I love how the comments editors "Picks" the pro-DNC, pro "centrist" (read: right wing) comments as it's "Top Picks" and systematically avoids the ones pointing out the utterly crass election rigging undertaken by the DNC in 2016.
Which side are you on, NY Times? The side of Democracy, or the side of the unabashedly pro-Capitalist "moderate" center of the Democratic Party? Don't bother answering. All of your readers already know.
7
And there are more. Hollywood hypocrites. The congressional distaff duo destined to defenestrate any democrat with an ounce of intellect. Comparatives, that is, to other foreigh leaders. Treadeau? Toast. Macron? A poodle. Der Frau? Leaving the building. May? No Thatcher that one. Italy, Brazil, Poland, Hungary. Any Adenauer in sight? No, my progressive fellow citizens, it’s going to be hamburgers well done with mayonnaise for the next six years; that vegan diet will be put on indefinite hold.
3
No it won’t!
Trump is toast.
We got his number now !!!
Your ruse !!!!white racist haters is done. And that’s on all sides.
AOC , Klobuchar , Warren , Pelosi , the ladies all have had it guys!!!!!
You continue to believe you will control our bodies and brains.
Your “ mans’ world “is about to change.
Real men are helping us and I don’t mean Beto either. !!!!
Thank you Rob Reiner and Chris Murphy and Eric Salwell and Blumenthal.
Thank u vocal men and women sick of this criminal silent civil war !
Republicans are dead to me and so is Biden and Bernie and ??? Shulze.
Get out of our way.
Vote those trump ladies out too. !
Collins .... do you even have a conscience. ?????
They are abused enablers. Deep down inside.
Talking to you Sarah Sanders. !!!!! Wish your god would rapture you out of the position you hide from !
Moderators start allowing our angry trolls to populate this section.
We rational people need to VENT today.
2
If the oaf wins re election, the US will have one less citizen. I don't want to live in such a stupid country. It could happen. We morons elected Bush twice. I'm hoping i can stay and be a bit prouder of my country.
7
I am gonna have a blast when you guys have your primaries. Bernie is getting the shaft again.... that is why they made him sign a contract with the devil.... I mean the DNC.
2
President Trump repeats in 2020 with ease
no doubt about it
& please tell these privileged phony actors to get off their high horse & leave the country once & for all like they promised us in 2016
Walk the walk not talk the talk
2
A grilled cheese sandwich on Wonder Bread ought to be able to beat a vulgar, loudmouthed, yammering, stammering, incompetent, corrupt liar like Donald J. Trump without breaking a sweat. But sure enough, the Democratic Party will figure out a way to lose in 2020 and allow the “conservative, evangelical” minority to saddle 330 million Americans with this idiot for another four years... assuming Trump hasn’t contrived a way to become President for life, and to anoint his successor shortly before he shuffles off this mortal coil.
How does President Ivanka Trump sound? Better get used to it. Until about 2060 or so. Around the time Miami and Lower Manhattan are underwater.
3
Hmmm...
The photograph shows what looks like Democratic activists displaying Nazi hand salute.
Lots of energy, rage and blind allegiance for fake causes...
1
I would call this a very *likely* ally. Democrats would rather be pleased with themselves than win. They aren't concerned about eligibility (yet) and focused on symbols and an ill-timed and dubious sense of "inclusiveness." Right now, democratic leadership is hell bent to not have a white male on the ticket at all. That's a high risk strategy given who they will be running against - a guy who can belittle anyone from Santa Claus to the Virgin Mary, and a right-wing apparatus that funds hate groups and whispering campaigns. Only a white male can take the air out of that. I wanted Hillary to win as much as anyone, but that goal should be deferred until the current crisis in the White House is taken care of. 2020 is of incalculable historic importance.
2
Time for a primal scream:
GOD FORBID!
(I am speaking of Mr. Trump's reelection. You knew that, right?)
Lottat good points here, Mr. Wasserman. But--
--I prefer to believe--
--that the Democrats really WILL pull it together in 2020. Two thoughts:
(1) The egregious unfitness of Mr. Donald J. Trump to be president of anything or anybody.
PLUS--the multitude of legal issues hounding this man like the Hound of the Baskervilles. When has a US President ever been so dogged by his own delinquencies and peccadilloes?
Bearing this too in mind: that legal saga is by no means done. Dear me no! The lawyers and the judges are still--
--pretty darn busy.
(2) Not everybody but SOME people voted for Mr. Trump in the full knowledge: this is a "pig in a poke." We sort of like him because--
(a)--he's not a "politician."
(b)--he's a "businessman."
(c)--he "tells it like it is."
And at least one Trump supporter I heard quoted declared that: yes, we KNOW he's a narcissist but, if he lets us down--if he fails to meet expectations--
--we'll just vote him out.
If anyone in these United States DOESN'T know what kind of a man Mr. Donald J. Trump is--
--(long dramatic pause).
And yes--I know. His base. He's got his base. They'll stick to their guy come hell or high water.
But the rest of us--
--we're sick sick SICK of the guy.
And yes, I know. The Democrats have GOT--to pull it together. Unite. Be a party.
You listening?
You Democrats.
1
AOC and her cadre of fools are an absolute disaster for the Democrats. People who never thought they would ever vote for Trump are quietly lining up to re-elect him. The Democrats should be very afraid of the "embarrassed silent majority.
3
You can't beat a known "somebody" aka Donald Trump with a herd of known Bernie and Joe and unknown aka Kamala and Cory "nobodies".
2
"Pre-election silence" or "media blackout periods" is the norm for democracies of the world. The power given to our media to report near-election polling, exit polls and local voting results undermines democracy. Our country's low voter participation is due, in part, to the common perception that our democracy has been undermined by powerful interests. This is my third version and attempt to get this comment posted here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_silence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACE_Electoral_Knowledge_Network
2
Hopefully this time around with the stakes as high as possible we won't have the disruptive influx of Saradonistas who if they don't get their way will hold their breath until they turn blue and losing candidates partisans will avoid carping after the nominee is named. It should be very clear even at this early date that most negative behavior toward the nominee from allegedly Trump opponents are either coming from self righteous useful (to the Trump campaign) idiots, Trump trolls, or Boris and Natasha from the IRA in Leningrad. We will need an army to counter these dark forces.
2
The Federal Court in Ohio just upheld banning of funds for Planned Parenthood! Democrats grow up! The next election, like the last, is all about the Courts so get your heads out of their hiding place and get them into the clear light of day!
1
I'm seriously fraught with angst. Mr. Trump isn't fit to run a bath.
1
"Donald Trump’s low approval ratings have attracted a crush of Democrats vying to make him a one-term president."
Here we go again. According to Rasmussen, the only polling organization still doing daily presidential approval ratings, Trump is at 47% as of today. That is EXACTLY the same rating Hussein had at the same point in office.
Remember the way these media outlets force-fed us a steady diet, for more than a year, of the inevitability that the stumbling, chardonnay swilling geriatric in the exoskeletal body brace draped in hideous pantsuits and reinforced, load-bearing kitten heels, WOULD be our next president?
You know... the one prone to mental "short circuits", causing her to compulsively lie under oath to the FBI?
… the one who placed paid agitators in lines at competing campaign rallies, to stage confrontations for television news cameras in order to advance the narrative that her opponent was "dangerous and divisive" to America?
...the one who accused her opponent of undermining our democracy if he did not pledge to accept -- without question -- the result of the election without question, then spent nearly two years whining about how unfair and un-American the election and the winning candidate were, after she failed?
Remember how they told us the successful candidate had "no path to the white house" and then, how they stared into the television cameras, like slack-jawed mongoloids watching a magic act when he became President? This is how it began.
Democrats - please continue to divide the world into groups specifically identified by race, gender and sexual preference. Also, please don’t forget to demand white people born 8 generations after their forefathers fought and died to end slavery - now be forced to hand over their hard-earned money to folks whose great great great great great great great grandparents night - or might not have been slaves.
That’s the greatest gift Democrats can give America - a clear picture of where they stand.
1
As it was last time, it's yours to lose, Dems. Flyover country matters.
2
Looks like it will be a huge cat fight with Trump on the sideline inciting them, calling names, making accusations: "She's an anti-Semite," "He's a racist," "They're crooks," "That one's a communist." The Democrats will tear each other to pieces proving their honor and patriotism, and Trump will feed the bloody remains to his ravenous foxes.
1
Are you kidding me? I don't have to watch cage matches on WWE anymore. I can watch the D's fight with one another.
This should be really really good.
AND..in this corner...weighing in at 118 pounds....a bartender from the Bronx and part time Congresswoman....AOC!!!!! (Cheers)
And in this corner...we have a 220 pound guy from the streets of Newark...MR> T-BONE BOOKER!!! (Cheers)
Gentlemen..and women? To your corners and no hitting below the belt.
Trump's ally is the economy and the state of the Union stupid. All the unlikely allies are just for arm chair political scientists.
1
Here - a Times Pick - Oliver, from Planet Earth, states: "The democrats (sic) should focus on the senate in 2020."
I'm not sure what the criteria is for Times Picks these days, and focusing on winning anything - including this current disaster of a presidency! - would be a good thing for the Democrats to do.
The Democratic Party is in the majority in this country. And the upcoming election - for president, Senate, House, whatever - is theirs to lose...
Bottom Line -Anyone who still wants trump after this trainwreck of corruption and incompetence can have him and watch their already lousy futures more rapidly disappear before their eyes.
We'll be just fine behind our baby blue walls sucking up more and more of the goodies and gravy.
By the time 2024 rolls around they'll be begging for help from Uncle Sam who by then will be broker than a bum selling pencils on some streetcorner in some bright red state.
If Sanders supporters got paid every time they posted a whiny comment, they'd all be multi-millionaires.
Do they actually believe that continuously telling the rest of us Democrats how corrupt we are will get us to vote for their pitiable candidate? Do they actually believe that sliming Hillary Clinton over & over & over will endear him to us?
Are they that arrogant? Are they that stupid? Are they both?
1
Hopefully The NYT won't do as other media did and repeat Trump's free daily media tsunami as happened in 2016.
1
Oh wait, its a day that ends in "Y" so it must be time for a "dems in disarray" piece in the NYT where "concerned experts" pontificate that a robust process of candidate selection is unhealthy for democracy and that the people cannot be trusted because the Democratic tent is too "fractuous" and what the people choose will be "too far left" for the fictional white midwestern moderate centrist that dems must win back from Trump in order succeed.
What a load of hogwash. I wish I could get paid as much as the author to say such idiotic things.
1
Trumps "low approval ratings", according to this editor, are exactly the same as Obama's month-to-month
The candidate offering the most "free stuff" to be paid for by the little children who manage to survive the abortion gauntlet should get the Democrat nod.
1
We’ve no patience for the status quo. Corporate democrats, moderates, bipartisan flunkies — we don’t want you. You are part of the problem. Go form your own corrupt clone of the republicans and let the chips fall where they may. It’s either our future or no future.
1
Not to mention Howard Schultz (I), who is guaranteed to run as a spoiler. Thank God.
1
Never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 1968, 1980, 1988, 2000, 2004, 2016... 2020?
Maybe if it would quit nominating Rockefeller Republicans in drag...
1
“But could a nominee named Joe Biden unify and galvanize all these elements? Could Bernie Sanders? Kamala Harris? Elizabeth Warren? Amy Klobuchar?” Of course! And you know what will be an immense help? Trump.
1
All this punditry directed at the Dems:
Don't stray from the center.
Don't run too many candidates.
In 2016, the party brass anointed their preferred, centrist, candidate.
How did that work out?
1
It was no misconception that the superdelegates rigged Democratic outcome against Mr. Sanders. I’m a Democrat, and my party needs to get rid of the siperdelegates FAST.
1
A third party candidate will really make it a horse race!
silly, the GOP in 2016 had a messy and divisive primary battle and a disaster of a convention, and who won? Its not about the infighting or an ugly convention, its about what the candidate stands for in the eyes of the voters. And that is what the campaign after the convention will determine.
Will the American voter finally get tired of Trump relentless antics and manic tweeting and decide they want an adult not a juvenile tv reality star to amuse them? Perhaps after the Mueller report ,House investigations and the output of aggressive investigative journalists (fake news) the tide may shift except for the 30% who are emotionally invested in being a part of the Trump cult. The democrats need a solid clear headed candidate who can stand up to Trump without rolling in the mud as Trump likes to do ,let him roll around it alone only the 30% will hang in for clown Trump.
Three things:
1. The usage of the word "if" in your piece. What's with "if?" Will "if" come true? Most likely not. If the moon falls into the sea tomorrow, will there be an enormous tidal wave?
2. You focus on how everything -- and I mean EVERYTHING -- can go wrong.
3. What "if" everything goes right for the Democrats? Why don't you consider that?
1
The standard bearer for the Democrats will not be as important to independents — those who decide elections — as the fact that the Democrat Party now endorses abolishing ICE, enables last minute abortion, and is pushing the economy-killing Green New Deal. Radicalism will not win, etc.
I don't know or care who this liar Wasserman is other than hoping he is not related to the former DNC chair, but the DNC absolutely rigged the primaries for Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country on any side, and the other Democrats are running to be VP, whatever they tell you. It's Bernie, he has the campaign staff, the millions of donors, and the chutzpah. Mazeltof!
"all-out fracas next July in Milwaukee" ? Did the Dems move the the convention up a year?
The Parties are like Families....
The Republicans are family that loves each other but is uptight overly disciplined that marches to same drumbeat and stick together. The Moderates, Conservatives, Religious, Tea Party, will go back and forth but in the end get behind the winner.
The Dems are that undisciplined family that love each other as well but are always fighting each other to get the edge and the last chicken leg. The Liberals, Moderates, Abortion wing and Identity Politics gang continue to find themselves at odds and it remains to be seen if they will support each other. As Bernie and Hilary showed last year.
Which family would you rather be? Thats debatable, but what isnt, is the Dems habit of grabbing loss from the jaws of victory
Did I read there is no obvious front-runner? This is nonsense. Bernie Sanders is the obvious front-runner of all the candidates. By including Biden in the polls (though he's still not a candidate) makes it easier to deny this. You can see NYT's bias when they reported (Astead Herndon's article) three days ago that Biden leads the group with 27%, while burying Bernie's results of 25% - and altogether IGNORING the 4.9% sampling error of the poll. The headlines and article then were simply false. Bernie and Biden are TIED... it's called statistics. (Recently NYT changed the headlines and modified the text in Bernie's favor - they routinely do this.) And if Biden enters the race then there will not be ONE, but TWO, obvious front-runners. All of the other candidates had under 10%! They clearly group out.
1
Very nice article.
Some point to clarify, Debbie Waserman gifted Hillary the Super Delegates way in advance of the race, giving her a super huge lead no one could ever hope to surmount. At the end she had a 45-1 head start on super delegates over #2 in the race, Sanders.
Past that any one she convinced to follow her was just in addition to a super huge lead before the race begun. That at the end they voted for her is just semantics, she had them well in advance already.
You got it right, there is no lead in this donkey race. Not one of them can say 'I have a real chance', this is because of the socialists and the identity politics people they let in. They do not get along, their he she or it, or no one. They already said they will not compromise, so deduct them already, for a progressive candidate will never win, and these folk will only vote for a progressive.
All this against a solid red wall that will ensure the DEMS loose.
Meantime the witch hunt, the constant media attack, and Ocasio-Cortez's mouth fuel the fire in the GOP voters every day more.
Just concentrate on 2024, hope for a second coming of Obama, this race is done.
Im just wondering when Democrat voters are going to come to the realization that, when you are considering a candidate for POTUS, experience and accomplishments matter. If someone walked into your place of business, and never worked in that field, never ran or lead anything in their life, never accomplished anything significant, and said they are going to take over your company and change things, what would your reaction be? It seems Democrat voters, mainly liberals, give more weight to someone who tells them what they want to hear, and promises free stuff, then anyone who spends their time in the real world. So far, the only Dem candidates with that type of background are the 2 governors and maybe Biden. But they arent garnering much interest. so far its Bernie, who never accomplished a thing in the Senate, and has no real experience leading or running anything. The man never has donned a pair of scrubs, or huddled with doctors, or insurance execs, or hospital execs, but he has a "plan" to make healthcare delivery "medicare for all". And oh boy, as Im writing this, Beto just entered the race. Theres another example of exactly what Im talking about. Do walls really kill people? When will you folks ever learn?
Criminy. It's a year and a half from the election yet the tsunami of Cassandras projecting doom on the Dems is already relentless. Make it stop. Maybe all the chips will fall into place, the Dems won't impode, they won't eat their young, they won't go full Weather Underground.
It's funny there is no such projection regarding the GOP. Is that because that mutant organization, which now reviles the Rule of Law, is beyond speculation much less redemption ?
The real problem for the Democrats is that this Buffoon still has a 40 percent approval rating. After two years of incompetence they would vote for him again. That’s a large base to work from. The electoral college could give him another victory. Time to eliminate this archaic institution.
2
This column should have garnered more comments than all the rest in the NYT today because of the serious implications of potential failure described here.
Do you want to win?
Or do you want to talk talk talk, and then lose, and then cry for four more years.
A Democratic Election Strategy?
I propose that all Democratic Candidates disappear. For thirty days. Together.
Then come back to us, the American people, with a policy platform that you all can and will support.
And bring a slate of two or three candidates which you candidates have chosen to represent the Democratic Party in the 2020 race. You candidates will know in your hearts who will have the best chance of winning the Presidential election after this platform development process. Demonstrate your love of our country by stepping aside as a candidate if that is the group's decision. Or the candidates could use major polling data at some key point(s) to decide how to narrow the field of candidates long before the Convention.
Then everyone campaigns on this new collaboratively developed platform. Educate the country, and the world, on it. Sell it. Seek forums for deep conversations rather than debates with the candidates, about issues and policies, to allow us to rise above partisan politics.
As candidates, you may choose to campaign during this platform development period. If so, it should be a campaign for information that will help you in the debate for the shared platform. It must not be a campaign which tears each other down.
This process can bring to the Democratic Convention a strong, well-understood platform, and a slate of the strongest possible candidates, to present to the delegate body for final decision making.
Or it could lead to choosing the best candidate.
Y'know, there's an election coming up in 2019 in case anyone is interested. I know it's not as sexy as the 2020 one but it still is important.
There is a reason so many openly mock "democrats in disarray" stories.
We'll be fine. We are united in our hatred of Trump, people will fall in line rather easily following the nomination, stop fearmongering.
I like some candidates more than others, but I hate the trump administration with the fire of a thousand suns...as such, I am happy to compromise.
So much Sanders/Clinton sniping in the comments. When do we put it away and focus on the future?
We must be laser focused on winning the White House and taking back the Senate. Is rehashing all the tired old arguments going to get us there?
Wake up!
Trump has been very lucky with his political opponents. First the weak field in the Republican primaries. Then the disaster that was the Hillary Clinton campaign. And in 2020? Possibly an opponent from the anti-ICE, pro-reparations socialist wing of the Democratic Party? Good luck with that.
1
The SEQUENCE of primary/caucus results is the whole ballgame. But shouldn't the results of each state/regional contest be INDEPENDENT of those that preceded it? As long as the media is reporting contests like a horse race the voters' will of each state will be not be served - especially those poor, later states. What kind of representational democracy is this! Not surprisingly, nearly every democracy in the world has (pre)election MEDIA BLACKOUT PERIODS - but not us! This is NECESSARY to keep the media from becoming political power brokers, like they are in this country. Don't expect NYT to report any of this though.
1
How can any Dem either vote for Trump or sit 2020 out, no matter who the Dem nominee is? Whoever the nominee is, he or she will not be anywhere near as hated by as many as Hillary was, especially in the Rust Belt. So that will be a huge strike against Trump. The Dem most disliked in the party is probably my favorite, Bernie. But surely Dems will not vote for Trump or sit the election out if Bernie's the only alternative they have. In last week's Quinnipiac poll in Texas--as conservative as America gets--it was Trump 47 vs. Biden 46, Bernie 45, and Beto 44. That tells me that Bernie is at a minimum tied with these guys in the fight against Trump. If Bernie takes Iowa and NH, and Biden, Booker, and Harris split the black vote in SC and the other SEC primaries, leaving Bernie sweeping up most of the whites throughout the Dem South, and then cleans up in the Rust Belt, which preferred him to Trump in 2016, how can Wall St. stop Bernie this time. Smearing him with blacks last time is the only way Wall St. could nominate their hand puppet Hillary. With the black vote so split this time, that strategy is unavailable. Hard to see how Dems who don't like Sanders are going to have any choice but him or Trump. Will they really vote for or help Trump? Inconceivable. They'll have to take Bernie whether they like it or not. I think Schultz is going nowhere fast. But even voting for him would be a vote for Trump. Four more Trump years? You gotta be kidding . Gag and pull it for Bernie.
"The Democratic Party’s crowded field and messy rules could lead to months of infighting and an ugly convention."--David Wasserman
You've got that right, Mr. Wasserman...looking forward to a bloody, exhausting, Democratic primary. And I'm not even a Trump fan.
Please pass the popcorn, heavy on the butter.
This is going to be very fun to watch.
1
The 2020 general election is about a Trump not the democrats; they can do the most horrible things and still Trump will be defeated. The oligarchs can flood the GOP with campaign contributions and still Trump will lose. Mr. Wasserman do not have the slightest idea how the majority of American voters despise this man.
Looks like my suggestion for pre-election media blackout periods (like nearly every democracy of the world has) was enough for the NYT reviewers. They may finally post it... after the game is over. This is exactly how our media manipulate outcomes of the primaries. By the time the final states are reached - or even at the midpoint - the game is over. The voters of these states are basically powerless. The SEQUENCE of primary results is everything - though each state's results should be independent of each other!
1
Oh, c'mon! The Republican primaries in 2016 were nothing but but contentious ("Lyin' Ted Cruz" etc., etc.) yet Trump (sort of, with the un-democratic Electoral College) managed to win.
An ugly, contested convention for the Republican nomination in 2016 wouldn’t have been as bad as the adjectives describe. It would have provided one last buffer for the Republican Party to have saved it soul, and helped to put a check on this ugly, populist white nationalism that the party has caved into. It’s too bad a viable candidate hasn’t emerged within the Republican Party to take the president on for the 2020 nomination, and try to put an end to the party-endorsed, build fortresses, white nationalist culture that now pervades the party. Sensible moderates should recognize that the Trump era will be more-easily put to an end within the Republican Party, and urge marketable candidates to take on the President for the nomination. I am afraid what is going to happen is that yes, the Trump era will probably end with the 2020 election, but will be followed by a far-left president that will only fuel the flames of a far-right opposition that will re-emerge in 2024 even stronger than it is today.
In the Immortal Words of Raid-uhs Owner, the late Al Davis- "...Just win, baby...".
The Process is what it is. Blues of All Hues must support whichever candidate emerges.
To win the White House, Democrats also need a sense of destiny.
Let me suggest that Trumpism is encouraging a democratic wave.
Leonard Cohen wrote a "Democracy" song back in 1992.
He prophetically sang, " Democracy is coming to the USA'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump has been so bad for democracy, the he is forcing change.
I hope, Democrats rally behind their presidential nominee.
I hope they use Leonard Cohen's song, as a theme song, to push a new democratic wave, toward a more perfect union...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Egalitarian my rear.
The Democratic primary is fixed. period.
764 out of 3,768 delegates are "super delegates" meaning they are party apparatchiks. That coupled with the proportional voting means that the candidate not chosen by Democrat Politburo must overcome a 20.2% disadvantage... good luck.
In 2016, HRC who controlled the DNC (another obstacle to independent candidates) received a mind-boggling 93% of delegates expressing a preference
Clinton flat out lost the vote in Wyoming, Michigan, Rhode Island, Indiana, and Montana, but had the support of a majority of the delegates in each of these states!
But then again, what do you expect from a party with a disdain for personal liberties and a belief in a Socialist society of, by and for the state?
A weak candidate for Democrats would almost guarantee another term for Trump. But who will step up? The big problem for the party is that Trump doesn't focus on the issues -- he has no idea what they are -- and would only lob insults and tell lies in a debate.
The only person tough enough may just be Kamala Harris, a tough-as-nails prosecutor. Biden? He's obviously tied to Obama, a great president whom the GOP loves to hate. That'd be ugly.
Someone said: "The democrats should focus primarily on the senate in 2020." No! That would be a travesty.
Dear Bloggers:. Please stop rehashing the 2016 presidential election already. What's done is done and it's time to move on. Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate and she ran a lousy campaign. She just couldn't make a convincing argument as to why she deserved to be president. There will be a woman president someday but it won't be Hillary Clinton. Enough is enough.
Gotta love the Dems. Whine about counting every vote. Whine about the electoral college's unfairness.
Yet . . . .somehow, when left to their own devices, and the ability to count votes however they see fit, they allocate 17% of voting power to super delegates (party officials). It's too rich.
What’s Democratic or egalitarian about super delegates?
2
Look for the Republican deep pockets to fund a series of “get out the goons” demonstrations to disrupt the Democratic convention in Milwaukee. Think a right-wing replay of Chicago in 1968. That would likely ruin the Democrats attempt to use the convention to fire up the Democrats’ base in the swing state of Wisconsin.
"There are also Democrats who believe that a white or male nominee can’t fully grasp the plight of Americans most vulnerable to discrimination." Isn't that a racist and sexist belief?
The GOP fall in line like robots.
The Democrats have minds and thoughts of their own.
How dare they.
1
Democrats should and will focus on the big picture and support the ultimate nominee whoever he or she may be. Through their misinformation and deception the Republicans are determined to sow discord within the Democratic Party. How else can a party of the rich, by the rich and for the rich actually win a national election? They realize that even with the least popular Democratic candidate in history the Dems still won the popular vote by 3 million against the incompetent Trump. Imagine what'll happen in 2020 with a strong candidate.
Like the overwhelming majority of Democratic and Independent voters, I'm ready to support whoever the Dems nominate. Any and all of them are infinitely better than the unqualified and dangerous Trump. Remember who the real adversary is.
Mr.Wasserman would do well to also consider the dilemma of the GOP. Looking ahead to the next several months of Mueller's report and House Committee investigations, the Republicans may very well find that they are chained to a political corpse in Trump. The stench of that corpse will adorn them for years. Their only hope is to realize that likelihood and untie themselves from his ghastly remains. Thus far, however, their behavior does not augur well for their party. The Democrats may have their problems but I'm sure they would not want to trade places with the GOP.
A crowded field and a convention with much debate and votes on conflicting ideas...I can't wait.
America isn't a place that celebrates Russian type pretend democracy, it is a place that lets us all vote and speak our minds. That means that I cherish Bernie, vote for him, and speak of the weaknesses in the ideas of those of the center of the party.
That isn't a weakness, it is our strength.
By mislabeling intense debate as a failure, people like Mr. Wasserman do what they can to put landmines on the path forward, and that needs to be called out.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
1
So, where in this scrum is the person of presidential qualification, one who will assure civil liberties and fairness and justice for all; be a Commander-in-Chief and Diplomat-in-Chief with a clear, stable and sufficiently experienced and capable mind, credible gravitas and honest brokering; address economic and financial issues without being subordinate to Wall Street bankers and big business; deal assertively with climate change and globalization; and begin to heal a nation and the world with wise, strong and compassionate leadership?
Hmmmm?... I don't see that person yet. The Democrats have a wide but thin bench, partly - only partly - a result of the longstanding sclerotic jam at the top of the leadership. To me, most of the declareds and touteds fall in the category of, "You've got to be kidding," or, mostly charitably, "Not yet, if then."
Come the hour, come the hour... the hour is here. Where is the person?
The "crowded" 2016 Republican primaries were effectively narrowed down to four candidates well before the Iowa caucuses. Months before this first pre-primary vote was cast, there were only four candidates on the debate stages. Nobody in the universe considered anyone other than Trump, Cruz, Kasich and Rubio to be legitimate candidates. After New Hampshire, Trump was the de facto nominee. The only people who believed otherwise were journalists angling for attention with wild speculation. Ratings are better when you turn a predetermined outcome into a nailbiter.
The herd of Democrats will thin out soon enough. Polls have already narrowed the field down to somewhere between four and six real candidates. If it ends up being a three-way contest with no clear front-runner among Bernie, Joe and Beto then things could get messy. But an early implosion of Beto's campaign seems more likely, and despite Kamala's strengths I doubt she'll catch up to Joe or Bernie. They're pre-established brands, and she isn't.
Joe versus Bernie might be a worst-case scenario, a repeat of Hillary versus Bernie but with two white men who are obviously too old to be President. But it's a debate the Democrats will have to have eventually. I don't anticipate any unfair treatment towards Bernie this time around. In fact I think the game may be slanted in his favor. Joe Biden is basically neoliberal-era baggage at this point. I think modern Democrats are waking up to that.
3
@Ryan Perhaps a scenario with merit. Discouraging that that's the best the Democrats can do. Have to make lemonade sometimes...
There is a middle ground between "my candidate or bust" and "I don't care who, just beat Trump." I think we are, astonishingly, in the moment when the Democratic Party might actually return to being the Democratic Party I grew up with, the one deliberately destroyed by Bill Clinton. I'll vote for any Democrat who's a real Democrat and not a Republican Lite.
1
Republicans fear democracy because without Ye Olde Electoral College they would have to win the popular vote, which they are incapable of doing. . . . The Democratic Party Establishment also fears democracy, but not for the sake of any imaginary "Party unity." It is because they fear the terrible danger that the Party's primary voters might well choose the Socialist candidate, Senator Sanders. If this catastrophe (from their point of view) happens, some of the Democratic politicians --who now so loudly profess to hate Trump--will, in the end, switch to supporting the President rather than a Socialist.
2
The problem to solve is not that Trump won the Republican contest, it is that Hillary was nominated by the Democrats.
The Democrats ought to have had a walk-in. Instead they lost. That complete failure needs fixing. It starts with the way Hillary became the candidate.
This author is looking in the wrong place, coming back with lessons to make another Hillary more likely.
8
This coverage of Democratic primary process is great news...if your name is Donald Trump...probably. Well, maybe.
Truth be told no one can predict how the Democratic primaries will play out. Or the Republican primaries, for that matter. I think the best odds the public have of unseating Trump is during the Republican primaries. After a successful primary season Trump will be a seated President facing--most probably--a Democratic Party in disarray.
But, maybe not. Perhaps the Dems will use their razzel dazzel primary season to turn out the vote. That's what Trump did. He rode the wave of wild controversy to the White House.
The Democratic primary season will be a good story to tell and might...just might...bring out significantly more voters than in 2016. Remember, that's what Trump did. He brought out more voters in 2016 than Mitt Romney did in 2012. Weird as he is, he had a better story to tell than Romney. Whoever wins the Democratic Nomination, they will have a much better story to tell than Hilary Clinton in 2016.
The Democrats need to get it together ASAP. Encouraging a
multitude of candidates, who are crowding the field, is a very poor strategy. A max of 3 or 4 serious contenders would be ideal, with the other Democratic heavyweights supporting them and working together to present the Democratic Party in the best possible light. Because this country needs to get back on the right track, and time is running out.
1
Again, we need to bear in mind the wisdom of those who have walked these paths in past centuries and whose words are as relevant today as then: "I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers.
1
"However, plenty of 2020 primary voters will be upscale suburban Republicans and independents whom Mr. Trump has converted to Democrats"
The data show the converts are in already blue states
1
If a strong candidate who can energize a broad swath of Democratic and Independent voters does not emerge and come into the convention with a majority mandate, I hope the superdelegates will not somehow take that as a mandate to nominate a "safe" centrist like Biden. That will fail in the general election and discredit the Democratic Party, not only with its substantial activist base but most younger and minority people, all of whom are vital to the party's future. The big-donor/educated-suburban-voter based model embraced in recent elections by the DNC is broken. The Millennials, now the largest generational block of eligible voters, won't have it.
2
How can any Democrat speak about voter suppression by the Republicans and ignore the far more significant fact that most of their primaries/caucuses are closed (or semi-closed)? The primary process is FAR more important for expressing the will of the voters than the general election in a two-party system. After all, the general election has FAR higher voter participation (at only 60%) than the primaries have. But by then, there are effectively only TWO choices - DOS! (Butch Cassidy comes to mind here.). The great reduction of the options/selection process occurs in the primaries - and this is usually determined within the first states of the ultra-important SEQUENCE of contests. In other words, there are two, tiny handfuls of faithful party members of both parties (plus party official and plus the media) that determine who the voting public of American have to choose between and who the whole country (and world) will have as their leader.
We, Democrats, need to OPEN our primaries and caucuses to newly registered Democrats, Independents, non-affiliated, and others wanting to vote in support of one of our candidates - or stop complaining about voter suppression and pretending to defend democracy.
4
In the immortal words of Will Rogers when asked if he was a member of an organized political party, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
It will be interesting, yet again, to observe from afar how the Democrats go about fumbling their way to defeat next year.
But it's getting old and tiresome. I think you guys desperately need another political party. Or maybe, even better, finally heed John Adams and do away with partisan political organizations altogether. Go on. lead the world again. Why not?
2
... much of Mr. Trump’s primary success owed to saying and doing so many outrageous things that none of the other 16 Republican candidates could compete for media oxygen... Or maybe the 16 other Republican candidates couldn’t muster a credible message that still resonated with anyone. Because they were either out of ideas or peddling new snake oil, Trump, the anti-politician, plowed through a crowded but essentially empty GOP field. Against all odds, he also beat HRC because large segments of the American electorate, at least those that will still vote, wanted to stick a thumb in the eye of an entire political class. If the Democrats want to win they need to drop the platitudes and convince people that live off the coasts that they have a viable plan to bring back decent jobs and the dignity those jobs bring. If a strong candidate is to emerge from Democratic Party, it will be because of that person’s message and its resonance and then it shouldn’t matter much how big or how unruly the primary circus is.
2
Mr Wasserman correctly identifies a systemic weakness in the Dem nominating system.
One obvious solution in this situation is to revive the archaic "favorite son" -- and favorite daughter -- approach: a popular leader from every large (in electoral votes) state should announce her or his candidacy and jump in.
Thus, for example, Kamala Harris might corral the large majority of California delegates, Beto O'Rourke could dominate the delegate count from Texas, Gretchen Whitmer take Michigan, Cory Booker New Jersey, and so on. Some states might still be wide open -- say, New York and Florida -- but, between the favorite daughters and sons and the supoer-delegates, a brokered convention might easily arrive at a solid choice within 2-3 ballots. Knowing their counts going into the convention, the deal-making could be finished by the time the convention opens. That would make the first ballot a formality, with the winner in place to be chosen on the second ballot.
Proportional allocation places a heavy emphasis on geographic concentration of resources Brooklyn is roughly the size of half of upstate New York north of Westchester County. Maybe Bernie would own most of Brooklyn and Gillibrand would take upstate, but the risk of six or seven delegates each taking 12%-18% of almost all large states' votes, seems pretty remote if the "favorite" designation still means anything.
That's a big "if," but it looks like a logical way to go.
There's an old saying in journalism: if it bleeds, it leads. That's why we see so many opinion pieces predicting gloom and doom for the Democrats. It gets eyeballs.
I don't think anyone can predict this far in advance, how the Democrats' primary process will play out. One thing is certain, there will be surprises.
My bet is on a Biden/Warren ticket. I think that would be the strongest ticket to hold the Democratic coalition together, and beat Trump.
1
@Ron Cohen With Biden we get Rockefeller Republicanism in drag. Again. Weren't eight years of Bill Clinton and eight of Barack Obama enough duplicity?
The real problem the democrats have is the strict quota system within its delegate assignment.
What this means is that everything is cast in light of race, gender and sexual orientation and to lesser extent age. When that is in the genes of your party's electoral system, you don't and can't develop a set of shared values; everything gets recast in terms of identity.
Until this quota system is removed as a former state delegate I believe you will wind up with a fractured and not particularly visionary platform and a wounded candidate right out of the gate.
1
I would prefer a messy campaign and convention than have a mess of a candidate. Frankly putting the names of every eligible American in a hat and pulling one out would almost certainly lead to be outcome than the Republican Party's primary and convention of 2016.
"Trump May Have an Unlikely Re-election Ally."
I am not a member of any organized party. I'm a Democrat. As Will Rogers aptly put it. The Democrats are the party of tolerance and diversity, of justice and equity, of economic and social progressivism. That is our challenge and that is our advantage. We are not and should not let ourselves become a party of lockstep voting and purity tests and personality cults. Let's have a vigorous and reasonably civil debate about the candidates and their ideas. Let's not, however, brutalize one another, or irreparably damage one another's chances. I will not support a candidate who does not exercise wisdom and judgment, who puts their own prospects above those of the party and, at this point of time, the nation. Let's have no inflammatory claims, e.g., of rigged elections. Let's have no dishonest claims, e.g., of corporate or Wall Street or elitist Democrat. Let's have no conspiracy theories, e.g., about the NY Times publishing only unflattering photos.
2
And regarding the all-important SEQUENCE of primaries and caucuses. Why don't we, democrats, base this sequence on voter registration percentage - or something else that promotes voter participation and democracy in the states? The backroom dealing of both parties is part of the reason that there are about as many Independents (and non-affiliated voters) as there are Democrats and Republicans, combined.
2
Could. Won't. The primary season will be mercifully short due to States like SC and CA moving up their primary dates. So, the idea that we are going to plow through Iowa Caucuses (Why, Iowa, why? Caucuses are over the hill) and New Hampshire primaries, slowly slugging it out, is not realistic. That gives people with real name recognition a tremendous boost. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are favorites and will stay that way.
@Marsden Whinney
Favorites? I believe Bernie Sanders is by far the favorite; my favorites are Warren and/or Sanders (in any order).
The goal needs to be more than just the White House. They need an organization that works all the way down through Congress, the states, and municipalities.
4
@Next Conservatism
And a liberal version of the Federalist Society that can groom and loom the Judiciary to break up the extreme Right Wing lean it has been worked into over the last generation.
3
I think it's great that so many Democratic candidates are campaigning for president, and I look forward to the debates. The division I see in the party is expressed in the comments on this page. Some Clinton supporters angrily blame Sanders for her loss to Trump. Some Sanders supporters are still mad at the leaders of the Democratic Party for skewing the nominating process in Clinton's favor. Many centrists do not want the party to become more progressive (they often say that a progressive can't win, but the truth is they don't want one to win.) And many progressives will no longer compromise with the centrists who have run the party for the past 30 years, even if their unwillingness to compromise diminishes the Democratic nominee's chance of victory. Don't kid yourself: the Clinton/Sanders, centrist/progressive divide from 2016 has not been bridged, and the Democratic Party remains deeply split.
9
I think the landscape does (unfortunately) favor tump.
Bernie will once again be close, but not close enough for the nomination and his supporters will scorch the earth.
Biden may stumble and gaff his way to the nomination, alienating many young, old and progressive along the way.
The new house democrat progressives will repeatedly embrace socialism and anti-Semitism.
The senate will hold republican.
trump with the ongoing support from Putin will continue to divide us and discourage many to stay home.
8
We'll know the outcome of the 2020 election based on the kind of candidate the Democrats choose.
If the Democrats nominate an economic populist who appeals to the economic plight of the middle class, and seeks a national consensus around that issue, Trump will lose.
If the Democrats nominate a candidate obsessed with race, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc., they will alienate a large swathe of Americans and weaken their own coalition, and Trump will win.
20
What I know to be true is this fact: the very idea that a man who should not be president for one more single day and would still be in the clear to run for a second term, will be met head on by a united Democratic tsunami of voters. The Democrats and those who will vote Democratic have one focus: to send trump on to face the justice that he has been able to avoid for his entire life.
14
@Sharon Salzberg
Getting rid of Trump; I am all for it. But let's be careful when we choose the replacement; some of the current candidates might make us regret the "good old days when Trump was in the White House."
1
Trump is ranked the worst president in our history. Not one person running on the Democratic side would come anywhere close to a ranking like that. Democratic voters are smart and informed. We will pick the best ticket. Of that, I am certain.
@Sharon Salzberg Boy, I hope you're correct.
The far left progressives should come to one quick realization now. The super delegates have only one priority: To vote for whomever they believe has the best chance of beating Trump. That may mean that free college for all or guaranteed child care benefits go by the wayside. If that is a problem for the far left, they should form their own party now.
The GOP will not disappear overnight and without question it will still have enough votes to block some of these progressive initiatives from becoming law.
8
@Tom Q
"The super delegates have only one priority: To vote for whomever they believe has the best chance of beating Trump."
This is what SHOULD be their first priority. But do we know that it actually IS their first priority? Or is it possible that many use their positions to expand their own power bases for their own purposes?
5
Many of us fear the worst. The Bernie Bros will be throwing everyone else, especially those holding more moderate positions, under the bus while Trump, Republicans and conservative media outlets will happily be throwing gasoline on the raging Democratic dumpster fire. Bernie Sanders and his supporters have alienated such a large swath of previously dependable Democratic voters, they better hope they can convince a majority ofindependents and moderate Republicans to vote socialist instead of Trump. Many younger Sanders voters at least have the excuse of not being engaged in politics and political elections before or at least not for very long. They will also be the ones having to deal with the consequences of the 2020 election longer than most other voters. A wide range of social issues, not to mention at least one more Supreme Court pick will be addressed by the next administration. Either way, obstructionist Congressional Republicans are not going away in 2020. Looking forward to the Democratic primary and the convention like a root canal without Novocaine.
14
Actually, it’s collaborationist centrists who relentlessly stymie goals that will actually help average people - such as a minimum wage above the poverty level, real single-payer healthcare for all, a check on “too big to fail” banks - who have alienated large swaths of voters. You’ve had your day, your years, actually and now we have Trump. It’s time for the “Bernie Bros.” - or maybe the Warren Women, or the Abrams Attack, or the Beto Brigade, call it whatever sneering, slighting term you want in classic Trumpian fashion - so get in line. And while you’re at it, look up the definition of “socialist.”
Sorry, but this is utter hogwash. How many times has the "anointed" Democratic candidate failed to convert his or her advantage to a win? Too few times.
A well fought primary will help its eventual winner test and oil his or her machine.
The solution is keeping the primary moderately civil and selecting a candidate who knows how to win and knows how to challenge Trump and the GOP. We can't know in advance how to design the perfect process, but my bet is that the more democratic and open the process, the greater likelihood of its success.
3
And you’re hoping for what end?
I am a Democrat that’s wanting nothing more than a new name at the next Inaugural— anyone but the man there now.
But- I tell you with some authority, that there are my friends and family from various parts of the country, blue/red, that want to vote for anyone except Saunders or Warren, even though they hate Trump.
So my advice for Dems is to be careful about sending a message of “way left.” The messenger is very important to A LOT of voters that will make the difference.
We cannot have it all. Please, let’s take what we can and work with that earnestly.
5
@Greg
"A LOT" of voters support Sanders (not "Saunders" as you wrote), and not just with their wishes, but also with their money -- and these are individual voters, not big corporations or political-action committees sponsored by special interests.
Before you choose which candidate to vote for, ask yourself who his financial backers are, and why they support him.
The democrats unlike the GOP have great candidates who know the law. If certain democrats are omitted from the presidency they would make great cabinet appointments. They would hit the ground running.
The democrats know how high the stakes are but if the last two years tell you about the voters We are aware of the issues and we can chew gum and vote for the best candidate.
2
I strongly question the assumption. Candidate X comes out of Super Tuesday never having breached 15% in a single contest, and so has zero delegates, at a point when more than half have been chosen—and still carries on? I don’t think so...
1
I see many candidates and all the Democrats are conducting themselves with civility and grace—something that makes every last one of them an excellent relief from childishness and rudeness.
I have my preference and passions—but a wide variety of viewpoints and disagreements is healthy among mature adults. The founders were not united—they had conflicting opinions and passions. Yet they produced a Declaration of Independence, a Constitution and went on to defeat the greatest military power on Earth.
Neither division, nor Trump, scares me.
5
Let them fight it out! I have already found it very helpful to have some of the candidates reveal themselves in ways that have caused me to abandon supporting them. That said, if any of these candidates I have abandoned ends up the nominee, that person will have my vote and my wholehearted support in the general election. This isn't complicated at all.
9
You do not always get the candidate you want.....really bummed to see Sherrod Brown decide to sit this one out. But this time around I would go with Joe Biden (for all his warts and age to boot) with Kamala Harris as VP. But I would like to see commitments to Sen. Warren as Secretary of the Treasury, Stacy Abrams as Attorney General, Pete Buttigeig for HUD, Klobuchar to bring Midwest common sense to Education, Hickenlooper to Commerce, Inslee to EPA, Booker to Transportation, and, perhaps surprisingly, Castro to State and O'Rourke to Homeland Security. Sanders is needed to lead a revitalized left in the Senate to offset Schumer's corporatist bent. The important point is to recognize that restoring the institutional tradition to governance in the US will require a strong team effort to redress the current mess. With so many strong personalities there would be clashes over policy and leadership.....in part I would look to Biden to recognize his role would be to nurture Democratic Party leadership to serve for the next 2-3 decades. That means being coach and referee, roles Barack Obama neglected. Don't hire Biden for policy guidance but for what he may be able produce by coordinating the best efforts and energies of others.
4
The disconnect with working Americans is evident in this column. Like pundits and columnists in the mold of Chuck Todd, Howard Fineman, Brett Stephens, the concern is with protecting the status quo. Who needs Russian interference when we have domestic punditry.
While the Democratic candidate field is big and may yet get bigger, the fact is that each candidate is bringing up an issue that needs a robust conversation. The final platform at the convention will integrate all good ideas on behalf of working Americans and a strong support for the chosen candidate.
12
We need open primaries across the board, and eliminate the super-delegates.
Closed primaries mean that DEM party members risk choosing a candidate with internal appeal but one who can't appeal to independents and swing voters. Having super-delegates, party insiders choose, opens the process to corrupting internal power plays based on personal ambition.
We need a way to find the candidate who has the broadest appeal.
2
Trumps' real ally is the outspoken Democrats on the far left. Those people are pulling the other Democrat politicians way left. Most Americans are not interested and to avoid have the US controlled by the far left, people could be driven to vote for Trump in 2020. It would be again a choice between two evils.
6
The Democrats cannot continue in fighting. There is only one choice, that is the person who is most likely to beat Trump. Party members need to be reminded of the 1972 McGovern campaign. Despite all the indications that he would lose, his liberal supporters hung onto him. While I am a liberal and would like to see a candidate that matched my priorities, I would rather make sure that our
candidate has a good chance of drawing Independent and Moderate supporters. We absolutely cannot let trump win
3
I was a Sanders supporter (and still am) and take umbrage about what this writer says regarding I and my fellow supporters thought it was superdelegates that won Clinton the nomination.
No! What won Clinton the nomination was that primaries in southern states like South Carolina early on that Dems were never going to win were front loaded. That along with lies regarding Sanders' history on civil rights got Clinton many delegates.
And with regarding to the DNC putting its finger on the scale, the writer should remember that until it became clear Sanders was a serious candidate, it only sponsored a limited number of debates and made sure even those were on when viewing would be lowest. What gave Trump his chance was the many Republican debates. Many of us believe that if the Dems had had as many early on, Sanders would have won the nomination and have beaten Trump and saved this country a whole lot of tsoris.
9
Trump's most important ally in his reelection bid is Bernie Sanders. It was Bernis that elected Trump the first time. Now he wants to do it again.
8
@Jeff I looked up the 2016 election on Wikipedia, and it was actually Hillary Clinton who lost to Trump.
1
@Jeff
Rehashed nonsense. Honestly, do you think we would be better off if Clinton had been elected? I don't (and yet I did not vote for Trump).
We've seen this play before and the ending is always the same: The battered, bruised and mortally wounded Democratic White House candidate is always defeated by the GOP opponent. 2020 will be no different.
Democrats would be better served by focusing on winning the Senate, something they at least have a reasonable chance of doing.
4
Democrats need to feel morally superior, even at the cost of winning elections. Frank Mankiewicz, George McGovern's campaign manager, famously stated "we may have lost the election, but we're not going to jail". True enough, but they lost the election (49 states to 1, plus DC.)
4
It doesn't matter who wins, the entire voting system, from the parties to the revolving door to the establishment media that thrives off of the corrupt system of private election financing which is nothing more than legalized bribery.
Lindsay Graham told you all about it in the run up to the disastrous "tax reform", when he said in so many words if we don't get this done the money will dry up.
That is what you have to look forward to unless Bernie Sanders achieves the nomination. If he gets the nomination he will continue to self fund his candidacy, hopefully chose Tulsi Gabbard as a running mate and all the donor money will go to Trump because no matter which party the donors prefer they don't want to pay more in taxes.
But the silver lining is the real people of the country will vote for Sanders. The indoctrinated to hate socialism/communism baby boomers will continue to die off these next two years and the younger generation won't buy the nonsense because they see exactly how all this debt affects them. Bernie Sanders will easily beat Donald Trump no matter what the establishment media and establishment politicians tell you. You heard it here first.
9
If anything the media had a big hand in trumps victory. They were equally excited by and aghast at his outrageous circus like behavior and centered on him ad nauseam, including the NYT. What got lost were the issues. In fact what would be most helpful is for the media to start ignoring trump and hanging on his every tweet. Personally I am sick of the guy and he has so little meaningful to say or contribute that I resent valuable media time being consumed by his antics. Our government is serious business, we need to start treating it as such.
17
@Steve in Seattle. Well expressed! In 2016 it was the corrosive focus on Hillary’s emails among other sideshows and distractions. Now it’s the “Democrats will blow it again” narrative.
How about the professional media and we focus on government policies and actions that actually impact our lives??
Do most Americans know Trump’s DOJ is arguing before the Supreme Court to kill legal protection for pre-existing medical conditions? There’s a topic to highlight, one that matters far more than daily agitations and speculations. One of many examples.
7
Trump just proposed cutting Medicare and Social Security.
Why are we distracted with this column?
18
It amazes me that pundits, having completely missed the boat on the 2016 presidential election, still have the nerve to speculate with an air of confidence on the 2020 Presidential. Wake up and admit that you have no idea of what is going to happen in the next election.
20
As the sage Yogi Berra told us: prediction is difficult. Especially about the future.
5
The way for Democrats to win the presidency isn't by courting the votes of "upscale suburban Republicans." Please stop it.
4
Great insights except crediting trump as the master "manipulative politician" who "pried open just enough cracks" in Dems to squeak by in the electoral college mistakes the trees for the forest. Remember Comey's inappropriate, ill-timing comments about HRC emails; uninvestigated ballot tampering in states (including PA) with no paper backup systems; the 7 states that had their systems breached; and malicious Russian hackers linked to that country's military intelligence who compromised the DNC and orchestrated fake social media campaigns?
3
I am in the late years of my sixth decade. I am a product of the 50’s and 60’s. We were taught respect and hard work, perseverance from the greatest generation ever!! This would do you well in life , we were told.... be truthful, respectful etc.
What path Donnie has lead us to is appalling on everything I was taught by decent people
I am saddened and ashamed for my small part in getting sucked into this nightmare!
God save the USA!!
4
@Karl
Don't count on God. He does not vote, you do!
I love The Cook Political Report, and respect Mr. Wasserman's opinion. I think it's mostly wrong. Democracy is messy, and it oughta be, as that's how the best sausage gets made. The ingredients and the compromises should be out in the open for a democratic society to see how a real government should work, not like the current one bought by the Russians, or the Democratic Party, circa 2016, a failed attempt at a pre-ordained coronation that led us to our predicament today. Let's get ready to rumble in Milwaukee!
4
As I recall, the only Democratic candidate in 2016would have been Hillary Clinton, if the DNC had had their way. Mainstream Democratic politicians seemed indignant that anyone should dare challenge her.
In the end, Bernie Sanders' candidacy was the only thing that lent any interest to the primaries. And although the Hillary-or-die partisans refuse to remember it, Sanders did endorse Hillary after the convention.
Without Sanders, the primaries would have been a ho-hum affair, with poor turn-out because the candidate would have appeared to be pre-ordained.
Look, the Iowa caucuses are nearly a year away. In the meantime, some candidates will discover that they have no support, others will have skeletons come tumbling out of their closets, and others will decide that campaigning is a drag.
In 2016, the Republicans started out with 10 candidates. Did that weaken them?
4
Broken record. Sanders is a SORE looser and an opportunistic one. He trashed and insulted Hillary until the very end and very reluctantly conceded. I wouldn’t be surprised if he voted for Trump. He is the main reason why Trump won. When asked if he would seek Hillary’s expertise he said no. A person who really care for this country would have answer that he would listen to anybody who is willing to help this country. I am hoping Beto joins and beats the old, tired, sore Bernie.
Nevertheless, it was perceived by many Democrats and Independents that Hillary Clinton unfairly stole the nomination from Bernie and thus did not come out to vote at all in the Presidential election. If the Democratic primary outcome is another deeply flawed candidate as Hillary, Trump is going to win, as surprising and unfortunate as that may be. In their (Democrats) weening process they must be careful not to poison the well.
2
The problem with the democratic primary system as I see it can be illustrated by what happened in 2016. Sanders got most of his support from the caucus states while Clinton won most of the states where open primary elections were held. I think the caucus may indicate which candidate has the most committed supporters while the open election is more indicative of which candidate has the broader support. I think the caucus system is not very representative of what would likely happen in the general election. Bottom line is that broad support will usually beat enthusiasm in the general election in November.
2
@W.A. Spitzer What 2016 taught was that whichever Democrat wins the black vote in the southern primaries gets the nomination but that doesn't mean they will win the general election. It's a blessing and a curse for the Democrats. They have to carry all the southern states where a Democrat is going to probably lose in the general. There is a false connection there, a distortion.
2
If the players behave like grown ups everything will be fine.
Too much to ask?
Probably for baby boomers.
4
What I find disturbing about this piece, and many of the comments, is that it is simply the narrative of a worst case scenario. There are many other effects that a multiple candidate primary might have but the press seems addicted to whipping up the fear. This si why I often watch sports with the announcers muted - the low brow drama is "un-helpful" Please feel free to think deeply and analyze something other than the horse race!
3
A crowded Republican field in 2016 did not help Hillary Clinton.
1
If other candidates do what Bernie did — gleefully repeat every lie and smear he could get his hands on, and made up a few too; lie to his followers about everything from the party to the process to fictional endorsements; claim that any losses suffered are due to unfair rigging against him; raise funds for nobody but himself, caring nothing about downticket races; incite his followers to use abusive and violent tactics, and do nothing to curb it; stay in way beyond viability to continue to rake in cash from the gullible; do the barest of bare minimum once a candidate is chosen, making it crystal clear that you don’t really support that choice — yep, we’ll have a problem.
In fact, we already have a problem. His name is Bernie Sanders, and he’s already doing it again.
7
@Lisa
Don't forget about setting the debates on Saturday night when nobody is watching, and getting the debate questions in advance.
Oh wait, that was Hillary. My bad.
A crowded field won't matter as long as Democratic voters unify behind whoever wins the Primary.
Disgruntled Democrats and Independents need to remember that the Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein voters who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton are a large part of why we have Trump.
The most important task of the upcoming election is to limit Trump to 1 term and put the White House, and hopefully the Senate, back in Democratic hands.
There will be a very large mess to clean up after Trump, and as our history shows, it is usually a Democratic president who straightens out our country for the better.
6
@D. DeMarco
"... voters who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton": I did not vote for Clinton and I have never regretted it.
Apart from that, I can assure you that I "couldn't bring" myself to vote for Tulsi Gabbard or Beto O'Rourke (the two juvenile stars among current candidates).
Please stop this negative narrative of Democratic disarray. The Democratic Party is a big, messy tent. So what? Four people, five opinions, so what? Many studies show debate and diversity eventually lead to the best outcomes.
The cult of Trump is a daily disaster for sound policy, so lockstep loyalty to one autocrat is not an option for the majority of us outside the cult.
6
"After all, Democrats are up against a highly manipulative politician who in 2016 pried open just enough cracks in their coalition to win..."
I realize this is in the Opinion section and not straight news, but this was a reasonable, open assessment of Democratic and Republican party mechanisms until the ending pot-shots.
This article is spot on. It would be hard for the Democrats to lose this election but judging from what we have seen recently they are trying harder than I could have imagined to hand it to Trump.
The two year obsession with the false narrative of collusion is going to kill them. Most clear-headed Americans know the corrupt FBI, DNC and justice dept colluded to overthrow a duly elected President, even if he is a nut job.
Dim-wits like AOC and her friends are a Godsend.
And though he failed on the "wall", Americans want it built. That's a fact, especially in swing states. It will be a huge campaign theme and one that Trump will win on.
At the end of the day, its almost impossible to beat an incumbent with a great economy like we have now. Trump is trying to blow it, but the Democrats are trying little harder.
6
Spot on.
Just to rectify the author's first sentence. President Trump does not have a low approval rating if one wants to compare him to former presidents such as Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.....
His approval rating is very similar to each at this time in each presidents term.
3
Last election the socialists undermined Clinton enough to give the election to Trump. It wasn't enough for her to battle Republicans, racists, Comey, the Russians, etc. But she also had to battle the far-leftists.
To this day they believe Sanders actually got more votes than Clinton, ignoring the fact that many of the delegates Sanders got were from caucuses.
Well, two states held caucuses where Sanders won a huge number of delegates, and then inconveniently held a non-binding primary which Clinton won. So many of Sanders' delegates were artificial.
But will they learn? No. They will give us another 4 years of Trump. (of course it will be the vulnerable who will suffer, not them)
5
The number of groups Republican represent are smaller. They have the high ground on principals: are ruthless to the point of immoral. The Democrats are crippled by idealism, rather than pragmatism. So far in my 3 score and ten, every third party candidate has elected a Republican. With result our representative system has succeeded in creating a 1/10 of the 1 % of the population who appear to be in control of ownership, money, justice, and the constitution. .
@WH
You forgot Ross Perot. He took votes from republicans and that elected Clinton.
2
It's articles like these that make me worry about developing an ulcer. The Democratic standard operating procedure is to have ridiculously intense infighting over insignificant issues, and then to have a segment of voters go for an independent candidate or refuse to vote at all, because their favorite candidate didn't get nominated.
I hope Democrats can get over this idiocy in the upcoming election, because it's very important that Trump lose. If he gets re-elected, he will be able to appoint another SCOTUS justice or two, ensuring a conservative majority for the next few decades. He will further erode environmental protection, education, scientific advancement, international relations, and do damage to countless other vital aspects of our democracy.
Trump has to be fought no matter what. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, we have to vote for them. Our nation and our democracy are on the line. And if the Democratic party fails to unseat the would-be dictator, then I think there will be no more hope for America's future.
2
This democratic socialist fantasy will need to come to an end. No one except a moderate like Hickenlooper is going to beat Trump. No one I mean no one like " Beto", Warren and their ilk is
going to be voted for by swing voters in the mid west.
A dean at Harvard law school, a losing candidate in Texas, a NY liberal who destroyed for no reason a Minnesota Senator, another Minnesota Senator who was duplicitous against her fellow Senator and is a thin skinned, horrible person as a boss, and a SF DA who attacked a Supreme Court justice will not be able to win the midwest swing voters.
My parents home county in western Wisconsin is typical. Full of educated swing voters who work in western Wisconsin and the twin cities. They are not Trump lackeys nor are they Clinton lackeys. They are moderate and swing back and forth between parties just like the voters in northern Colorado.
Trump is chomping at the bit to take on one of the left wing democrats. He will destroy them in a debate. Lets not forget democrats its the middle of the country and the south that elects presidents.
9
@Brad L - Beto is a lot more centrist than you might think. He’s inspiring, like Obama...but he’s no Bernie.
I guess we have to deal with an endless stream of these "circular firing squad" stories for most of the coming 12 months. When you encounter such stories, ask yourself "How much did all those primary candidates (17) hurt the Republicans' chance of winning the White House in 2016?
2
Really looking forward to the chaos, it will make great viewing. Still not quite enough clowns in the car but they are getting there!
3
As crimes and corruption mount, the GOP should be looking for a candidate who isn't facing indictments!
1. Democrats may win in 2020.
2. Omar may retain her seat on the Foreign Relations Cttee.
Not very likely both 1 and 2 will be true, IMHO.
1
I take the article author's point, but...a large primary field does not, in itself, guarantee defeat in the fall (e.g. Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992).
Don't worry: whoever the Democratic nominee is, we'll be plenty motivated to rid ourselves of the incumbent. No turnout problem this time.
1
It really doesn't matter which Democrat wins the presidential nomination. Simply put, our best chance to win is with a "charismatic" candidate running for president.
Why? Because Millenials are the largest voting bloc, and they'll only vote for the candidate they "like best". They have very little concern that their failure to vote in 2016, or voting third party or worse, Trump, played a major role in where we are now as a nation. They'll only show up in 2020 if their "favorite" candidate is nominated.
We need to coddle Millenials, because they'll only vote for who they "like" (see: Barack Obama). Millenials want to elect the prom king. They "fall in love" with a certain candidate, and if that candidate (Sanders) doesn't win the primaries, they sulk, pout, don't vote (they are the smallest voting bloc), vote for a third party candidate, or, worse, some ten percent of them voted for Trump because they had their "feelings hurt" that Clinton garnered more votes than Sanders in the primaries.
I remember presidents back to Eisenhower. No one "liked" Nixon, not even Republicans, but they voted for him by a large majority. They were disciplined voters, unlike Millenials who only vote if their idol is nominated.
There are certainly more qualified candidates, but if this is what it takes to get Millenials to vote, I'll vote for whoever is nominated. But I won't do what Millenials have done -- throw a tantrum when my favorite candidate didn't win the primaries.
5
"Medicare for all who work for a living!" The Democrats can ride that issue into the White House. They can use that issue to take control of the senate.
I remember when they were the party of labor, not welfare.
5
@caveman007: And kids, stay at home parents, the disabled and those out of work involuntary, can drop dead if they need medical care?
This column is speculation without considering all factors.
Trump is going to see more trouble. The economy is going to get worse. The synergistic effect of that will be a tipping point of unpopularity for Trump.
The GOP will see the writing on the wall for a Democratic sweep of the House and Senate. At that point, they will hedge their bets by dumping Trump off the ticket.
Concomitant to that, will be the appearance a Republican with real presidential aspirations and credentials, like Mitt Romney. He is from the LDS State of the Deseret where Trump is unpopular with conservative Saints. There is little for Mitt to lose by working the phones, and giving Trump a shove.
Then the GOP and the country will move forward. Maybe. I would not vote anyone on the right.
1
@Wordsworth from Wadsworth: Romney-Haley in any combination would be a winning ticket for the Republicans. Maybe Kasich too...
1
@Wordsworth from Wadsworth
Wow, the psychic from Wadsworth has spoken. The next two years are actually pre-ordained. Whew. That's good news - I thought things looked pretty confusing. So happy to have such a clear fantasy vision to look forward to.
Bernie got a free ride in 2016.
If he gets the nomination in 2020, the Republicans will portray him as the next coming of Karl Marx (justifiably, given that he is the only guy in the 1980's who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, and he did not choose it for their great beaches).
7
Excellent article. We should remember that Trump wasn't even chosen as a candidate by a majority of his party. He really represents a minority choice both as candidate and as president.
1
He beat out 17 other candidates including Jeb! who had the money and establishment behind him. No one else was even close or they would have surely stayed in.
1
The Democratic Party remains deeply divided, and that this divide will become more evident as we hurtle toward the debates, caucuses, and primaries. The party's leaders will search in vain for a candidate who can somehow bridge this divide.
A mere coincidence that the Times selected a photograph of Sanders supporters to accompany this article? I don't believe in coincidences.
6
The contemporary state of affairs reminds me of the presidential campaign of 1976. We had a progressive field of candidates as well as Jimmy Carter and Scoop Jackson. As the primaries progressed my candidate Morris K. Udall finished second in a passel of them. As his liberal competition withdrew they did not endorse their leading vote getter Mo. We did win the General with Carter. Udall I believe would have been a better candidate and a superior president for the entire electorate. His mantra then was “the economy, energy, and the environment”. Today we would say he was prescient. As the current field stands the candidate most closely resembling Udall is Gov. Inslee who has the capacity to lead our country. So progressives of all stripes would be well served to keep sharp elbows to themsleves. Inslee or not let us this time to tally the votes and put our pet concerns to the side.
Good luck to all Democrats in the 2020 season. By the time they are done messing around with each other and trying to "one up" each other in pushing harder to the left they will have to take a seat again awaiting another 4 years for a spot at the presidency.
5
The unlikely opponent is the primary process? No, not really. The unlikely opponent is Nancy Pelosi using a fine hand to make sure the raucous caucus can keep and expand their majority.
The public is not looking to party elders for advice on who to elect as president; the incumbent will do all possible to ensure he is not the favored alternative. The Democrat will assuredly have an uphill slog if he or she is not rightly or wrongly labeled as too far from a broad center of sensible and salable ideas for checking the budget wrecking and Social Security, Medicare, and environmental wrecking in place right now.
Substituting a perceived whacko for an actual one will not gain traction.
I can already detect shades of the 2016 candidate preference from at least two media sources, the newspapers of record, The Times and the Washpost. The editorial and opinion makers are coalescing behind Biden or finding fault with the others and they will give him over the top coverage while the rest will be given short shrift. I suspect the TV folk will follow suit.
4
There are 2 differences this time around:
Money....A large field of candidates faces a limited field of deep pocket donors. Only the most well known will have enough money to more than 3 primaries into the season: Biden, Sanders, Harris and Warren. Beto is a longshot at best.
Fatigue....of the four who remain after the 3rd primary I see Biden falling away because people are tired of him. I see Sanders falling away because he is just plain tired (and tiresome)
This leaves Harris and Warren going down to the wire.
2
I'm investing in popcorn futures. There's going to be a lot of entertaining silliness coming down the pike. We ain't seen nothing yet.
6
Somehow a crowded field of two dozen candidates didn't cost the Republicans the general election in 2016 even with a disgruntled second place finisher bad mouthing the nominee from the podium during the convention. So I'm not quite sure I buy this article's conjecture that the crowded field is disadvantages the Democrats.
6
Did you skip the section about the differences in how the two parties nominate their candidate?
1
It’s obvious that corporate Dems are the problem.
Unregulated campaign finance laws are the source of the Democratic intransigence on acquiescing to the public's polled desires. As long as establishment legacy Dems are funded by corporate interests, they will not vote in favor of their constituency's policy values, which is exactly why we have no progress on Medicare for All, why the Internet is being given away to the Telecoms, etc.
The legacy, corporate, republican-lite, establishment Dems will fight Bernie all the way to the nomination because they know it means the end of their jobs and influence in Washington. Every president brings in several thousand appointees to the federal government and these appointees and their cohorts, over the last 30 years (and across political parties) form a tribe of tens of thousands of people. These folks are mostly interested in keeping their jobs, which means keeping the current unfair system going, which means: No Medicare for All, Lots of Wars, Low taxes on billionaires (so they can continue to fund elections unfairly), Business Before Environment, $7.25 minimum wage, etc. This clan would actually rather lose elections to centrists Republicans than win a Sanders presidency. A Sanders Presidency would mean that these tens of thousands of legacy Democratic party insiders (Clinton and Obama cronies) would be lose all their influence in the system. These folks only care about a place at the trough for the elites.
Bernie all the way.
9
The democrats should focus primarily on the senate in 2020.
66
@Oliver I disagree, unfortunately. It seems that, sadly, both legislative groups in congress wield less power than larger government bodies, like DHS, EPA, FBI, etc, as well as the judicial branch. The legislative bodies have been largely neutered in favor of the people who are not elected by the people, but the executive branch.
4
@Ngie Actually, I think Oliver is at least partly right. If the Democrats had controlled the Senate in 2016, we would have Merrick Garland instead of Kavanaugh. Heck, if Democrats had controlled the Senate in 2018, we wouldn't have Kavanaugh. We wouldn't have tax reform for the rich if it weren't for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell (the latter, in my opinion, the most dangerous man in America). The list goes on. I think you also underestimate the influence of non-partisan career professionals in agencies like the FBI. While we should fight for control of the White House, it would be tragic to ignore the legislative branch. It’s especially critical since it's starting to look like we aren't going to get a Democratic nominee/president who will make even a slim majority of the people happy – e.g., I would have to hold my nose to vote for Sanders or Biden, and there are others who feel the same way about the women candidates I support.
2
@Oliver The Dems should focus on both. Trump is a danger to this country and the world.
1
In theory the super-delegates are supposed to result in a better selection process. And many comments express that theory.
But in reality the super-delegates have become an insiders' club, where personal power domains are established and protected, for personal advancement.
I'd like to see the super-delegates eliminated and the Democratic leadership taking on a new role as "advisor" rather than decider. I'd like to see the leadership focus on "market research", conducting nationwide polls regarding which issues are most important and which candidates seem to connect best with the populace. The leadership could then share this information with the rest of us, in an advisory capacity, so that we can make more informed decisions.
My personal favorite is Sanders. But if extensive "market research" showed that some other candidate had a much better chance of beating Trump I would readily change my vote.
5
@Eyes Wide Open -
Right now the building is on fire and putting the fire out comes before discussing the remodeling plans.
We accomplish nothing if we lose the election. First get someone into the White House, THEN make advances.
If crafting the perfect platform of policies is the way to get independent and swing voters to back the DEM candidate, then by all means, let's do it. But winning must be the first priority.
1
I thought I heard the super delegates were cancelled ?
1
I wish they would just have a one-day nationwide primary, and use ranked-choice voting. I'm a Sanders supporter who recognizes this would probably hurt him, since so many Dems would put him last because "he's not a real Democrat" but I think we'd ultimately end up with less chance of a trainwreck like Biden or Booker.
47
@Shirley0401
I would like to see Bernie be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The President only needs to be able to manage a stellar cabinet and be very articulate. POTUS is just one member of the team. Maybe the least important.
I believe we need to focus on the cabinet and other top roles first and only then consider who would be best at coordinating them. Imagine having a cabinet of people best suited to the job working for US citizens rather than the donors. Jeff Session got the AG role because he was an early Trump supporter. Not because he was especially great for that job. I won't comment on the rest of Trump's cabinet picks.
President usually picks the cabinet but maybe this time the American people can have a say and at least vet them first. I'd like to see the Times and other people much smarter than I make lists of our possible dream team. Seems foolish to have all of the Dems fighting each over the one position. Warren, Treasury?...
18
@Shirley0401 Bernie doesn't play well with others. We have his decades in office to look back on. I was never a Bernie person and it wasn't because he is an Independent. We need a negotiator, not a cranky old man who has shown he only wants to do it his way.
22
@Anne I like this. Sally Yates would be a great AG; she held the post for several weeks as acting AG until Trump fired her for, well basically for not acting like his personal lawyer.
Washington Governor Inslee should be considered for Energy, EPA, or Interior.
10
Uncle Joe, we are ready for you!! Let's go Joe!!
3
The primary purpose of the super delegate system is to prevent those with great enthusiasm and little experience or moderation from choosing an unelectable candidate.
Following the triumph of George McGovern's grass roots movement of 1972 over the old-line Democrats, he led the party to its worst presidential defeat since 1860.
If given a choice between the elitism of a super delegate system and a 2020 Democratic victory or a populist Democratic candidate and a 2020 reelection of Trump, I'll take the former.
1
@Quiet Waiting - You've expressed the established "theory" about super-delegates. A few comments above I express the present day reality of super-delegates.
1
@Quiet Waiting I seem to recall that he superdelegates performed exactly the opposite role in 2016. Hillary Clinton legitimately got more votes than Bernie Sanders (55% to 43%). But the superdelegates were all on Clinton's side. That is to say, the superdelegates--that is, the party's leaders--completely backed the centrist, "establisment" candidate, even though many voters wanted to see the party become more progressive. There may be some role for superdelegates, but voters rightly do not want to feel as though the party insiders get to choose the nominee.
1
Economy will fall; Mueller will find a lot of dirt; House will uncover a lot of Trump crimes. Dem will win presidency. Ray Sipe
5
they don't need to slay each other for a spot, how about gathering a platform and candidates that can help benefit America. Biden Beto Warren Hickenlooper there are combinations that are electable and would benefit America
2
Donald? Is he still here?
1
Again more opinion pieces in the NY times harping on Democrats like they continued to harp on Hillary's emails over and over and over again. Stick to the policies and stop the dribble.
4
Where is the evidence of a slugfest? So far I've seen and read no instances of the Democratic candidates going after each other, and they don't have to. While many of them land similarly on issues, they can still have a mature, informative primary debate season and simply plead their case for why they each think they are the best candidate. They have no need to devolve into insulting each other. All of them will remain more appealing if they don't throw mud and stay steadfastly united against Trump, McConnell and the Republican cash machine.
Additionally, while it is a large field, let's remember that a good number of them are basically running for vice president. For example, why on earth would a hardcore Bernie supporter like Tulsi Gabbard run for president herself, and especially announce so early in the race, if not to just collect extra money and start getting herself some name recognition early on?
The field will edit itself of quite a few people very quickly, and settle into the regular left and center divides. The difference is, at long last, the left has the wind at it's back.
3
Oh please, when has a large group of politicians vying for the most powerful job on earth NOT turned into a slugfest? It doesn't matter if they're in the same party, they all want to come out on top.
1
I think the large field of candidates will be healthy for the Party and the Country come election time 2020. The most important factor of course is that all the "factions" within the Party become united against the GOP candidate on election day. The Democratic Party represents a broad spectrum of interests, but the unifying message is the recognition that the GOP is totally out of touch with reality, and does not , and will not serve the best interests of the American people in the future. The Democrats have come to play, and I don't see any of them getting angry and taking their "toys" home come election day.
1
Has anyone considered using ranked choice in state primaries as a way of making quick sense out of a wide field? It worked in the 2018 Maine state elections without problems as far as I know. Perhaps ranked choice could speed up a clearer picture of consensus concerning the candidates.
1
Stop with concern trolling. This whole thesis is wrong and moreover incorrect. It's a good thing to have a robust debate around the platform and the candidates, it's called democracy. The rules have gotten better under Perez, who eliminated the superdelegates.
141
@Michael A. Jacobs
"The rules have gotten better under Perez, who eliminated the superdelegates."
Wrong.
The Democratic Party elite pulled another one of their infamous "smooth moves" to make it appear the superdelegates were eliminated. They were only eliminated on the first ballot.
From the article:
"In 2020, Democrats have sought to tamp down the superdelegate hysteria by barring these leaders and officials — currently 765 of them — from casting votes on the initial ballot at the convention. But here’s the ultimate irony: They can still cast votes on successive ballots, so they could be more influential than ever if the Democratic primary devolves into a floor fight. And the potential for back-room deal-making or heavy-handed Democratic National Committee refereeing could only further fuel grass-roots suspicion that the party’s elites are running the show, setting ablaze the prospect of party unity."
You can be sure superdelegates are already being lined up by the Dem Party insiders for their favored corporate candidate, most likely "Uncle Joe".
This gives the party insiders almost ultimate control over who the nominee will be in the end.
The only way to avoid the superdelegates getting their way is for a candidate to have an overwhelming number of delegates and take the nomination on the first ballot at the convention.
I believe that is a likely scenario with Bernie being that candidate after he wins 70% of the primaries/ caucuses.
13
@r2d2 - Hillary Clinton had 3.8 million more votes than Sanders. Insiders didn't make her the nominee.
26
It is correct that Hillary got 3.8 million more votes, with 55.2 % to Bernie's 43.1 %.
Clinton won 34 contests, Bernie won 23 contests.
It will be argued about how much the Dem insiders made Hillary the nominee for as long as the arguments persist about what were the factors that contributed to Trump beating Clinton.
However, anyone who is honest, was paying attention, and participated at more than a cursory level in the Democratic Party primaries knows that the whole thing was rigged from start to finish, top to bottom in favor of the Clinton machine. In fact, the Dem insiders and the Clinton machine were basically one and the same.
I participated as a delegate from the pre-primary precinct level all the way through the Colorado State Democratic convention. The Dem insiders pulled every dirty trick in the book, and then some, every step of the way, including local caucuses, the Boulder County convention, and the State convention. I also talked with delegates to the National Convention.
No space for sordid details here, but you really had to fully participate in the process to completely grasp the level of corruption/ collusion.
One result: Many people, mostly youth, became so disillusioned they dropped off the map. Many others decided to dig in and transform the party from within. You are beginning to see early results of that fighting spirit now. Hopefully they will persist, because the old Dem way didn't work, and it won't work in 2020.
21
It is precisely because of superdelegates that the Democratic Party has ultimate control on picking a 'unifying' candidate. And we should be happy for that. Though these delegates may vote only late, their intentions as to who they favour will be well known early on in the primary season, thus helping to winnow out the obscure and more radical candidates. Don't forget that had the Republicans employed a superdelegate system back in 2016 you know who would never have been their nominee. It is a failsafe system, and indispensable now if Democratic hopefuls veer too far off the center.
Perhaps Democrats should stop letting self declared "Independents", who seem to pledge fealty only when it serves their purpose, once more cost us the election.
1
One of the big reasons Trump won is because so many Democrats stayed home. Why did they stay home? Because everyone said Hillary was going to win, so why bother. I don't think that scenario is going to repeat itself this time around. 2018 showed that determined Democrats can turn things around.
7
The reason Democrats are so "fractious" is that they have no major idea around which to unite, except that they don't like Mr. Trump and they would like everything to be free, which they pretty well know is a fantasy, and they pretty well know the voters know, too. Can a combination of sour personal negativism and sweetly unrealistic economic fantasy succeed, or will it just curdle?
3
There sure has been a lot of gloom and doom about Democrats 2 years before an election. Many, many warnings that Democrats are too progressive, there are too many candidates, we'll force people to vote for trump, we haven't talked about foreign policy yet and on and on. Yawn.
First of all we have plenty of challenges facing us in the 2020 election. How about foreign interference and the fact that we've done almost nothing to defend ourselves against it? How about the NRA and Russians actively working to subvert our elections? How about the radical steps conservatives states and judges are taking to deny people the vote? Or trumps Census question which is also an attempt to deny true voter representation?
These are the real challenges the 2020 election faces. I'd appreciate it if the press would focus more on these things than on the "horse race."
177
@Jenifer This figures to be a NYT "top pick'. Firstly the gun ban control groups outspent he NRA 17:1. secondly none of the gun control groups limit foreign donations and most are c3. Kendeda alone outspent the NRA and their spending was less than Bloomberg or Soros.
As far as the "Trump" census question virtually EVERY developed democracy world has that type of question on their census -- along with strong voter ID. Why would any census not ask citizenship status?
2
@Pat - Where are you getting your information about the relative spending of gun rights vs. gun control organizations? It's clear that you know absolutely nothing about the Kendeda Fund.
@Jenifer; As an old FDR democrat who remember back in 2014 when the Democrats last were proud of their half century of ANTI McCarthyism and celebrated it with the great 'Dalton Trumbo' cannot help but be depressed at how partisans on BOTH sides only care for truths OR lies that they LIKE. 'Obama is NOT American' or from your lot of evidence not required bigots,' Russia made American Racist and Vote for Donald Trump' which along with the Russian Collusion smear is the Elite DNC's attempt to deny ANY responsibility for THEIR corruption and failures. Despite blaming EVERYTHING else (EC, Bernie Bros, Comey, FBI, MSM, Putin, for Hillary's arrogant DNC disaster. A quote;
''Anyone who is honest, was paying attention, and participated at more than a cursory level in the Democratic Party primaries knows that the whole thing was rigged from start to finish, top to bottom in favor of the Clinton machine. In fact, the Dem insiders and the Clinton machine were basically one and the same.
I participated as a delegate from the pre-primary precinct level all the way through the Colorado State Democratic convention. The Dem insiders pulled every dirty trick in the book, and then some, every step of the way, including local caucuses, the Boulder County convention, and the State convention. I also talked with delegates to the National Convention.
No space for sordid details here, but you really had to fully participate in the process to completely grasp the level of corruption/ collusion.'
2
Are the Democrats really a party? They cannot decide whether the Republicans are the bigger danger to the country, or if their fellow party members are. I do not see them being able to ever put aside their differences for the sake of any one candidate.
2
The advantage of having many DEM candidates is that they might actually raise a lot of different issues, and in the process we may find out which issues mean the most to people at large.
It needn't be a "slugfest". Civil discourse is the life blood of a democracy. We should be welcoming the chance to have spirited debates about the issues!
How about a coordinated series of "town hall" meetings all across the country, with the various candidates focusing on the issues that mean most to them, then taking these issues to people all over the country and LISTENING to their feedback?
Politicians listening to voters. A party building its platform based on the feedback of the people at large.
What a concept!
5
This article, along with the comments reads like a Republican fantasy. Have any of the Democratic campaigners been savaging each other? I haven't heard. All the name calling and insults seem to be coming from the Republicans, who are starting up the attack machine to grind whoever emerges as the candidate into the dust.
It's not 2016 any more. The lie storm and social media barrage that weakened Hillary (rightly or wrongly) is not going to have the same effect on voters who are better prepared for it. Fox news may still be the only outlet available in some places, but it has lost a lot of credibility as it has become a revolving door for government offices.
Front runners are emerging, despite the noise to the contrary. Bernie and the still undeclared Biden, by virtue of their name recognition and funding bases (grassroots vs corporate), Warren, by virtue of her intelligence and well thought out positions, and Harris, who checks all the right demographic boxes. I think the outcome will be decided between these four, and the coalitions they manage to form. It should be an interesting primary season, particularly if the candidates stay on point with their platforms and don't allow themselves to go on the defensive.
Taking back the white house and the Senate is the only way we will see any change in the direction we're headed.
Vote for whoever is nominated.
112
@michaeltide
In 2016 Clinton and Sanders were for the most part respectful of each other despite a lot of anger and I think it will be the same this time for the candidates. The problem isn't the candidates, its their supporters and I would say in 2016 for the most part it was Bernie Sanders supporters. It was pretty bad and Sanders could not do much about it. At the convention it was pretty much the same. If anything Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has emboldened progressives even more and this may lead to more aggressiveness. If it winds up being mainly Biden against Sanders I would guess things will get very nasty on social media as will as in real personal interactions. Because Sanders has such a large base and his supporters are willing to donate so much money most likely he will be in the running until Milwaukee. How nasty things get will probably depend on who else remains in the race. I really hope there is less animosity this time during the primary but I am not optimistic.
10
@Bob, Thanks for your reply. I agree that the candidate's supporters are more troubling in their response. More exactly, their tendency not to vote for someone who doesn't meet their standard of purity, or to vote for a third party candidate as a protest. I hope, at least in one way, we can be more like Republicans, and get solidly behind one candidate.
I have a lot of regard for Ocasio-Cortez. I think she's doing what she was elected to do – to be a strong voice for progressive ideas. If she's as smart as I think she is (and I think she's very smart) she'll sheath her claws a little, and allow herself to be mentored by Speaker Pelosi. She could emerge as a potent force in Democratic politics.
My main uncertainty about Bernie Sanders is that none of the major candidates he endorsed in 2016 won their elections. That says something to me about his strength as a candidate. No president can pursue even a strong mandate without a supportive congress, and it would be a pity to see all those progressive programs join Merrick Garland in the impossible dream boat.
14
@michaeltide
The progressives are going to do whatever they can to take over the Democratic Party from the center-left. This makes it difficult for them to support a center-left candidate like Hillary Clinton even with someone like Trump as the opposition. I agree that Sanders efforts using endorsements to help the left take over the party have fallen short. I don't think his Our Revolution group has done that well getting their candidates elected. But Sanders is still working at it and having Ocasio-Cortez now in the House is a big help in the effort. There does seem to be a shift to the left although I think they still have a way to go in order to claim success.
5
I would also point out that, since 1952, no Republican President whose first term followed two terms of a Democratic President has been denied a second term. (George H.W.Bush followed two Reagan terms.) Only one Democratic President, Jimmy Carter, could not win his second term following two terms of a Republican President. History is critical in political analysis. The American voter has regularly alternated the two parties in power, wisely precluding the concentration of power in either party. By my reckoning, Trump will win a second term - for some of the reasons that you point out - but the Democrats will control both houses of Congress.
16
Which would arguably put them in a stronger position than if the win the White House but not the Senate. They could start impeachment proceedings almost immediately.
Americans en masse almost always prefer divided government, with a few major exceptions. It is statistically a very safe bet that Trump will win. Dems should focus on taking the Senate. In chess, that move would allowing the other team to take your queen in a way that allowed you to put them into checkmate on your next move.
5
@Robert
And, then, impeachment will not only be necessary but feasible. But, I still doubt that trump will be re-elected, call me an optimist.
8
@Robert
If the Democrats end up controlling both houses of Congress, that sends Trump back to square one: being a Democrat, as he used to be.
I miss the days of smoke filled rooms where the presidential nominee and his running mate were decided by the party bosses. No need for all those messy primaries and caucuses.
Democracy has proven to be one whopping failure when it comes to picking the Democratic nominee. There's too much infighting and no one is going to like the ultimate winner who won't be able to unite the party to defeat Donald Trump. I predict a deadlocked Democratic convention where not a single candidate gets enough delegates to secure the nomination.
Donald Trump just got four more years without even trying.
2
@sharon5101, sorry..don’t think trump dare run again..crime and punishment. As far as democrats are concerned we have to accept that it is a healthy spectrum of ideas that are aired and thank goodness in the last election, Hillary had opposition within the party, otherwise it would seem like the crowning of an assumed royalty rather than an actual candidate who represented the entire spectrum of ideas brewing based on real voters’ wishes and vision.
1
@sharon5101 such a Debbie Downer! There are so many reasons why you are wrong and coming to this idea before the primaries have even started is fatalistic. Who even knows what Trump crimes will be exposed between now and election days? I know it won't matter for the trump cult members, but do you think independents and centrists might be moved to vote against him even if they aren't "for" the Democratic candidate?
1
@sharon5101 "I miss the days of smoke filled rooms where the presidential nominee and his running mate were decided by the party bosses. No need for all those messy primaries and caucuses."
And if your wish came true in 2020, the quivering "party bosses" would no doubt serve up good ol' Hillary for yet another go-round. Pass.
2
I think the Democrats are united in wanting a candidate who is centrist enough to win Democrats and over half of the Independents. We need a candidate who does well in the battleground states. Bernie did well in caucuses with low voter turnout, because his voters were slightly fewer but more energetic. Bernie still has a problem appealing to minorities and women.
5
@Mary Mac - Quinnipiac did polls in April-May 2016, in the states of PA, OH and FL, compared a Trump/Sanders contest to a Trump/Clinton contest. In EVERY case Sanders had a larger winning margin than Clinton, larger, in fact, then Clinton's later losing margin to Trump.
Sanders also won the primaries in Wisconsin and Michigan, 2 other key states Clinton lost.
I'm not speculating what would have happened had Sanders been nominated. There's no way to know. But what we do know is that he would have had a better head start than Clinton in the states where it mattered most.
https://poll.qu.edu/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?releaseid=2345
2
YA THINK ! ????
There is a basic flaw in the system that isn't being faced.
Just because a candidate emerges as a favorite among a majority of Democrat primary voters does NOT mean that person has appeal with independent and swing voters needed to win the election.
Democrats need to put aside personal preferences and focus on determining which candidate has the best chance of winning the Electoral College.
This needs to be approached like a business which is launching a new product and has several products to choose from. The business needs to pick one, based on consumer surveys and testing with potential buyers. This is what the Democratic party leadership should be doing, and sharing the results with the primary voters.
Where is the extensive and detailed polling asking swing and independent voters which issues are their main concerns? Where is the detailed polling comparing contests between Trump and different possible DEM candidates?
The notion that because someone does well with DEM primary voters in NH and IA means they'll do well nationwide, especially in swing states in different parts of the country, is beyond faulty. It's absurd.
We need to be cold-blooded about this.
7
Any move that may help this Ugly American in-chief get re-elected must be stopped. May candidates may actually enrich the discussion, as it will based on fresh ideas based on reality, on the facts, and the truth, as opposed to Trump's demagoguery. May any negative fights be set aside, just emphasize the positives. And democrats have so much more to offer to the American public than a republicanism intent in 'screwing' this democracy, that their taking the presidency would be well deserved. Working at the community level ought to make the difference...after listening carefully to the needs and wishes by the silent majority.
It’s very clear that the party would be best served by unifying around Bernie Sanders and pressuring other candidates to drop out. It’s also clear that there’s no way the party would ever do this. It will hang on to uninspiring corporate candidates as long as it can.
10
@John Krumm Are you serious? Why should "the party" (whoever you mean by that) tell Democratic candidates to drop out in favor of a guy who is not even a Democrat himself?
2
Let no one forget that the "Media" gave us Donald Trump in 2016. Despite the fact that he is a deplorable POTUS, he was the phenomenon that drew the various media to him as a moth is drawn to a flame. The "media"(including print, video and social media) picked on Hillary's flaws and glorified Trump's flaws. Never forget how Trump behaved and how he was coddled by the MSM. Will the same happen again in 2020, or will the MSM destroy Trump before the 2020 election?
5
This doesn't even address the long list of likely gaffes that will come out during the egotistical fight for the nomination. This is going to be fun to watch
2
Sounds a bit like 1972 to me.
If the Democratic Party is at all interested in stealing news cycles from the opposition, and fighting drama with drama, they should let this drag on as loooong as possible...move the convention to Halloween!
Mostly, the Dems just have to lock loose cannons like AOC and Omar in the basement, maybe throw away the key. That way, more center of left candidates don't feel compelled to ape and emulate the extreme progressive views.
2
@Catnogood
"Mostly, the Dems just have to lock loose cannons like AOC and Omar in the basement, maybe throw away the key."
Are you kidding? AOC is better than the lot of them. Dems should lock the presidential minimum age requirement in the basement and throw away the key. Millions of us would vote for AOC in a heartbeat.
@Catnogood "You made me do it." I bet you say that to all the girls.
Ha! It's as if they are already planning to rig it! They didn't even mention the biggest contenders and threat to Trump, Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, but we aren't surprised one bit, since we already see them bashing them left and right. Dems hate progressives, but we are gonna win it this time! The left is done with your neoliberal candidates and if you don't want 4 more years of Trump, you better listen to us because we aren't backing down this time! You've been warned :) Namaste
TULSI/YANG2020
@Jessica
Just the kind of alienating rhetoric we need to lose. Win people over by offending them and calling the names.
I am a Progressive and I can't stand some these people.
2
@Jessica
You and your fellow “progressives” do not understand that the US is a center/center-right country. Not socialist and not progressive.
When will they learn? Now we have female candidates who criticize Israel? When will they learn?
2
As a far lefty I already feel the inexorable pull of the Democratic Parties entrenched money. This entire identity politics Israel debacle was fueled and salt thrown into the wound by those Democrats who are still addicted to the money. The line must be drawn at the money. Democratic Socialists like myself see this line clearly and the moneyed Democrats want to obscure it. A key piece of the party platform should be some remedy, legislative or otherwise, to eliminate the influence of money in politics. Moneyed Democrats do not want this so there you have the defining line going forward. This economic line can be the unifying force behind the currently disparate "identities" that make up the left. Coalitions could then be formed around racial equality, voting rights, living wage, and women's rights. All traditional Democratic FDR style policies. The Democratic Party abandoned these policies and pushed identity politics to hide the line I so clearly define on either side of the money. Attempting to find the middle of the entire electorate will not join those disparate Democratic Party groups and will present a weak and not particularly striking alternative to Trump. This Grand Old Democratic Party ruled for many decades but when confronted with full on authoritarianism trying to rely on the usual brand of moneyed Democrat failed. Doing this again will fail. Draw the line at the money.
1
And yet in 2016, having a two person race, and not a close one either, also led to a bloody fight and riven convention. It’s up to each of the canddates. If only one of the candidates chooses to make it so it will be so. It’s time to tell them each that repeating 2016 will lead to some permanent political ostracizing.
3
Yes, indeed, just like the large, crowded field hurt the Republicans in 2016, whereas the fixed Democratic nomination process helped Clinton.
Well, yes, in a peculiar way. It showed how really bad were the Republican POTUS wannabes - the last round was between Trump and Cruz! Alternatively, it got Clinton the nomination, but was not rigorous enough to expose her weaknesses as a candidate for POTUS.
Whether or not a Sanders-Kasich election would have been possible under better, i.e., fairer, nomination procedures is a topic for counterfactual history. However, since the backroom boys no longer call the shots and "democratic" (independents can stay home) primaries are the norm, one must ask whether the likes of Trump would have been nominated under the old system. Certainly, the current horde of Democratic aspirants would have been winnowed by now to a manageable few.
@San Ta. Trump won because he consolidated the racist vote while the other 60% of the more moderate (relatively speaking) Republican primary vote was split 16 ways. In the Democratic Party the same 60% of moderates coalesced behind Hillary Clinton. She outpolled Trump in both the primaries and the general election yet still did not become President.
I'm afraid the Bernie bros haven't learned a lesson, and they may again divide the party and re-elect Trump or elect another Republican. They are still whining about being cheated in 2016. Bernie lost to Clinton by 3 million Democratic votes. A large percentage of Bernie's delegates were earned in non-democratic caucus states, and in some of those states Bernie actually lost to Clinton in a non-binding primary election. That is never mentioned by the bros as a defect in the primary system. They just whine about how the system, which was in place when Bernie began his candidacy for the Democratic Party, even though he is not, and never has been, a Democrat. The superdelegates were irrelevant in the nomination of Clinton; she would have won without them. The debate schedule, registration purges, closed voting stations, and all the other whiny complains of Bernie and his campaign had nothing to do with it either. Bernie was never attacked by Republicans because they wanted him to divide the party and weaken Clinton. The Russians didn't criticize him either, and in fact, actually helped him in some instances. If he had gotten the nomination they would have trained their propaganda machine in Bernie and he would have been roundly defeated. If he gets the nomination in 2020, he will be roundly defeated, after the right-wing propaganda machine tars him as a socialist and communist. If he doesn't get the nomination, he and his campaign will again say he was cheated.
14
@jas2200: Didn't Clinton "win" the Iowa caucus with the help of creative accounting? Of course, when she wins a caucus state, she wins, but when Sanders wins ... .
3
@jas2200 If you don't want us "Bernie Bros" (nice way of really inviting us into "your" party), to cause a fuss then you "pragmatists" better start to create a fair environment in which major democratic debates aren't scheduled for 9:00pm on Fridays. Also, make sure the next DNC Chair doesn't have a license plate "HRC 201" next time you want to at least uphold the appearance of having a fair debate.
5
@San Ta: Of course, the story has to be that when Hillary won the Iowa caucuses, it had to be because Bernie was cheated. Hillary won 5 caucus states and territories and 30 primary states and territories. She also received 3,775,437 more votes than Bernie in the primaries. She also won 4051 more delegates (not counting superdelegates) than Bernie. Bernie won 17 primaries and 11 caucuses. Bernie wasn't cheated out of the nomination. It was actually a landslide.
2
No, the democratic primaries will not dissolve into infighting. The media tries to make that the story but it's not.
WE THE PEOPLE are getting the opportunity to carefully scrutinize the candidates and learn what their core values are, if they have the qualifications, internal support and experience to MANAGE OUR United States of America and what their ideas are to preserve/restore true democracy in America.
Thanks to all the Socially Conscious Women and men who are steppiong up to have their ideas heard. Some of them will be excellent cabinet and regulatory agency heads when WE hire/elect Socially Conscious Democrats and Independents who will work for 99.9% of us.
5
I think we should aim for someone who'll work for the whole 100% of us.
I'm probably a fair representation of a Bernie bro. At this point in 2015 I would have told you that I would not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstance (I ultimately ate those words). This time around I really like Warren and Bernie, and I really don't like Gillibrand. But I don't care what happens, in 2020 I'm voting for the person on my ballot that has a D in front of their name. I could be an exception, but I think most people that will take sides in the Dem primaries are appalled enough at Trump that they will vote for the eventual nominee. Somehow it seems harder to make the old standby argument that both sides are awful, just in different ways.
37
This is more or less what I hear from everyone. Even those complaining that they will take their balls and go home are unlikely to do so next year.
1
@Jack If you were morally correct, you would vote for Howard Schultz and save your party from the radicals.
There's recent history to study this....from 2010 when the Tea Party took command of the Republican Party. The question through 2016 was how furious the Freedom Caucus was going to be about debt extensions, continuing resolutions and failure to reign in out of control regulations. It cost Boehner his speakership and told Ryan there were less stressful things to do in one's life than dealing with miscreants and malcontents.
Now it's Pelosi's turn in the House while the rebels try to seize power on the fringes of your party. If you want sanity...come back to the middle. As brutal as it's going to be for Biden if he runs..he's your best shot if you insist on a D. I don't think he can stomach hearing day in and day out about his one son moving in on his dead son's widow while managing a $4 billion Chinese hedge fund signed the week after the Chinese PM met with Biden and Obama. I hate to see grown men cry, but it's setting up perfectly for another Biden/D meltdown.
Hence...go with Schultz. At least if you lose, you can tell people you were the sane one.
1
@Jack
Think carefully before you vote. Just because Trump is a bad president and calls himself a Republican does not mean that a Democrat can't be worse. (Bad as Trump may be, he has not started another war, ... so far.)
1
Why don't we identify the issues, then work backward from there. For me the issue is climate change and the declining middle class. I want to hear ideas about how to solve those problems. I don't need to hear about you were once nice to children or about your pedigree. Don't get bogged down in labels. And please stop with the "Bernie isn't a Democrat". If you don't want him running in the party primary, he can always run as an independent.
4
Punditry at its best. Before the 2016 election there was a similar article about the republican field. After the election the messy primary was given as a contributing factor to why he won, because it allowed him to test messaging and see what it works. Whatever....
3
With such a large crowd of candidates the only really legitimate way to chose a candidate who represents the wishes of the greatest number of Democratic leaning voters is to use some sort of proportional rank voting system where each voter lists his choice(s) in order of preference. Thus your state may not select your first choice, but may select acceptable choices all of which might be someone you would support ahead of the other party's choice in a national election.
5
I'm just curious why the Republican "winner take all" approach is the "free market" approach. It has its qualities, and it caught my eye because I've seen discussion of the Electoral College selection process in the same terms. But I don't see how either winner take all, or proportional selection, relate to the free market one way or the other. But it's a fascinating distinction, with serious implications for campaign strategies.
1
The process will be messy and the general election against Trump much closer than it should be for two reasons; 1) it’s still largely unclear exactly what policies Democrats stand for (beyond glittering generalities) on key issues such as health care, taxes, education, SS/Medicare etc. and 2) Unclear prioritization or aforementioned policies.
Say what you will about Republicans, but at least we know exactly where they stand and what their goal is; stop at nothing to maximize wealth for the top 1%, regardless of everyone and anything else.
With Democrats, you get one third who cater to those same interests (ie 20 years ago, they’d be registered Republicans), a third who are too far to the left in fantasy land to bring back to reality, leaving you with about a third of genuine, traditional Democrats.
1
@Joe Arena: But it's worth noticing that we know exactly where Republicans stand and what their goal is (maximize 1% wealth), but it's not something they ever say openly, and probably most of their voters would deny it.
Similarly, we know exactly what the Democrats stand for (pretty much Clinton/Obama with maybe more green concerns, right?) and for the rest, glittering generalities... but realistically, what can we ever say about the future except glittering generalities?
The DNC is corrupt. I hope that they fix that now that everyone knows the truth. I'm hoping....all this to keep honest to goodness progressives out of the way of corporate Democrats. Disgusting. I'm still for Bernie Sanders as is MOST Democrats. You wouldn't know it by watching any news or reading the papers. NOPE. But the stadiums are getting filled again by Bernie. He's not perfect, but he's the best we have out there. And people love him.
5
As long as “Progressives” are more concerned with destroying the Democratic Party (which is the party that was responsible for every expansion of the social safety net, environmental protections, and social equality for the last century) than defeating Republicans, the Democrats will lose and Republicans (who stand for everything Progressives profess to oppose) will win. When I read these comments I am so discouraged. We will have a replay of 2016 when a few per cent of self-righteous anti-Democrat’s threw away their votes on third party candidates and enabled Trump’s victory. Nothing Democrats could have possibly done could be worse than what Republicans have done on social, environmental, and tax policy in the last few years. When will the Left recognize that the demand for perfection is the enemy of the possible.
You think Republicans are not gleeful but cheering these vain-glory Democrats? You bet they are! Because they know Trump would certainly lose in 2020. They know their candidate is so totally muddied that there is no mud left to throw at him. The Republicans have ring-side seats as these Democrats put on gloves to fight each other. In the process the Republicans would win the prize for a knock-out - without getting into the ring, without a single punch!
If Donald Trump gets re-elected, then the United States is beyond saving.
6
@Seldoc
You told us the same thing in 2016. *And* you were going to move to Canada if he won.
This article and many, many more like it prove that there is an excess of space to fill in print, online and in video. Let’s stop analyzing every comment and let the process, messy as it is, go forward. They place to cull the numbers is at the convention.
Because anointing a candidate early worked SO well for the Democrats last time, right?
I'm already exhausted from hearing pundits decide what Democrats "should" do. They all work for corporate media companies that want perpetual GOP rule to protect corporate profits, and another Trump term because Trump is good for ratings.
There is only one thing that makes a candidate electable: ACTUALLY GETTING ELECTED.
18
Omigod the incessant hand wringing! Trump won by just 70,000 votes scattered over three states, all of those states elected Democratic Governors in 2016, Trump is underwater in all three states. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million and 3 million more Democrats stayed home in 2016. Democrats outpolled Republicans by 8 million (some say 10) in 2018. Is there any Democrat that will sit out 2020? No. This is why Pelosi took impeachment off the table, Trumps base is somewhere around 35%. In 2016, Trump lost all the states where he was plus 5 or less in the polling. He split the ones where he was between 5-10. Based on current polling, he is on track to get 96 electoral votes. Texas will go blue in 2020. While the media froths over three Democratic women in the House, none of them are running for President.
6
@Bewley5
Said by someone sitting in Austin ... He now has 30+ of the hispanic vote.
and his other numbers have never been higher.
Keep that attitude and the DEM's lose.
I have a better idea. Let's let the pundits decide on the candidate. They did such a good job selling us Hillary.
10
@David, the self titled “pundits” give us a headache. They misled the country in 2015-16. Their concerted effort to annoying hillary at all cost, was lost unfair and lacked objectivity and impartiality as was expected of pundits with real knowledge of the pulse of the nation.
America will become completely irrelevant to the world if trump wins a 2nd term. I think most Americans fully appreciate what's at stake.
3
By most Americans do you mean everyone other the 90% of Republicans that support Trump. Of course, since the young people and minority’s don’t vote you are talking about the majority of voters who will re-elect Trump.
1
@T3D
I travel all over the world .... Trump is a lot more popular than anybody at the NYT's can imagine.
3
@T3D What an absurd statement that America will be completely "... irrelevant to the world ..." if Trump is reelected. What evidence do you have that supports this contention? I would guess none! If you think you have some, please post the link. You have a severe case of TDS and need to rethink your unfounded supposition that "... most Americans fully appreciate what's at stake."
There are still superdelegates? STILL?
The Democratic Party has not learned its lesson. The fix was in for Clinton throughout 2016, we never stopped reading about it, and that cost the party in the general election. Do these party hacks believe the same thing won't happen again if superdelegates step in and give us another stands-for-nothing party hack?
I guess they do. Nobody hates democracy more than the official bureaucracy of the Democratic Party.
5
@Wolf: No, that's not how it worked with the super-delegates. They supported the candidate with the decisive popular advantage. Whether we should have them, or what their role should be can be debated, but in 2016 they did nothing but affirm the grass roots voters' undeniable preference for Clinton.
You're right, we heard endlessly about the nonexistent "fix" -- and the myth still lives on, and we will keep hearing about it. But there was never any truth to it. Look at the numbers, look seriously at all the sound-bites, and the notorious "emails". There's nothing really there. But that won't stop the propaganda machines, and the bitter die-hards...
Ok, so more democracy is bad. Understood.
5
We've heard this one before: voters just ruin the party's chances by wanting to have a say in the nomination. Let the party honchos nominate a safe-for-the-establishment candidate and then demand that all party members support that candidate. If the candidate loses, it's the fault of the voters for not backing a candidate they detest. It's never the fault of the party honchos for nominating a detestable candidate. Do the Democrats want a re-run of 2016?
8
Might help? Do people still think Trump won't get a second term?
2
@Lynn in DC
Anyone who thinks this didn't learn from 2016. We all laughed at Trump and never dreamed he could be president until that horrid Tuesday. I shudder at the entire thing. I think he very well could win in 2020. The DNC needs to let the best woman/man win; the voters should decide. If it tries to fix it as it did in 2016 we're doomed.
1
@Lynn in DC People hope he would get a life term for treason.
It could be a good process that culls out the extremists, Talk about issues a majority of Americans care about, vets the candidates for problematic pasts issues and leave the best, strongest candidate standing. Or it could make the France Reign of Terror look like a garden party where every week they publicly condemn one of their own drag, them up the scaffold, and take their head. Clearly if it is the second it will be a huge boon to the chances for reelection of President Trump.
2
@Todd...and the Trumpites and the social media trolls will make sure that such a Reign of Terror will happen.
Ah yes, let's have another coronation like in 2016. It worked out so well.
5
What can you say to the copy below other than something like 'Wow, Well Done Indeed!'
"After all, Democrats are up against a highly manipulative politician who in 2016 pried open just enough cracks in their coalition to win the Electoral College by a combined 78,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin out of 137 million cast."
The only fight in our Democratic Party will not come from a majority of candidates and their delegates, but rather, and again, from Bernie Sanders, an anachronism wrapped in a cliche, whose impossible promises fuel his extremist supporters. Do we really need this mirror-image of Trump as our candidate ... the yelling, the anger, the fake promises? Haven't we had enough of this extremism in the guise of the dishonest "independent," then "socialist," then "democratic socialist" Sanders, so willing to take money from our Party that he has now apparently signed a ridiculous Party "loyalty oath".
The rest of the candidates thus far appear to all be in this for the American people, not themselves, and fully understand the stakes this time around... unlike Mr. Sanders who will divide us like nobody's business.
And contrary to Mr. Sanders' contentions about his imagined 2018 midterm "victory", the winners but for two, came straight from the middle of our political spectrum, appealing to moderates across the country. That's how we win.
If Sanders gets out of the way of victory, we will win again in 2020.
5
Sure, we don't need the candidates with ideas, we need a candidate who will change nothing to improve our lives. It worked so well last time, against the candidate who promised pie in the sky.
One waits in vain for the prejudice common among "moderate" Democrats -- that the rest of the party simply must accommodate to the status quo policy positions because to do otherwise is "extreme" -- to find its opposite expression.
So when this writers notes that "Some on its left flank insist on nothing less...." the reader will wait in vain to hear that "Some on its right flank" insist on being the party of socially liberally Republicans, and opposed to every popular initiative proposed by the left flank.
Funny, how the descending failed wing of the party still thinks it's the measure of all things, just as this writer apparently wishes that the left would drop out now.
4
Not rigged in 2016? Really?
Wikileaks showed otherwise.
DNC worked for Clinton only.
Hillary cheated in Bernie debate.
She was given questions in advance and gladly accepted them.
If she was honest she could've given Bernie the questions also.
9
Simple solution - everyone support the most reasonable candidate on stage, John Hickenlooper. Election won..
3
We all read about Trump's approval rating being in the 40s, but that's not the whole story. I have no idea about the ratings of the various Democratic candidates (got to get the clown car meme in here). But recent polling in GA with regard to a potential Abrams-Purdue Senate race show her with a higher approval rating but also a higher disapproval rating.
I read this to mean that the candidate the Dems nominate will be critical if he/she is to win, and an economic downturn won't hurt either.
1
The 2016 Democratic Party rules were not egalitarian. They permitted their hundreds of super-delegates to declare their allegiance well before a single primary. Since virtually all declared for Clinton, this discouraged other bona fide potential candidates from even entering the race. The only other real party line candidates, who dropped out early, had about as much chance as the Washington Generals against the Globetrotters.
Sanders never got the message, as he is not a Democrat. He entered the race not to win, but to get his issues into the market place of ideas. And it turned out, many people were looking for much more than just ideas.
2
@RM One major reason Democrats have super delegate is to keep someone unfit to sit in the White House from becoming their nominee. Just think. If Republicans had super delegates it's likely Trump would never had won their nomination.
1
@RM
"They permitted their hundreds of super-delegates to declare their allegiance well before a single primary."
Which not only discouraged other bona fide candidates (Clinton buying out the DNC didn't help there either), but insulted the voters. First of all, by essentially telling them their votes didn't matter, as the superdelegates were willing to overrule them. In my state, which is 51% registered Independents with open primaries. And in a few other states, the superdelegates casting their votes for Clinton where Sanders actually won the state primary. I was delighted to help my Clinton superdelegate House rep to lose his seat in '18. I'm looking forward to any opportunity to help the others find a different career in the future.
Who believes that Clinton lost because she was weakened by a bitter primary battle? Sanders was very polite and refrained from attacking her. Clinton's wounds were self-inflicted and she accumulated them over decades of unethical behavior. The Dems should let the primary season do what it is designed to do, instead of trying to head it off with these opinion pieces that warn about the dangers of letting the voters pick the nominee.
12
@Judy Blue
Get real. Sanders employed republican propaganda against her and dragged his feet supporting her when she won. His supporters booed at the convention. Trump: "I get my best material from Bernie".
5
It is not true. He didn't criticize her on Benghazi or her emails, but everything else was a fair game- her highly paid speeches to bankers, her close-mind on. alternative healthcare solution. And Bernie's supporters booed her, because if DNC manipulations (cheating?) in her favor.
3
@Judy Blue Nonsense. Sanders never stopped lambasting Clinton for taking money from millionaires and branding her as corrupt. Sanders' refusal to drop out of the race after it became mathematically impossible for him to win further weakened Clinton and helped the GOP. His hammering at Clinton helped Trump win.
3
Democrats will lose not from the huge field of candidates but from party leaders like Pelosi and Schumer doling out middle of the road, milquetoast policies per usual. If they want to win they have to take a bold stance on Medicare 4 All, Minimum Wage and the Green Deal. If they are wishy washy and focus all their time trying to win GOP swing state voters who are disillusioned with Trump, they'll lose.
8
The Democrats are preparing to choose from an impressive field of candidates. This doesn’t mean they are “fighting among themselves.” All the media ever wants to report on is the horse race, the drama that the media itself gins up. It’s so much easier to report on that then on the candidates’ issues and positions. It’s so much easier to continually fall back on the “divided Dems” meme instead of actually being informative.
20
The 20 month campaign is a political tragedy.
Instead of focusing on issues and policies and ways to solve problems this country faces, the media focus is on individual personalities and histories, styles and gaffs.
Instead of Democrats working together, the candidates will work to differentiate themselves from each other. A tragedy.
2
@T Smull...
It's the choice that the Democrats have made...
They get to live with the consequences.
3
Who the nominee is will not matter. The general election will be determined by Trump, the economy, voter turnout, and voter suppression. The rest is a cacophony of media noise.
2
So Mr. Wasserman, what's YOUR solution? Increase the role of party bosses who "know better", and can pick a nominee? How'd that work out with Hilary?
No, the answer is to allow the democratic process to play out. We are a long way from primaries, and there's plenty of time to winnow the field. The tectonic forces at play in the Democratic party need to be allowed to shift and coalesce ultimately around a new identity, hopefully one that represents the 99% and not the 1% as they have for years. Limiting the debate will only lead to deeper and more permanent fractures, and allow the Republican minority to continue to tyrannize the majority.
In the end, I believe the hate of Trumpism will trump any other differences, and people will rally behind whomever the nominee is.
23
@Kingfish52...
If the only message that you have to offer is that you hate Trump. you are going to turn off that great middle that actually decides who wins and who loses.
1
@The Owl I agree. But I believe that hatred of Trump runs so deep that it doesn't actually have to be advertised. In essence it's an "invisible plank" in their platform.
Let me see if I understand this.
The writer is urging Democrats to move to a system like the one that allowed a totally unfit candidate to prevail early, and avoid the scrutiny that should have come from his own party. The same candidate, I might add, who lost the popular vote but squeaked through thanks to the electoral college, a clueless media, and Russian help. The same candidate who has demonstrated his only skill is manipulating people.
This is the path to defeating him?
This time Democrats are very aware of the danger of Trump getting re-elected (if he survives to 2020), and the hard lesson of showing up to vote everywhere. There are too many important issues that need to be settled and clarified through the primary process - get those fights done and move on to the main event.
Democrats have the numbers to prevail in a fair contest - the more who can be engaged and energized by the primary process, the better.
16
3 months between the Dem convention and the General Election is plenty of time. Things move much faster these days.
Three months ago is forever. For 3 solid months the rational people of this country can do what's necessary to get out the vote and end this madness.
4
I think it's good to have a lot of candidates at this stage. But at some point, the candidates will have to perform or the donations will dry up. Before we assume the candidates will continue through the year, let's see if these candidates make it through Q1 and into Q2 of 2019.
3
How about these prospective candidates focus on doing their jobs rather than spending all their time trying to get a better job? If we could get some sort of time limit on campaigning for public office in this country (six months?), perhaps our elected representatives would be of more service to their constituents and perhaps the public would not become desensitized to constant campaigning.
6
There are a few key benefits to having a crowded field:
1. More drama means more free air time on the media.
2. Having candidates from lots of states and a contest that extends for a longer period of time will help excite the party machines in lots of states—not just those in Iowa and New Hampshire.
3. Not knowing who will win means Republicans have less time to prepare for and attack the candidate.
Whatever the downsides, they can't be worse than the party anointing someone before the electoral process has even begun.
29
Did a smaller field work last time around? Stop worrying about the size and start working on the message.
63
The writer makes a number of trenchant observations which can be troubling for the Democratic party. While a crowded field is a very positive reflection of grass roots democracy, can this development also be a huge disadvantage in that the primary voters are aptly confused by so many differing platforms? Perhaps the biggest impediment to electing the best candidate are the undemocratic and out dated rules and policies held by the party with no effort to modernize the primary process and make it as fair and transparent as possible.
6
The real question Democrats face is the mirror-image of the Republican evolution. Once there was such a thing as what now sounds like a total oxymoron, a "liberal Republican." Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits were of that brand. Indeed the Republican "tent" was broad enough to encompass a variety of views. With Ronald Reagan, his election in the 1980's the conservative side began to dominate the party. Ever since it's been a lockstep toward the far-right, culminating in the election of Trump. Moderate and formerly liberal Republicans are likely now either independents or perhaps Democrats, though probably closer to the "blue dog" variety. The conservatives have managed a stealth takeover of the GOP, keeping the name, logos, etcetera, but it is a far different party than the one from fifty years ago.
So the left is trying to assert dominance in the Democratic Party the way the conservatives have done in the Republican Party. 2016 was a good test of the tensions between the various factions, particularly between the Sanders/Clinton groups. Now, with #MeToo, identity politics, Utopian goals,
given the overwhelming plurality of primary contenders; will they be able to, or does it even make sense to try and remain as one party attempting to please all factions, or would the country be better served if they broke into two groups, a truly left-wing progressive party, and one for the rest of us who don't lean that far left, but don't want Trump either?
6
@Patrick I enjoyed your analysis. Yes, my kingdom for a sane third party where we much maligned "centrists" might vote for someone who isn't a divisive zealot or a fraud. Those are the only choices I'm seeing on my radar right now.
@Charles K.
Except that your party says that the only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow line. Good luck dealing with such furious self-righteousness.
Unless Bernie Sanders or perhaps Elizabeth Warren is the Democratic nominee it seems almost certain that the party will not leave the Democratic convention united. If Sanders or Warren are in to the end and lose they will have to try to get the progressives to support the nominee like Sanders did in 2016 when he met with Clinton following the convention and they agreed to make some compromises on their positions going forward. There may be other candidates who will be able to pass the progressives' litmus tests for purity such a Cory Booker or Kirsten Gillibrand who have shifted left but they may be perceived as still too closely tied to the corporate world to get a pass.
4
Keep it clean with healthy, mutually respectful debate through the primaries - and then, no matter how progressive or how centrist you are or how centrist or progressive the Democratic nominee is: in 2020, vote blue no matter who.
16
@common sense advocate “Vote blue no matter who”. Now that’s an example of Dem intellect. Don’t give anything a thought.
This could work in favor of my preferred non-candidate, Sherrod Brown. After a few rounds of voting at the convention doesn't result in a winner, the leaders, whoever they are, engineer a back-room deal where all or most candidates support Brown.
Democracy can be messy but even if the above scenario fails to happen, whoever Democrats nominate will be light-years better than the current president.
7
"... Democratic voters are so desperate to beat Mr. Trump they’ll pragmatically consolidate quickly behind a nominee..."
In case you haven't noticed (and is evident even in the comments on this very article) "pragmatism" is now verboten, along with "centrism", if a particular candidate wants to appeal to the Democratic party base as defined by the online discourse I've been reading. The only hope I have is that online discourse is not a true reflection of the opinions of the population at large.
12
@Anthony. Actually the NYTimes never represents the population at large.
4
What's the point of this article? The Democrats can't prevent all the candidates from running. If the result is messy, that's life. If on the other hand, one candidate surges to the front early and stays there, well that's also life. There's absolutely nothing to be done about this, so why print an article stating the obvious?
32
@FRB Contrary to Mr. Wasserman’s theory, I think a front loaded primary season, featuring Texas and California right up front, will benefit the Democrats. Instead of this silly notion that a candidate who comes in third in Iowa or New Hampshire is supposedly viable, voters in big states with big state concerns will tell us who is relevant to the vast majority of voters in this country and, more importantly, who can win.
5
@Greg a
"voters in big states with big state concerns will tell us who is relevant to the vast majority of voters in this country and, more importantly, who can win."
Not necessarily. Clinton took Calif, NY, Fla, and Texas in the 2016 Dem primaries. It was the medium states that went for Sanders that bit her in the tail in November.
3
@Greg a - "will tell us who is relevant"
So our opinion doesn't matter - again?
3
Too much democracy? This is a distraction. Democrats have a big incentive to turn out in 2020, bigger than in 2018. Let’s not worry about the primaries. Let’s worry about getting out the vote against the worst President in history.
6
Can we hold off on the "Dems in disarray" articles until there is some actual evidence for it? I know it's an evergreen topic for reporters and editorial writers, but perhaps we could hold off until sometime in 2020?
43
trump must be voted out in a massive landslide, a repudiation of the man and the worldview of his cultist supporters. So, Democratic candidates figure this out, play the long game, opt out if you're candidacy is causing internal division, throw your support behind another candidate early, voters unite behind the front runners immediately. We cannot abide under any circumstance another four years of this absurd president*.
2
@Bailey absolutely agree, and I think that will happen, in 2016 no one though Trump would win because America can't really think so poorly of itself, Right? No we know the cost of sloth and pettiness.
All I can say is- good! I mean, look at their potential field. Grandpa Biden, Beto the Loser, Warren the Indian, someone from Colorado, someone from Ohio is it? With a temper? The guy who “cleaned up” Newark? Others I can’t count. Now maybe the mayor of NYC! Wow - can’t wait for that to shake out.
14
@Brian Kenney lol the stomping reality of what is going to happen to Trump and Republicans is really going to painful for the cult.
1
@Brian Kenney you overlooked a key factor all of the Democratic candidates share - they are sane.
Might?
I think you meant definitely.
3
This op-ed is spot on. Many of these hopefuls share the same views on issues and in fact, become indistinguishable and confusing to potential voters like me. In the final realistic analysis the average primary voter will zone in on the ones with the relatibiliity factor and personality during the debates It is logistically impossible to conduct a meaningful one given the sheer number of candidates. To me this many represents a disjointed party. As a life-long Democrat, I find it embarrassing when I hear gushing words of how "diverse" the field is and what a "stellar" group it is. I am not impressed with any of them, not a single one. I envision a Trump re-election (barring removal) if the Dems don't get it together. He has the advantage of already lining his coffers and building opposition research on each of these hopefuls. More time will be spent on defensive denials.
In 2016 the dark horse Trump distinguished himself out of 17 contenders by his irreverence, humor, disruption and ignorance of the status quo. He became an idol not on .policy but personality
Which one of the current Dem candidates can stand out like him? Too many contenders to choose from--so little time (237 days to election) to get him or her out into the battleground states with a few solid collective messages.
Note to the candidates: Shed your individual hubris and join forces with your stronger colleague if polls show you should clearly get off the stage early.
74
@Helen Exactly who would want to stand out like Trump. Trump succeeded in part because he was Fox News preferred candidate and they put him at center stage because he was topping the polls with 30%. I always wondered what would have happened if they had stuck him to the side like Mike Huckabee.
8
@Helen
I think that's more like a year and 237 days to the election, Helen, with about a year until the primaries.
I agree that we're lacking a leader with charisma, executive experience, and the charm to communicate to a wide swath of the American people. My ideal candidate would be have the policy depth of Elizabeth Warren and the background of John Hickenlooper. Sadly, Hickenlooper probably lacks the charisma to rise to the top, and Warren is too much of a cliche as a Harvard professor and part-time native American.
11
@Helen
17 contenders--across the democratic spectrum, from across the country, with wildly different backgrounds--and you're "not impressed with any of them, not a single one"?
The only dem with the star power you demand is AOC, and at 29, she's too young.
2
Inside out
The repub primary system w all irs candidates produced a winner (a useful idiot but he still won)
So i’d say the Democrats have smoother sailing w time enough to layout policy
And THAT is miles ahead of anything 45 can fo or say.
16
@Adam Stoler
I read your post but could not understand it.
What do the following mean?
w all irs candidates
can fo or say
I am surprised that the comment was an Time's Pick. Obviously, someone at the NYT must be able to parse it better than I can.
1
"But he might have an unlikely ally in his re-election bid: Democrats’ mess of a primary system."
Are you referring to the system where the corrupt DNC colluded with HRC's campaign to block Bernie Sanders from having a chance at the nomination? Guess what? They lost their opportunity for a smooth 2019 primary season back in 2015. Outlier Democrats with minimal public contributions to date should feel free to back out if they are concerned about the process, however.
5
@Jim K
Bernie rigs the system in Vermont. He is not a democrat.
1
@Jim K bernie "I am not a Democrat! I am a socialist" sanders has been listed on the congressional roles as an Independent until a few days ago, when someone adivsed him to borrow the Democratic label more seriously and list himself now on congressional records as a Democrat.
No doubt once we reject hime again, he will go back to being an Independent, since socialist will still not be a party in our system.
2
Another problem that might hurt the Democrats in 2020 is that many millions voted for Democratic House members in 2018,
totally unknowing that their Democratic votes would result in the newly elected Democratic Speaker of the House appointing Omar to the prestigious House Foreign Relations Committee, and she still retains her seat.
12
@David The USG's oath of office and the pledge of allegiance is to the USA, not Israel.
5
Howard Schultz will do irreparable harm to the Democrats if he officially declares as an independent. That will automatically give Trump four more years to totally destroy the country. The moment he opened his mouth on 60 Minutes, I was screaming at him to drop dead. Even though I agree with many of his positions, he doesn't have the slightest hope of getting elected. Same for Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, and all the other so-called independents. They're all bought and paid for by Putin. The days of an independent being elected President died with TR. This is a very different world, and the stakes are a lot higher.
1
@Stu Your list should include bernie sanders, who only just recently again borrowed the Democrat label--this time by joining the party--thinking it will make a difference. I bet he will go back to being an Independent the second he is not chosen as the Democratic candidate.
3
On the other hand, a primary battle among numerous Democrat candidates prevents the Republican dirty tricksters from focusing on any one Democrat candidate - thus spreading their resources thinner - although I'm sure the Russians will, once again, make their Trump investment.
No investment in the history of mankind has provided such an immediate and valuable return.
5
@MS. Please tell us you aren’t still fantasizing on collusion.
3
@MS, Just call them all Socialists, and keep pointing at Venezuela. Fox will be on board.
The Democratic party needs to slug it out, the nation needs a real second party, all we have now is one party right of center to extreme right anarchists. We need a robust democratic party, left of center. The newly elected women are a breath of fresh air. Socialism is a great political philosophy, it beets Darwinism aka unregulated Ayn Rand capitalism any time.
The Trump budget stands for Social Darwinism guns and no butter. That is a real choice between the two parties.
6
@R. Littlejohn. So you want the government to run industry?
2
@Jackson
To regulate industry. Not have industry running government, as Boeing runs the FAA.
@James F Traynor While our captured regulators run interference for the industries they regulate, the free market speaks .
I'll be listening for the one of the Democrats to ask Bernie, how he intends to eliminate tuition for public universities. If I'm not mistaken, the military academies are tuition free, but have very high standards. The rest of the public schools are state entities.
11
@Mike
Are you suggesting that the federal government has not yet figured out how to tranfer money to the states?
Bernie lists all the places he'll get money for his projects. If I recall correctly, he wants to tax the high-turnover Wall Street trades, the kind where it's just a game to sell immediately for a few pennies higher than you bought at, instead of investing in companies that you believe merit long-term investment.
3
@Judy Blue We already have that it's called short term capital losses/gain's.
I don't buy the central thesis here. I believe that whoever comes out of the primary will have full support of the other members and voters. The issue before was Hillary and she is no longer running.
3
I believe the majority of the American public dislike Trump and would be happy to be rid of him. We are waiting for the Democrats to put forward a rational and reasonable candidate who can do just that, who can appeal not just to the left but to the very large center. We are still waiting...
16
@Paul Baker
The center is the left. According to Gallup, 58 percent of Americans want universal health care. Only 38 oppose this.
53 percent of Americans want the rich to pay higher taxes according to Rueters/Ipsos. Another 23 percent 'somewhat agree'.
Also, the idea that Wisconsin wants a centrist middle of the road candidate is not held up by recent history. Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin's primary 65% to 35%.
7
Who would you like to see run?
Depends how you ask the question, when asked if you want single payer government only health care, support drops considerably. I am not opposed to universal health care, but the devil is in the details and the left has been very cagey on details. Increasing the marginal tax rates on the super rich has historically added little to revenues so much of the appeal has more to do with class warfare and identity politics than economics. Primary results have little relation to general election results. Clinton got trounced by Trump in Wisconsin. I liked Paul Ryan’s joke, “Wisconsin is beautiful in the fall, someone should have told Hillary.” And I did vote for her. And to answer the question from the other reply, I am a non-affiliated anti Trump because I love my country and want it saved from the authoritarianism of both the far left and far right. I do support Joe Biden.
4
There was a general perception in 2016 that Clinton had been annointed by the big donors, the media, and the DNC.
The relative lack of media attention given to Sanders, the debate schedule, the locking in of superdelegates by Clinton before primaries (never done before, can't be done again with DNC rule changes), claims that Sanders had "split the party" by daring to run in the primaries (as opposed to Clinton having no competition for the nomination), the laughable campaign-driven claim that she was the most qualified candidate to ever run, and a lot more supported that perception.
What voters want is to choose their own candidate. And I'm glad we have a lot of choices. I want to see and hear from all of them.
97
@Talbot bernie was never a Democrat. He said so himself; and, congressional records had him listed as an Independent until just recently when he decided to run again and someone advised him to list himself as a Democrat. No doubt once we reject him again, he will go back to being an independent since socialist is still not a party in our system.
16
@Norma
70% of the electorate are not Democrats. Presumably you're ok with it if the electorate rejects the "real" Democratic candidate again.
7
@rtj The Democratic candidate was not rejected the last time. She won by over 3 million votes. It is the electoral college who reluctantly gave the win to trump.
24
This is our national dilemma: We have a two party system in which one party is extremely savvy in deceiving a large part of the electorate and manipulating elections but utterly and disastrously unfit to govern, and one party that has proven it can govern well but is too politically inept to win elections even when they should. It shouldn't be hard to guess which is which.
172
@Purple Patriot
My guess is the opposite of yours I'm pretty sure.
If free college and the GND aren't about deceiving the public, nothing is.
4
@Purple Patriot
Well put, PP, and here we are, sitting in the dirt. Where do we go from here? I don't think any of us knows.
3
@kwb
I just wrote a comment suggesting that NY Times liberal commenters should not stereotype people, and should respect people from all ends of the political spectrum.
KBW, I thank you for offering me a challenge not to stereotype conservatives from Georgia. Much appreciated.
Bernie Sanders voters wouldn't have felt disenfranchised if the primary system weren't promoting Hilliary Clinton over Sanders. This goes beyond Superdelgates. The debate schedule, closed primaries, registration purges, invalidated registrations among among voters, closed polling stations. We can go on. The fact of the matter is the DNC did not want a fair and open primary. They wanted to nominated Clinton for no other reason than it was "her turn."
The most bewildering piece of evidence actually comes from the hacked DNC emails. The DNC revelation wouldn't have mattered if there was nothing scandalous to reveal. It's like breaking into an empty car. What are you going to steal? The owner's manual? Democrats botched the 2016 election in a way no one can really fathom. Hopefully they've learned to let other ideas into the tent this go around. Otherwise, yeah, they are going to get Trump re-elected.
134
@Andy bernie himself rejected being called a Democrat. At the 2014 Move On Conference in DC, after he was introduced, he loudly shouted out "I am NOT a Democrat! I am a socialist!"
If anyone gets trump relected, it is bernie.
52
@Andy
Trump will not be reelected because Mueller's report is coming. Pelosi's adroit messaging that she doesn't favor impeachment was just setting the table for his impeachment. Nobody can later claim she was gunning for him.
13
@Andy
I've never seen so many cry babies as the Sanders supporters and guess what, they're at it again.
Sanders is not and was never a "Democrat." He uses the Democratic party every election and then discards them after he wins senate seat. Well, it didn't work in 2016.
The Dems did not "get Trump elected" - the cry babies who stayed home instead of voting for Hillary are the ones who got him elected. If they do it again, it will be their fault that Trump is re-elected.
58
I'll bite at this obvious piece of clickbait.
To clarify that weird knock against Sanders supporters, Hillary Clinton announced her convention loses didn't matter because the superdelegates would just vote her in anyway. And we wonder how she could inspire so little enthusiasm in voters!
Also, you don't have to be a recently converted "upscale suburban Republican" to question the wisdom of the NGD or abolishing ICE.
I have observed discussions of potential democratic candidates narrowing into a possibly unconscious assumption that the next Democratic candidate has to be female or black, preferably both.
Identity politics is a dangerous game to play!
Speaking of identity politics, I notice the authors left Gillibrand off the list of potential nominees. Did the recent NYT article about her take her out of the running?
33
@Clotario
I agree. And the superdelegates scam was even worse. Clinton essentially bought her superdelegates by persuading state parties to participate in a joint-fundraising scheme. She would direct her moneybags supporters to donate to state Democratic parties, who would then forward the money to Clinton (thus washing off the donor names) and the state parties would get a share of the money back to help fund state races -- if the state's superdelegates announced in favor of Clinton. People who had maxxed out their legally allowed donations to Clinton could fuel additional money to her through the state parties that had signed on to joint-fundraising plan. And the superdelegates were obligated to support Clinton in order to get a share of the loot back for their state races. All the newspaper stories prominently reported the number of superdelegates who had announced their support for Clinton, which was an intentional move to make it look as if Sanders had no chance regardless of how he fared in the primaries.
10
@Clotario, Identity politics is a game that the Republicans have been playing for some time, only they are somewhat more subtle, using whistles to call the dogs, instead of polemics about diversity. Most of us are hearing what we want to hear, or hearing what we don't want to hear in these articles. There are some positions that people like to yell about and misrepresent –"late term abortions" and "unwilling to work" for two – and others that are bound to get modified as the campaigns progress. ICE isn't going to be disbanded, but it can be repurposed. GND has goals that everyone agrees on, but can be approached incrementally.
Gillibrand has essentially taken herself out of the running by her opportunistic politics (Franken) and her dishonest campaigning (promising to serve a full 6 year term). The Times is just reporting – read the comments.
2
If every democratic voter demanding inspiration until the end of days, we will truly be lost.
The superdelegate system is unfair plain and simple. It reeks of old style backroom boss politics and should be completely eliminated.
64
@LAM
But, but, it's an important check on unrestrained populism! What would happen if the titans of finance were unhappy with the way the primaries were going?
11
@LAM
The superdelegate system is designed to stop an unrestrained (left-leaning) populist from seizing the nomination and either losing the election or winning the election and damaging the country. Specifically, it is designed to make it difficult for:
1. George McGovern
2. Someone like Donald Trump
to gain the nomination. The Republicans do not have superdelegates because they did not suffer the disaster of McGovern's loss to Nixon. They assumed that Trump could never happen to them, and they were wrong. Don't assume that those Democratic leaders didn't know what they were talking about. Unfair, yes, but sensible? Perhaps.
5
@LAM - I agree there shouldn't be a place for super-delegates.
But at the same time, it's wrong to assume that a "democratic" process in which registered Democrats pick a favorite by majority vote means that the winner is necessarily going to be the best candidate to win the actual election.
In fact, with party registration dropping for both DEM and GOP and with independent voters going up dramatically, DEM party members really needed to select the candidate with the strongest appeal to independents and swing voters. THAT is the candidate who will actually win the election.
Maybe the answer is open primaries in all states. That's probably at least part of the answer.
3
The DNC needs to pay attention to the votes coming from states they have a chance of winning. We shouldn't even count the delegates coming from the following states: Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Kansas. Counting Hillary's landslide in these states made her lead over Bernie seem far more dominant than it really was - and it masked the fact that Bernie was winning in the white working class areas of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which we could've really used come the general election.
43
@Pete
Yes, let's take the vote away from everyone who doesn't think like you do.
The president of the United States is the president of all of the people of the United States, including those states where only 45% of the people voted for him or her. Democratic party supporters in those states have as much right to participate in selecting the nominee as those states where 55% tend to vote for the party. You can't govern this country if you're the representative of only NYC and California. Let's try to leave the polarizing politics to Trump.
2
@Pete - Sanders did not win PA. The voters chose Clinton in a state-run primary, not a party-run caucus where Sanders notched some of his “wins”.
I caucused in WA state, a process that about 5% of the electorate participated in. When the state held a primary, Clinton won. Three times as many voters participated in the primary than the caucus.
And Clinton won most of the states that had primaries, like PA.
5
@Tom. President Triump is not the President of all the people, never has been, doesn’t even try.
He is the President of his supporters and the rest of us can eat dust.
Every policy decision, every utterance is geared towards engaging or enraging his base, all with the goal of serving only his base.
Where did you get the notion that he is the President of all of us?
7
All good points. But the Democratic Party has drifted so far to the right it has become, essentially, a moderate Republican organization as illustrated by Hilary, the self proclaimed Goldwater Girl. Obama was the best we could hope for and he wasn't enough and was simply politically destroyed to the point he couldn't get a Supreme Court justice appointed a year before his term ended. Biden is a joke, a corporate man from the get go. It will be a tough slog, as you say and we may lose but I'd rather see the Democrats go down fighting than more of the same. Even if the Democratic Party does lose, it will be stronger for it in the end.
30
@James F Traynor you are killing me.. there is a difference and it will not be stronger for it in the end if that does happen.
4
@James F Traynor The Democrats better fight for what they stand. If they lose, the Republicans would have to clean up the mess they created.
3
@M
No not a difference, but a distinction without a real difference
The Democrats will be shooting themselves in the foot and for that matter our country. if every Democratic Joe and Jane get into the race sensing personal glory, it would mean anarchy. All their in-fighting might dilute their chances to win against Trump. The country is primed to defeat this President and a strong candidate backed by all democrats would free our country from total ruin. But Democrats know as the intellectual Party is also known for it's practical stupidity.
5
@NNI The last election brought new and competent and outstanding people to represent the people. The number of candidates for president is big at the moment but will shrink before the primary. In any case, the field is better qualified than what the Republicans had. Many of us remember the low quality, all Trump had to do was to call names, they never challenged each other with real issues, coherent policies, just name calling. Manners went down the toilets too, hateful insults prevailed. It was a slugfest in the gutters and the most malicious of them all won.
Democrats have no chance of beating Trump. Only once in the past ninety years has a party failed to hold the presidency for eight years. For all his faults Trump has done enough to win again.
Democrats have a chance to expose the idiocy and childish that pervades the Party. Massive defeat would serve it better than a close loss. Self destruction is its only way forward. Let Democrats fully expose the incompetence so we can return to more competent governance in 2024
13
@John Morton. Democrats failed to hold the Presidency in 1980 and the Republicans in 1992, if I recall correctly.
12
@John Morton There has never been a President as manifestly unqualifed as Trump. The economy will tank this year (first Q gdp is 0.5%). Independents and Democrats who didn’t vote or voted for Stein will not make that mistake again. The proof is the Democratic sweep of the House. That was step one.
23
Don’t distract him with your ‘facts’.
Pointless article. Is there some alternative to multiple people running? We're stuck with it, as the GOP was after Obama. Didn't hurt Trump much, unfortunately.
Less navel-gazing/crystal-balling. Our heads are already overloaded with all this junk. I know, I know, I don't have to read it.
76
Maybe runoffs so candidates with similar positions will quickly get whittled down and begin the endorsement process.
The NYS primary for Attorney General should have used a runoff or preferential voting-James, more moderate, only got 40% of the vote, while Maloney and Teachout likely split the progressive vote and received 34% and 25%, respectively. Had there been a runoff between James and Teachout it’s unclear who’d have won an actual majority once that 25% was up for grabs.
2
@James Just remember the low quality of the field of candidates too. Trump won because he was the meanest, that is all he had to offer.
7
For once, the Times get it right. Democrats will devour each other in their naked grasp for power. This is going to be fun! Between hating "old white men," Warren defending her "Red Face" costume, Kamala defending her sexual history, Booker trying to out-Left everyone, and the other Far Lefties trying to spend trillions of our money on fake science. Pass the popcorn.
22
What exactly are you calling fake science?
Are you referring to a certain human-accelerated natural processes that virtually every scientist agrees on as a major issue of our time? The one that drives extreme weather events, exacerbates flooding, contributes to forest destruction via pest and fire, and reduces yields of crops and fisheries?
If you were to run, you’ll have to excuse me for not breaking out my ‘Vote for Pedro’ shirt.
19
@Michael Rosenthal - "Pedro" is probably referring to the global warming farce.
Oops - the left now calls it "climate change"...probably because the planet stubbornly stopped warming back in 1998.
Or he could be referring to the left's insanity when it comes to all things transgender.
The GOP lost the House mainly because suburban women voted Democrat in 2018. Political logic dictates that the GOP needs to win back at least some of these voters to take back the House in 2020.
What issue might appeal to suburban women? They might find the Democrat party's position on transgender issues to be enlightening.
The official position of the Democrat party is that biological males - of any age - MUST be allowed to share restrooms, locker rooms, and even showers with females.
If you object to your high school age daughter being exposed to penises in the shower....you will be labeled a transphobic bigot.
However, the GOP must really, really want to hold onto their title as "The Stupid Party" as I have yet to hear any prominent Republicans talk about this leftist insanity.
9
@Pedro Let us wait and see, almost 2 years still to go, a lot can happen until then.
The Trump budget speaks volumes, it shows what kind of people republicans really are, vultures. Republicans show their real colors, they are raw Darwinists, Venezuela may blow up in their face too, and anything can happen to the economy.
6
What low approval ratings?
I love how these articles all put forth the illusion that President Trump's re-election isn't practically a forgone conclusion. I guess it's right up there with the collusion delusion. You gotta have something to get you through the tough days, right?
13
Are you the type who thinks millions of people voted illegally in 2016?
@MCLowe
"What low approval ratings?"
Is 43% low enough for you? Here:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo
1
"Why a Long Democratic Primary Slugfest Might Help Re-elect Trump"
Was your first clue, the House resolution that admonished "ALL" members to say nice things about one and other? The resolution that was required because one member seems to have a definite anti-Semitic point of view.
If Biden doesn't run, your nominee might be Mr. Coffee.
4
This is where ego runs up against public good. Technically all these Democrats are colleagues working toward a common set of principals. If any one of them becomes president, they all win. The same holds true in theory for Republicans. For primary contenders to attack one another is counterproductive, yet it is a distressingly common occurrence.
You all are on the same team, play nice!
7
Superdelegates will not steal the nomination from Bernie when he gets a plurality but not a majority. That would permanently break up the party and be much more egregious than 2016, when superdelegates rigged the process before it began, so they didn’t really steal it from Sanders.
9
@Michael sanders was and still isn't a Democrat...before, he borrowed the label because he thought Democrats would vote for him over a real Democrat. This time he's gotten a little smarter and joined the party, but I'll bet my piggybank that once we again reject him, he goes back to being an Independent, since socialist is not in our party system.
2
@Michael
They didn't really steal it from Sanders because the process was rigged before it began? Curious logic.
The superdelegate system was instituted precisely to steal the nomination from a non-establishment candidate who receives a plurality or even a majority of the primary votes. The superdelegates are publicly touted as wiser, politically astute heads who overrule the rabble when necessary to protect the party from losing an election if the rank-and-file members prefer a "poor" choice.
3
@Norma
You seem to be under the illusion that your party still has the numbers and is in the position to call the shots. Do you really want to play chicken with the electorate again? Feeling lucky?