outcome of the 2020 election remains uncertain.
No matter whom, they nominate, they are united in their opposition to Trump. You have said as much yourself. I think the independents hold the key to victory
Reliable Democrats are united in their opposition toward anyone who is not a reliable Democrat. So that vocal opposition shouldn't be surprising.
I agree that independents have swayed the last few Presidential elections. And independents are persuaded by policy ideas rather than party brand. IMO detailed plans are less persuasive because everyone understands that no detailed plan generated by a campaign will be adopted without opposition and compromise. Independents are electing a President and not a bureaucrat. Ideas matter far more than wonkish details.
You mean ideas without detail are much more conducive to winning. That I agree with and polling proves that. Ask people if they are in favor of free tuition for all and you get favorable polling. Show them what it might cost via taxes and support drops like a rock.
Aside from the independents, Which we both agree are crucial, is the matter of the working class democrats that Trump took away from the democratic party in 2016. I assume that is why I see no less than 3 democratic Presidential candidates come out here to MA to back striking workers against a company I once worked for. (Biden announces Wednesday). Yup, I would say the UFCW is the embodiment of the forgotten Americans. Democrats won't make the same mistake twice.
The 'what' is more important than the 'how' during an election campaign. If there is broad agreement among voters that free tuition is a worthy goal then there is a mandate to find compromises that try to make that goal possible. It is the process of compromise that develops the plan; voters understand that opposition and compromise are necessary to develop a workable plan. Voters may not understand the specific details involved in governing but they do understand the purpose of governing.
Details are used to lie to the public. Any goal can be made impossible by simply developing a plan. Voters, particularly independent voters, are not as stupid as partisans delude themselves into believing.
Nerm,
I have checked and according to the latest Pew, 38% describe themselves as independents, while 31% are Democrats and 26% call themselves Republicans.
Independents vote issues, not party. Who ever "seems" to match up closest to to those issues is the one they vote for.
Americans' Identification as Independents Back Up in 2017
According to Gallup the portion of the electorate describing themselves as independent has risen to 42 pct. The Gallup results also indicate that the number of self identified independents tend to rise in off years. That may be due to the political parties only allowing party affiliated voter participation in primary voting.
9 States Where Registered Independents Outnumber Both Major Political Parties
I don't know how reliable is the info from this link. But the info does suggest that the major polling organizations may not be capturing the variability of political non-affiliation across the country.
Yes, independents appear to be more focused on basic ideas (left/right for example) rather than obtaining and retaining political power. Independents seem to be ideologically partisan but aren't influenced by the political purity tests used by the parties. IMO it doesn't matter how many D's or R's are elected; what matters are the goals that are pursued by government. Independents seem to be more influenced by results rather than plans and promises.
That's really not true. Most "independents" vote reliably for one party or the other. The true number of independents who consistently switch between parties is about 5%.
Clinton may have divided the party, but she actually got more votes than Trump
So how come she didn't get the office?
Because of the Electoral College system.
Because she failed to garner the required number of electoral votes under our Constitution.
Like every President in your lifetime.
The validity of that argument must be predicated upon accepting that Hillary Clinton is incapable of following the rules.
I'm sure Donald Trump would have made equally valid arguments had he lost. So, what's the difference?
I believe that Trump. had he failed to accept the results of the election, would have been a threat to democracy.
Democrats who fail to accept the results are held to no standards.
Should a White Man Be the Face of the Democratic Party in 2020?
If that question has to be asked then perhaps they have already lost.
Good point!
And many people aren't aware that by asking that question about a political party on NT, you can cause it to lose an election!
(Yes-- we are that powerful!!! LOL
Should the face of an orange hued Vulgarian be the face of the United States?
Why Not ?
We've already had a Mulatto face for 8 years.
Sad that you don't recognize that as extremely offensive. I guess you wouldn't mind if someone were to accuse you of being the product of a mule raping your mother. It's not really any different than using the "n" word. And it says far more about the user of the word than it does the target.
Why the Hell would that word be offensive to you ?
How can Democrats spend so much time focusing attention on identity based grievances and then be offended by the very identity they highlight?
Democrats are beginning to lose credibility within their own party.
The ignorance of some people on this site is disturbing.
Mulatto - Wikipedia
Are you saying that the democrats who are supporting Sanders are bigoted? or hypocrites?
Sanders isn't claiming to be anything other than a Democratic Socialist. Why haven't other Democrats been focusing attention on Sanders' unique characteristics of identity?
Do you really want them to? It may be important in the primary but very costly in the general election
Mulatto: late 16th century: from Spanish mulato ‘young mule or mulatto’, formed irregularly from mulo ‘mule’.
Mule: the offspring of a donkey and a horse (strictly, a male donkey and a female horse), typically sterile and used as a beast of burden.
Yeah, why would being called a mixed breed animal seem offensive? /s
I really was surprised to see so many conservatives apparently have no fucking idea how offensive that word is, but I guess they just got over not being allowed to use the "N" word so I'm sure to them degrading and demeaning others who don't look like them just comes natural.
Whether you're black or not makes no difference, many others do not like being called mules. If you have never cared or never knew what the word meant so you took no offense, that's your choice but you do not speak for all people of mixed race who find the term offensive.
Fact: Mulatto came from the Spanish word for "mule", the offspring of a donkey and a horse.
Fact: Many people of mixed race understandably find the word offensive.
I'm not expressing my opinion. I'm not telling you how to feel. I'm simply pointing out that many people do find it offensive and it doesn't matter that you don't, if they don't want to be called a "mule" simply because they had parents with differing levels of melanin then I think it reasonable to respect their wishes.
Mainly because a bunch of snowflakes decided one day that it must be offensive to them somehow.
Oh, well.
They will get over it, or not. Doesn't really matter if they do or not, they'll find something else to be newly offended about.
It's only offensive to YOU !
See Comment #5.1.2.
FAG used to be normal to say !
How times "Change" huh !
Isn't it fun watching the new "Democrat MEN" Drooling all over themselves as they pledge to HAVE a "Women" run with them as a side kick ?
The irony is that after Trump in the GOP primaries the top contenders were two Hispanic Americans, an African American, and a white woman. The favorite to be the next GOP nominee is an Indian American woman.
In other words Republicans seek the most qualified while progressives seek diversity, thus when a Republican attends an NBA basketball game he/she is satisfied that the very best players being represented on the court, while a progressive would lament that there should be more whites and or Hispanics out there.
Point well taken
They elected a totally unqualified black guy a way's back, and looked at the disaster that turned out to be.
Disaster? Obama? You really must be posting from an alternate reality.,..
Racial prejudice much, eh?
Obama was Bush Jr on steroids. The left hated Bush Jr but loved Obama, go figure.
How is that a prejudice thingy ?
Democrats used Barrack and his race for their good, constantly. Everything was "First Black man" this, "First Black man that", etc....
But go against Barrack and his ideas ...… your a racist !
I said nothing about his ideas or policies, you did. You made the point of mentioning he was a black guy as if that is what made him unqualified, not me.
Was Barack Obama elected simply because he is black?
That question can't be answered by looking at reliable Democratic or Republican voters; they'll vote for a glass of water marked with a D or R. Independent voters determine election outcomes. And neither Democrats or Republicans seem to understand independent voters.
Obama was a disaster from a partisan Republican point of view. Conversely Obama was a great President from a partisan Democratic point of view. But those partisan Republican and Democratic points of view aren't as relevant today. There are almost as many independent voters as Democrats and Republicans combined.
Bluntly pointing out the obvious, partisan Democrats and Republicans are blowing smoke up their own arses so they can justify acting like an arse.
$20 Trillion in debt is quite a legacy
No, you said: "Racial prejudice much, eh?" And the moderators did nothing about it!!! You called him a racist!!!
Barack Obama really is a black guy. Did Obama win the election because he is black?
Democrats made a big deal over their party electing the first black President, as if that was a major qualifying factor in the election. Had Hillary Clinton won the nomination there is little doubt that Democrats would have made a big deal over their party electing the first woman President.
Democrats used Obama's racial identity as evidence for the party's progressive credibility. How is that different than using Obama as a racial token? Why isn't that racist?
BS. Just more Republican brain farts.
Yes, Obama is a black man, and the first black President. But, that was not he qualifying factor. He was/is far more qualified for the Oval office position than Trump was/is, or ever will be.
No matter what the skin color or the ethnic background is, the one most important factor is, and should be, the qualifications for the job.
Obama cut our deficits in half butt Trump already doubled them, again...
Vic,
This is Nerms group so he does the moderation, not the regular mods. He gets to make the call.
Ok, thanks. I will see how he handles it
Do you mind giving us a link with proof of that
I'll check back tomorrow
Yes, I saw the flags. I allowed the flagged comments to stand and addressed it with a reply. Since I commented the action I could take is deletion.
I tend not to censor anyone's pettiness. IMO the comment wasn't sufficiently egregious to warrant removal.
"The White House and CBO figures each show that in 2009 the deficit reached $1.4 trillion. As a share of GDP, it easily topped any year since World War II, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. By the end of fiscal year 2013, the deficit figure had fallen to $679.5 billion in dollars unadjusted for inflation. That’s a 52 percent drop ."
This is typical of the lies of the left and the media. Obama finished with higher deficits than when he took office
thanks to the Dems refusing to pass the FY2009 budget while Bush was still in office and the Marxist spending of Obama and the Democrats
” U.S. Deficit Increases to $587 Billion, Ending Downward Trend
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration confirmed on Friday that a six-year run of declining annual budget deficits had halted: The shortfall for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 was $587 billion, an increase over last year in dollars and as a percentage of the economy.
The Bush deficit was 481 Billion as of January 2009. At the end of FY 2008 the deficit was 454.8 Billion according to CBO.
Per the US Treasury's month to month data, the deficit as of January 31, 2009 was 481.84 Billion
EXACTLY !
Should the face of an orange hued Vulgarian be the face of the United States?
And as has been pointed out by one of the more political analysts here, If that question has to be asked then perhaps they have already lost.
When this is what people are focused on, it's no wonder the serious problems are never resolved.
OMG it's true, eventually, they eat their own... LOL
Surely the most unifying candidate for the Democratic Party would be a disabled progressive lesbian Chinese Buddhist vegetarian anti-Semite.
So far the only faction within the Democratic Party that has been putting forward policy ideas have been Democratic Socialists. While the political rhetoric to promote those Democratic Socialist policies have been based upon grievances, those grievances affect everyone. The Democratic Socialists have not been pursuing identity based policies that divide the party.
There is a reason that Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are leading the Democratic field of candidates. The candidates who have highlighted divisive identity based grievances are taking lonely walks in the woods.
The only party that has A face is the party of the sitting president.
No senator is ever the face of a party, or are congresspeople, governors, media figures or other celebrities.
The seeded article has no reasonable point.
I'd advise against making that claim where Nancy Pelosi can hear it. The face of the 'opposition' party is the Speaker of the House and the Senate leadership. That's why the opposition party tries to gain control over the Congressional bodies during midterm elections. The midterm elections are cast as a referendum on the President so that the opposition party can gain a public face for the party.
Like it or not, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are the faces of the Democratic Party. They ensured that by making a televised rebuttal to Trump's national emergency declaration. But neither Pelosi are Schumer are putting forward policy ideas.
The fact that this question is being asked in the NY Times is both ridiculous and depressing.
The fact that this question is being asked in the NY Times is both ridiculous and depressing.
Meh!