This idea is irritating. We have an abundance of riches among our candidates. Particularly of note, the accomplished senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota who was valedictorian of her class, then attended Yale and University of Chicago law, graduating magna cum laude from both. You don’t get those things done unless you are super smart and a hard worker. Perhaps not flashy, but the real deal and super tough. She’s got a terrific track record in the Senate and would make an amazing first woman president. And she has the ability to win in the Central Time Zone. To suggest that we don’t already have the makings of a win is disrespectful to the highly accomplished candidates we have.
29
NO ONE can be so nervous that they would bring back the one who lost to the embarrassing tabloid buffoon currently parked in the White House.
24
This is a two car funeral, guys.
5
Too bad that Jerry Brown is heading toward age eighty
3
DNC learn from past mistakes. You pushed out sanders and how did that go for us??! Warren is the choice. Embrace her. She will destroy the clown she will be running against.
19
Michael Bennet needs more exposure, he could pull votes away from Trump without alienating the Professional Left. Quit focusing on Tulsi, Kamala, Tom Steyer, Cory Booker.
8
OH PLEASE. How clueless is it possible for the DNC to BE??? Do none of them have friends in low places?
A big swath of millennials believe that there is no substantial difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, precisely because of this blind establishment support for plutocratic, neoliberal, warmongering technocrats. The Democratic Party has apparently forgotten that it USED to be the party of unions and FDR, even as income inequality has skyrocketed toward dystopia, and the U.S teeters into banana republic territory. People are still angry about the sandbagging of Bernie in 2016; apparently the DNC hasn't learned its lesson yet.
The Democratic party establishment had better leave its Capitol Hill cocktail parties. visit some dive bars, and make friends with social workers, activists, engineers and nurses. Clearly they don't consider People Who Work Hard And Care Lots to have relevant data. They're wrong.
Elizabeth Warren, however, knows EXACTLY what we need. The DNC should listen to her.
32
I’d vote for Nancy Pelosi. Her level headed and totally mature house leadership past two years is just what we need in the White House.
12
My objection to Andrew Yang is simple:
He assumes that there is a solution to every problem.
Automation is certainly a "problem" for American workers. My very strong hunch is that that "problem" cannot and will not be solved. If a solution were possible (which, again, it's not), UBI would not be it. Frankly, UBI wouldn't even come to mind as a possibility.
Perhaps more important, UBI has zero chance of being implemented, and it's downright cruel to suggest otherwise to credulous believers. I understand entirely the notion that Americans must be "prepped" to consider solutions "outside the box," but let's face reality here: UBI will never happen.
1
The only person I've seen debate this year that will be able to successfully battle Trump in a debate is Bernie. He won't have any trouble shutting the bully down when he starts trying to own the stage like always.
25
We have a strong group of candidates, many of whom might make an excellent President. In fact, the field is so strong that I and a lot of my fellow Iowans are having a hard time deciding whom to caucus for in February.
16
So what we need is more candidates? You can't settle on one out of the 20+ available? The real problem is people don't think they can pick anybody but the perfect candidate to support, but there's no such candidate.
11
Joe Biden could barely form a complete thought during the last debate. I thought he might be having a stroke onstage at one point, with all his mumbling. Sorry, he is not viable.
The rest of the pack is mixed. Warren wont beat Trump, she is too Harvard and swing voters can't identify with her. Maybe Klobuchar?
Nobody inspired me. Perhaps the Dems should go find a few regular people who are ambitious and well spoken and throw them in the next debate. Seriously, I am sick of lawyers, academics, and lifetime politicians running for office. Mix it up!
9
Sanders. He has the necessary movement behind him and is highly appealing to working class voters. The only reason he doesn't appear viable (despite high polling and a large, unshakable core of supporters) is because news outlets, including NYT, refuse to include him as a serious part of the conversation. Considering his stances, it's in their best interest as large companies and corporations not to.
24
LOL! I love the way the rich people don't trust the voters. Too bad, rich people, you're not in charge this year. You might have to live with the people's choice. Or maybe become Republicans so your taxes will stay low.
21
For those still in search of a presidential candidate to endorse, please take a look at Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado. Though he didn't qualify for the last debate, he's still very much in the race. This is a man with integrity, intelligence, experience and detailed plans based in reality to address the multifaceted issues this country is facing. Michael is this election's anti-Trump: a public servant interested in serving ALL of the American public. Well worth a closer look.
11
Joe Biden had the strength to survive the death of his wife and daughter to serve the country as one of its finest senators for over two decades. I have lost three jobs since my late daughter died, despite the advantages of being born to wealth and getting an Ivy League education. Joe Biden did not stop serving as Vice President despite the fact his beloved son Beau, brother to Hunter, was dying of cancer. I gave up my job because I could only think of caring for my dying daughter. What a soul crushing decision VP Biden had to make. If you have not cared for a dying child or buried her and had to “move on,” you will never understand the strength Mr Biden had, and still has.
8
Interesting. What about Marianne Williamson, who
- Is the only candidate not tossing out nice-sounding policy positions without acknowledging the impenetrable systemic barriers to enacting them,
- Is the only one frankly declaring that the American people must rise up if we want real change
- Is one of two candidates consistently denouncing U.S. foreign policy and militarism
- Recognizes that making attacks on Trump the focus of a campaign alienates those who voted for him as a protest but know he’s really no good
- Was enough of an outside threat that, while in the debates, the media “reported” a consistent line of slanderous talking points (she blames patients for their diseases [because she has taught the value of attitude in healing and attacked big Pharma’s role in the over-prescribing of drugs], is a mindless anti-vaxxer [because of her suspicion of big Pharma and recognition of the complexity of letting government decide that people must take drugs], and is a woo-woo crystal-gazer [because . . . I dunno . . . maybe because, like Dr. King, she talks about love]).
6
May I remind all navel gazing Democrats that not a single vote has yet been cast? Please let the process run it’s course. Maybe the nominee will be someone who the punditry has anointed, maybe the nominee will be from the left wing of the party, maybe the nominee will be a dark horse. Any of them, save Gabbard, would be better than who we have now!!
4
There area already experienced, knowledgeable, emotionally healthy candidates running as democrats.
Elizabeth Warren is particularly qualified and is outstandingly normal.
So why the question of who else? Sounds like a question that would try to damage the confidence in those who are already running or the confidence of voters in our present choices.
7
If the concern is energizing young voters behind a strong candidate, look to Andrew Yang. His campaign started from zero and is now in right beneath the three behemoths of Bernie, Warren, and Biden. The only reason for that is his platform has functioned not only as an antithesis to Trump, but an eye opener to the reality of the situation for most lower/middle class people (and the future that young Americans see). Warren acts like she understands the problems, but is classifying this as a rules problem vs the corporations of America, rather than the 4th industrial revolution that we are in today. If the establishment truly thinks she can still win against Trump with her Clinton-like evasiveness to yes or no questions, they should think again.
The only reason the Democrats will lose this election is if the establishment has their say again between Warren or Buttigiegand. This is a democracy, and so popular support should dictate who the nominee becomes. A repeat of 2016 will spell permanent disaster for our country.
4
These Democrat talking heads would like a nice telegenic center righter, bron fund raiser in Wall Street, in other words a Third Way Democrat, a GOP Lite in the mold of Bill, HRC and Obama. Which is why they will be ecstatic if Bloomberg runs as a Democrat.
My suggestion to Mr. Bloomberg is to stay the heck out of Democratic politics and run, if you want, as a spoiler much like Ross Perot. Maybe as a Libertarian? or as a "New Conservative?" Both the newspapers of record will fall over themselves endorsing you. You will make all the conservative columnists in these two papers weep with joy and relief.
9
Yes, we need a new entrant who is articulate, pragmatic and able to win the rural voters. The party has been hijacked by a minority group which will result in someone winning the primary with marginal general appeal to voters in the final election. We have so many bright people in US and wish someone comes out to drive the crazy con man out from the White House. Michael Bloomberg is a great option.
1
Hillary, please don't run again. You've already done so much for us...
25
No. Vote Democratic anyway.
9
I've never commented on a NYT column before but this one evoked an immediate "Good God, NO!" response from me so here I am, echoing what, I am relieved to see, many have said before me: there are excellent candidates in the running already. (I'm particularly pulling for Warren as are so many others; why is that such a challeng for the DNC to understand?) As Zee has noted, Michelle Obama has been pretty clear about having no interest in running again and as for Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, or John Kerry . . . give me a break!
20
Do we actually want a president endorsed by Wall Street?
22
@Will
In grown-up world, you don't always get what you want. The real question is: Do you want-
a) a Dem endorsed by Wall St, or
b) 4 more years of Trump
8
This is democracy unfolding before their eyes, and these guys are wondering what to do about it? How blind can they be? They say they are fearful? Have they then fallen into their own trap? The fear was supposed to be for us so that we would not upset the system that has worked so well for them under Democratic AND Republican rule. Now they are afraid that fear is not not working.
8
Democrats are blessed with a large, strong field of candidates to choose from. There is certainly no need for any additional candidates at this point. Frankly, we need to pare the field down to three or four, each hopefully representing a somewhat different wing of the party, and then let them compete for the nomination.
And, whoever wins, just “vote blue no matter who” and Trump is a sure loser next year. When Democrats vote, Democrats win. Period.
16
Amen! I would even vote Hillary. Literally any grown up human will do.
2
Not a single mention of Bernie Sanders. But since it is unlikely that a news organization would intentionally ignore a front runner, I can only assume that Sanders must have dropped out of the race and I missed it somehow
19
I love Bernie, too, but I accept the reality that his age and his recent heart attack have taken him out of the running. Hoping and praying that he and his most loyal followed will embrace his role as the Democrat’s elder statesman.
3
Bernie is very much still in the running. Stronger than ever, lifted up by AOC's endorsement, flanked by the largest army of volunteers and the most money at hand! The so called Democratic party elites (a combination of words that ought to be an oxymoron in an actual democracy) are afraid to even mention his name lest he apparate and tax their billions out of their offshore accounts!
11
Bernie was robbed last time by the DNC cheating to make it appear that HRC won the nomination. Something like that happens again and this time I will not vote on election day.
8
An extra-progressive candidate - even a winning one - would ensure backlash and ruination in 2024 if not before. Do you want a President Steve King? Because President Elizabeth Warren is how you get a President Steve King.
To accomplish anything sustainable, we have to be somewhat acceptable to conservatives. Pick Buttigieg or maybe Booker, and we have our best shot. Unfortunately, successful red state Dem senators are really urgently needed where they are. (Sorry Amy K!). If not for that I would be for drafting Sherrod Brown.
4
LOL. Bernie is center left and Warren is center right. Neither is extreme. What we have now is extreme plunder of the planet and the working class, and we need a strong progressive leader to reset the Overton window. A bleh candidate approved by the elites would guarantee 4 more years of Trump! Either you want to get him out of the White House or you don't. Which side are you on? The side of humanity or the side of Wall Street?
14
It's going to take two things for the Democrats to win the next election....Something different from the centrist status quo and a creative way to sell it while being labeled a socialist or communist. The person who can make those two things happen will beat Trump every time.
5
American Bridge is not a "progressive group", it is a PAC funded by wealthy centrists, cozy with the Clinton wing of the party. They are in a panic because their chosen candidate Joe Biden is floundering. They fear losing control of the party to real progressives.
24
As one who remembers McGovern, I’m frightened.
As one who is progressive, I’m frightened.
As an ordinary citizen who abided unhappily with Reagan and the two Bushes, I’m frightened.
As one when saw great hope in Amy Klobuchar, and then saw her dismissed as a Pete Buttigieg afterthought, I’m frightened.
As one who watched a post-debate interview with Michael Bennett and thought that he’d have cleaned Trump’s clocks, I’m frightened.
As one who has read Rick Perlstein’s trilogy on the rise of the Republican Party, I’m frightened.
As one who has read Jane Mayer’s Dark Money, I’m frightened.
I would love to see someone emerge outside of this ludicrous caucus winnowing. It’s nearly as destructive as the electoral college.
9
@Denise Eliot Of course, that is just the way they want you: frightened. But in a time darker than our own what did FDR us about fear?
3
Of course, I’ll vote for any Democrat. But I don’t think the country will.
2
Sen Klobuchar treats her aides like old office furniture. What would she do to the poor and disabled? Her sickly, sweet, false smile sickens me. I would hold my guts together long enough to vote for her. We need an RFK. A man who went into an MH/MR institution. The head asked if he wanted to see the children. “No I want to hold them.” And he did. Sen Klobuchar had a meltdown when her aid forgot to give her a salad fork. Spare us from egomaniacs bearing gifts
5
Should be easy enough. Just need someone who sees the wisdom of asserting American leadership in the world, wants to increase access to health care, debt free college, job training for displaced workers. You know, the usual inspiring stuff. Oh yeah, throw in work with Republicans to make Social Security solvent.
7
So the wealthy, pro-business donors are upset that their comfy thrones may be upset by a candidate who puts the interests of working Americans first? I'll vote for whoever channels FDR and "welcome[s] their hatred."
And right now that appears to be Warren and/or Sanders.
34
Yes exactly. Also, These are the folks who lost in 2016. Maybe they should sit down.
19
These democrats! Always willing to give up the attainable Better for the impossible Never. God help us.
2
@pedigrees
President Trump thanks you for your support
I have made donations to a number of current candidates, including all of those in the first two tiers.
This talk of a possible Clinton run is frightening. Not again. Not for me.
Just, FYI.
25
Protect your daughters! Vote to replace Trump Inc. with any Democrat.
Also get real America. People have plans and visions. Rarely does a plan or vision get passed into law without compromise and alterations. Also, remember that any Democrat plan is better than the absolutely crazy Republican non-plan of letting Trump wing it.
Part of the very unified Republican plan is to let the Democrats destroy each other. Trump will likely lose the popular vote AGAIN but Democrats have to worry about the Electoral College. Never forget 2016.
8
Umm, since the electoral college will never go away, I don’t understand your post. Regarding protecting your saucy, don’t you mean from Bill Clinton?
1
And of course they totally discount the one candidate with the largest donor base, most money raised and a genuine background of standing with working people - Bernie Sanders. The Democratic Party is so intent on selling a product , they forget to actually stand for anything then they wonder why people might not be motivated to show up and vote.
23
The Democratic establishment needs to shut up and get out of the way before they help deliver four more years of Trump.
28
Hi Doug. I concur. I hope you read my note.
4
I understand the fear. I have it, too. However the very fact that Hilary Clinton might consider running is sheer folly. I voted for her, although I was not keen on doing so. I think she would have made a good president but she was a lousy candidate. Way too studied in her answers. Additionally, the name itself brings out trump voters. It is time for her to step down and leave politics permanently. I am sure Biden would satisfy Democratic conservatives but to be honest, trying to make a reasonable living in this country is very hard. Everything is against normal middle income people. The system is rigged. This is not capitalism but crony capitalism, which is far different. I am not for "blowing up the system" but there needs to be major changes. Without them, we will lose many voters. Who would stand on line for hours to cast their vote for more of the same. Yes, trump is terrible, but there needs to be more than just that. We must have a convincing victory to remove trump and cannot just limp into first place.
24
@j
Exactly. And this requires someone targeting corruption and actually has a history of doing something about it. Bernie and Warren have that. Bernie has been bee consistent all his life fighting for everyday people. Warren learned to fight and can complete minor miracles such as the consumer protection bureau while not even in office. Both are solid candidates that after a vision and will remove the sycophants and hollowing out of the executive branch and upper tiers of government workers with partisans.
We can not elect a moderate to deal with this and pretend this is an anomaly because it isn’t. We must have a fighter that will actively pursue justice and put the institutions back on solid ground.
Going in with a moderate means tax breaks remain and Wall Street donors appointed to positions of power.
14
Great comment, j!!!
1
Whatever the various opinions of the (IMO too many) hopefuls for the Democratic nomination, the Establishment Dems do a great disservice to their efforts. Let's turn it back on the self-involved elites: Is there anyone else who could be in charge of this once-great Party? I'd like them to know that they can, and will be, replaced eventually. I can't wait.
7
So, a tepid centrist who gorges on corporate money and won’t upset the wealthy or provide anything substantial to the long suffering American people might now get the nomination?
How scary!
31
Maybe it’s time for some of the candidates to take one for the team rather than all fighting one another, and join forces on the same ticket, pool resources, and try and win the nomination as President and Vice President.
10
I’ve thought, “yikes!”, all along about this crop of candidates. To my mind none has what it takes to peel enough votes in the swing states and districts needed to beat Trump. Again, it doesn’t matter about the size of the popular vote. It matters in perhaps 25-30 key districts. If candidates like Warren poll badly there, it’s a done deal. The left will alienate enough swing voters (despite Trump’s obvious menace) as to ensure defeat. And no, Biden doesn’t have the strength to continue. And we know we’re desperate if Michelle Obama is being floated seriously — she has no political experience at all. As we saw with HRC, merely being competent isn’t enough. We need broad appeal. No candidate so far (announced or contemplating) has that something that captures imaginations.
2
Voters are confused by politics that's been geared to what mega donors set up, but still trying to appeal to citizens' needs.
Maybe the Dem establishment would like to reject Sanders or Warren, each in some degree seen as a threat to big money power in politics.
In 2016 the Dem establishment nominated HIllary who refused calls to restore sensible bank regulations repealed by her husband & GOP.
And she refused to reveal to the public -- whose votes she wanted--- just what she told Wall St banks for millions in speaking fees--- banks who caused the biggest crash since the Great Depression.
The Supreme Court in Citizens United legalized big money politics, empowering rich donors, disempowering ordinary citizens. Dems have had to vie with GOP for $.
And our media, supposed to inform us, gets big $ from campaign ads that swamp voters, paid for by big donors. Thus the media stays pretty well within norms mega donors set.
Many countries ban those paid ads on media that swamp our voters. They don't equate big money ads with
'free speech'.
Though we see some healthy trends to represent the citizen majority, can the Dems win only by 'better than Trump'?
*We the People* will still need better representation for our taxation. Wasn't that what our colonies demanded, rebelling against King George and his aristo dynasties that exploited America? Today, our moneyed 'aristos' aren't called kings and dukes, and we aren't called 'peasants'.
7
A word to Senator Brown, please run for the presidency! We need your experience, your clear-headed and articulate voice on issues, and -- this will be very important after the election -- the healing potential of the warmth and compassion you've projected to us Ohioans.
4
His seat will go Republican if he were to run and win. Not good.
4
As long as we vote tv show characters into the presidency, Frances Reagan of Blue Bloods, would bring much needed integrity. Time to replace the current crop of actors seeking the office with a true winner.
I agree. Warren will probably be the better debater against Trump, but her Med for All and other costly reforms will be a heavy weight on her election. Bernie and Warren who depend on small contributions will suffer greatly in the general election without PACs. Biden has lost his chops and his time is up.
A Pete and Kamala ticket could be a solid gain to capture the nom and black support. He's the most intelligent of the lot and she's the better attack dog. But his federal experience is limited.
1
The last thing this race needs is some other 'elite' and entitled person to jump in the race at the last minute. If Clinton gets in the race, I'm done. It's hard enough to stomach Biden flailing around; she's going to step in and do it all over again? She already lost a race she that should have been a veritable cake walk if she had any common sense and listened to her advisers. And Bloomberg?! Again we need to go through this back and forth? This country needs another billionaire president like we need a hole in the head. Let the primary play out for crying out loud. Stop second guessing every second guess. If Biden (hopefully) flames out and Warren is the candidate, she has just as much chance as anyone of winning. This fear of her "viability" is nothing more than elites of either party fearing that their taxes will go up and we'll be looking at a new era of activist government. Why are the two most left leaning candidates getting the most support? Because that's what Democrats want. Instead of fretting and whining about it, get out of the way and let it play out. If we're stuck with 4 more years of Trump then that's how it goes.
20
Respectfully she has as much chance as another wonkish Presidential candidate from Massachusetts named Mike Dukakis. And I think I’m being generous.
3
When was the last time Dems won a presidential election with a far left candidate? It hasn't been during my lifetime (I'm 49). I'd certainly vote for either Sanders or Warren over Trump. The problem is, there are a significant number of potential Dem voters that won't because they will scared by certain of their policies (most importantly, universal health care and the elimination of private health insurance). People fear the unknown - it's tough to get around that. The reality is that there are other candidates that are pretty far left (certainly more left than a Biden), but are playing a smart long range political game. Why push PRESENTLY for certain policies that have no chance of being enacted in the NEAR TERM given the likely right wing political makeup of the Senate, a populace that is split on such polices, and a right wing Supreme Court that would likely strike down such policies even if enacted? It's not smart to sacrifice votes for policies that while ideologically visionary, are not politically feasible at this time. Rather, focus on those progressive policies that are more strongly supported on a widespread basis and therefore won't cost needed swing votes (LGBTQ and abortion rights, building on the ACA, expanding size of Supreme Court, education funding, climate change). American demographics are shifting to the left. But don't ask for too much too soon and as a result, suffer the horrible consequences of a Trump re-election.
3
Sanders is certainly worth a try. This country is going into the hands of the younger voters.
Me and my generation failed to elect Clinton in 2016, to the destruction of much we hold dear. This king making apparatus within the Democratic Party need to look around and realize their TIME IS UP.
7
Here is one way to look at this issue. Assuming Donald Trump is the Republican candidate, which Democrat candidate, either from the field now or yet to step forward, will be able to best Donald Trump in the televised debates? At that point the candidates will be one on one, out there in the open with nowhere to hide, challenging each other. I believe these debates will provide the best chance to win over any unsure Trump supporters. And whoever is the Democratic candidate the party better be completely unified in supporting him or her in order to withstand Republican subterfuge.
@Howard Herman
Nobody cares about debates. Debate winners rarely win election
Warren and Sanders are popular because they address the conspicuous flaws of the status quo. This article expresses the corporate preference for a "moderate" who would not significantly challenge the nation's inequities in taxation and health care.
18
Warren & Michelle O, the winning ticket!
3
Between this and Hillary's recent public comments about the 2020 race, it's pretty clear that she's considering a run and this article is a fig leaf for her exploration of public sentiment toward that possibilit.
Go away, Clintons. You have served your country and your country needs someone else now.
21
I agree but she will never go away.
2
@Sean
If Trump got up every day at 5 and worked as hard as he could to advance his own agenda & that of the Russians, he would not be half as effective in facilitating those goals as Hillary Clinton is every time she opens her mouth.
4
I call it for Trump. In a landslide.
1
Good. He’ll run us from Sing Sing like that guy in Breakfast in Tiffany with Melania playing the wonderful Golightly :-)
2
Well Clinton calling another Democrat who is running a Russian asset certainly doesn't help matters.
11
What, they’re aren’t enough already? Or do they just mean someone mild and famous enough to be a shoo-in, like Joe Biden, only much younger?
2
Warren is ‘too Liberal’ for them? And of course ‘America’s not ready for a gay President’ So maybe they would be more comfortable with a Republican. How about Mitt Romney? Perfect fit for the Democratic establishment.
6
If that was the only path to getting Trump out? So be it. Beating Trump is the only thing that matters. Now is not the time to prove a point.
1
@Practical Thoughts Getting Trump out IS the only thing that matters. And the only way to do that is for the Democratic Party establishment to stop looking longingly at the fictitious 'middle', as embodied by Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama, and start branding themselves as a party that young people will vote for. You know... The ones who actually get their head around things like climate change and who are tired of the status quo politics that led us toe Trump in the first place.
3
Sen. Warren needs to pivot on healthcare and support a public option. If she's not willing to do that -- if she's willing to risk 4 more years of Mr. Trump (and sacrifice every other progressive policy that she might otherwise accomplish) in the name of ideological purity on that single issue -- she will not have my support.
9
@Scott healthcare is the single biggest problem faced by the average american and you are proposing that she walk back from only viable solution?
A public option won't solve the problem, even though it will be the politically expedient 'conservative' thing to do.
3
They need to be replaced themselves, for their immoderate insistence on minimal change--and this year, that can happen.
3
This tells us that mainstream Democrats know their party doesn't reflect a big enough segment of the American electorate to win elections, that they're too far left, that their party is captive to its own extreme left fringe, and that Democratic leaders and funders don't know what to do about it. Explain why voters should close their eyes to this and vote for them anyway.
4
Gee, maybe Fritz Mondale should give it another go?
Hillary, please take a slow boat to nowhere, and take Bloomberg with you. (I say this as one who loves you.)
Personally, I’m to the left of Elizabeth Warren, but in order to win a general election, she needs to start paddling towards the center, fast, embracing the public option instead of Medicare for all. She’s smart and compassionate, and would be a fine president, but in order to be elected she needs the help of independents and Republicans.
Sherrod Brown might find his way surprisingly smooth should he enter the race. The day he ruled it out was a sad one.
6
"chatter about his [Bloomberg's] potential candidacy has only grown among Democrats who work on Wall Street and are concerned about Ms. Warren’s rise. "
A hint of clarity about which Democrats are concerned and why.
The U.S. had its strongest economy during the postwar years, a time of high tax rates and strong labor unions. Southern states, with their low tax rates, anti union policies and limited consumer and worker protections remain the country's poorest states.
The candidates that recognize it's time for government to do something for people--and not just bankers and their wealthy clients--are right. All the polls show Warren ahead of Trump in a general election matchup. These "leading Democrats" should stop voting their pocketbooks and start supporting candidates with ideas for how to address the serious problems our country faces instead of harping on this empty "too liberal" refrain.
6
The Dem establishment is all about encouraging "party unity" and telling others to embrace imperfection because "purity" is a pipe dream...until it looks as if they might be the ones who have to swallow that medicine.
Look, the key to winning in November 2020, as it was in November 2016, is NOT being attractive to dinosaur Democrats, and it is NOT being milquetoast middle-of-the-road. It is nominating a candidate who motivates voters with a vision of a better future for themselves and their children. If the Dem establishment gets behind them and stops whining--or worse, undermining them--either Warren or Sanders could clean up in November 2020 with huge coattails.
6
If there was any question about Elizabeth Warren being effective as President, this article shows how she is truly the candidate for change. The establishment isn't scared of her because she'd be a failure, but because she will effect change. Sorry, Bernie, but we need a consensus builder, not a scold.
8
Well, I can't guarantee I'm not echoing parts of the 1401 comments already posted, so here's my brief $0.02. We need a caretaker president to restore our democratic institutions and the power of the cabinet departments, all eviscerated under the current occupant. We need environmental regs reinstated. We need to heal our relationships with our erstwhile allies. And though new scholarship has highlighted the ugly side of the "liberal world order" (based on money not values), we need to get most of it back. The candidate for this job is Joe Biden. He should serve one (1) four year term then hand the ship of state over to a centrist / progressive Democrat. Elizabeth Warren is a brilliant person and her ideas are good, but she can't beat the C.O. That's our A-No.1 mission right now. (And Medicare for All is a guaranteed way to get the C.O. another term.)
3
Maybe the Democratic party needs better ideas, not better candidates.
A platform of giving everything to everyone (citizen or not) and having the middle class and a few billionaires (who won't feel the pain) pay for it is not appealing to many swing voters.
Trump is flawed, Congress is doing very little and yet the problems surround us. Promises of even more spending on non-citizens, for example, does not help.
The recent teachers' strike in Los Angeles (Jan.) and currently in Chicago illustrate flawed liberal idealism. If you allow non-citizens and their children into this country then expect the middle class to pay for more teachers, those who can afford to move, will. The "sanctuary cities" keep going but real effects happen.
Politicians like Elizabeth Warren walk the teachers' picket line in Chicago while the policies she supports make the problem worse. Where's her plan for that?
The Fed Bureau of Prisons website shows that nearly 1 in 5 inmates is a "non-citizen". Wouldn't it be wonderful to avoid the crime, trauma and cost of incarceration of roughly 20% fewer crimes?
There is a real flight of middle income tax base (and businesses) out of CA and NY for a reason. People are tired of paying for bad ideas poorly implemented.
Quoting Margaret Thatcher, "the problem with socialism is that at some point, you run out of other people's money." That goes for the Dems' "socialism-lite", too.
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_citizenship.jsp
6
The concern is that the country is fundamentally Center-right and the people that could vote liberal/progressive don’t for a variety of reasons that won’t be solved in 13 months.
A candidate to bold on the left may increase turnout of both the left and the right.
The USA needs a third party or adopt a parliamentary system. This 3rd party would represent the moderate Dems and Republicans and many independents.
The Republican Party can then full-on embrace their theocratic and ethno-nationalist tendencies and the Democrats would be free to purify into a full on Socialist/Communist Party.
2
My sense is that the impulse to "burn it down" that led to the election of Trump will not have the same appeal this time around, and that if given the chance most voters would go for stability and experience, not extremism on either end. Sorry to disagree with so many, but the Democratic candidates need to stop talking about abolishing private health insurance and free college. They all need to stop pounding messages of squeezing the rich and identity politics. Talk about a health care public option, infrastructure, green energy, climate change, good schools, and informed international policies. Klobuchar and Buttigieg are striking the right tone. They need to speak louder.
11
Warren is clearly the most qualified and credible; however, can she carry the center? Sanders' health combined with age makes him really questionable. I think Warren and Buttigieg with some good, strategic choice for VP could be viable. Booker, O'Rourke et al are history.
6
What center? The people who care about the insurance industry and not the health of the American people? Those who are fine with endless war and unlimited corporate pork on the taxpayer’s dime but panic when anyone says OUR tax dollars should be used to help US? Nobody is passionate about tepid centrists who will preserve the unacceptable status quo.
6
@Ray Katz
No, the real, working center. People who have jobs, but are barely getting by; who are not on welfare; who don't like decriminalizing illegal immigration; who won't benefit from reparations or student loan forgiveness; who have employer-provided insurance that is expensive, but works; who are trying to figure out how to pay for college; and who sign their checks on the front, not the back.
9
Sounds to me like the current list of nominees is spot-on, if it's riling up the Old Guard.
11
@Lori Duvall
Well, that's fine if your goal is to "rile up the old guard."
But if your goal is to win the 2020 election against Trump, well then, you have a problem. A big problem.
5
Why don’t you run? You seem to know it all. As long you run as a Republican or independent, I will send you some dough.
2
I think I am going to throw up. This is a column about big donors who want a candidate who they can buy and have the do their bidding. Not to represent the workers, the regular folks but the donors' business interests. These big shots donate money as an investment, not for charity. And this is legal and right out in the open. These donors are working against the rest of us for bills passed to make it easier to make more money. You know like bankers who want less regulations and are able to rip off more people and drug companies who do not want to cut prices even though they charge us more than they do people in other countries and gas and oil so that we never have The New Green Deal and the planet no longer supports human life and insurance companies who pay to make sure we do not have healthcare for all and so on. These donors are the enemies of the working and middle class, you know like Biden who made sure student loans could never be forgiven. Special interest groups taking away our representation. Doesn't that make anyone mad? And the reason they keep saying Bernie or Warren cannot win is because they are scared to death they will. And it will be lights out for them.
35
The problem isn't the candidates. The problem is the timidity of the Democrats they have to appeal to.
10
As bad as Trump is after watching the last debate I fear he will when again. In repulsion of Trump I fear we think anybody with a heartbeat can beat Trump.We thought in 2016 the same thing and look what we got for our arrogance. We got Trump. Biden who I thought would fit the bill to take on Trump has shown he just doesn’t have the fight to stand toe to toe with Trump. When I saw Biden raising his hand seeking permission to speak at the debate my stomach flipped. Warren the candidate who says she has plan for everything showed during the debate she really has no plan for Medicare for All. I think Bernie missed his shot in 2016. In what planet are we living on when we think an endorsement by AOC and representative Omar is going to help Bernie in middle America? Mayor Pete may be the darling of White educated voters but they are not the only voters in America. Like it or not his lifestyle is going to hurt him with certain groups just look at the polls. The only one on the stage at the debate who I thought had the goods to confront Trump was Amy Klobuchar. She wasn’t selling pipe dreams and shiny objects. I wonder what brand of Pixie Dust will Warren use to make a trillion and a half dollars of student loan debt disappear? What happens to the holders of that debt? I guess they just say to themselves those are the breaks? I really hope is somebody in the wings who can jump in to beat Trump.
9
What about Steve Bullock. He has actually RUN something!
7
That guy is all hat and no cattle. Steve is in it for Steve and that's about it. I voted for him twice and the thought of SB as president is laughable if it weren't so sickening.
More than the electoral college, gerrymandering, citizens united, or all the other ways the fix is in our political process, the Demo-plutocrat establishment is why We the People lose.
4
The Democratic establishment wants a Trump of their own: not someone as wild or crazy, but someone who will continue every one of his policies and still keep the public entertained. They figured they made it this far, and as long as their investments are still making money and they aren't in any danger of being shot, they're perfectly willing to wait for the next open election in 2024. So let them fret in their castles while the public picks the nominee it wants.
4
Sherrod Brown? You have to be kidding.
If Sherrod Brown is preferable than what is wrong with Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders? It would be the exact same platform.
4
@PubliusMaximus No it won't. He's more thoughtful and less impulsive. He's been able to keep his seat in what should be dark red country because views are less extreme than those of Warren and Sanders.
1
Yikes!! Elizabeth and Bernie really got the rich folks worried! The party establishment (i.e. corporate centrists) representing wealthy donors are scared that a progressive could again win the Democratic nomination and this time they don't have the superdelegates to fix the outcome like 2016. This was always predictable.
12
@OldLiberal
The rich and powerful are laughing at the Dems' childlike obsession with Sanders, Warren and other Pied Pipers.
I am very impressed by Amy K and Mayor Pete.
She is terrific under pressure-- and, as v.p., Pete's very
strong abilities might help some anti-gay folks to learn
what a prize he is!
1
Better think twice about turning your backs on Warren/Sanders if you're the DNC. The youth vote will vanish into thin air with a panicked rush toward the status quo. Amid all the fear mongering, DJT might just emerge unscathed. .
13
@Apple Jack
Really? You think that if the Dems choose someone like Klobuchar, or Biden, or Harris, that young people are going to stay home, and thereby give it to Trump?
Come on, man!
1
Thanks for the article. I just donated another $27 to Bernie.
15
@Gustafson
Excellent. That'll cover his copay for his next visit to the cardiologist.
2
So Hillary is going to enter but nobody is going to win the first vote at the Convention. At which point the super delegates will nominate Hillary upsetting voters for Warren and Sanders who will then sit out the election and Trump will win in a landslide.
4
“Since the last debate, just anecdotally, I’ve had five or six people ask me: ‘Is there anybody else?’” Well, if 5 or 6 people don't like the front runners, we may as well just panic! This article is attempting to make a mountain out of molehill. It has failed spectacularly.
5
Dems need to concentrate on the message> Do you want tax breaks for the rich or a fair chance to have a decent life? Dems stand for social justice (rights for everyone regardless of color sex or who they have sex with). Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. We believe there are a few things government can do better--infrastructure and and medical care. Socialism is Republican buzz word that needs to be addressed. Focus focus focus on the message. You can impeach and work on getting elected at the same time.
2
Bruce Springsteen.
Politically left, family man, sent his kids to public school. Beloved by men, women and perhaps many in Trump’s base.
3
@Gris Except that he has shown no interest in political office and that I would never wish its horrible side effects on him and his family.
2
Hillary’s campaign slogan in 2016 was effectively, “It’s my turn!”
Hillary’s campaign slogan in 2020 would be:
“It’s still my turn!”
Every time I wonder how Trump could possibly be president, Hillary can’t help but insert herself in the news to remind everyone that the election was “stolen” from her and then I remember, oh yeah, that’s how we ended up with a president Trump.
Also, do people remember BEFORE the 2016 how Hillary was in her full sanctimonious, pompous indignation that Trump was saying he wouldn’t necessarily accept the results of the election?
Too darn bad the media didn’t extract the commitment from Hillary to respect the election results.
I am so tired of hearing that big bad men like Comey, Putin and Bernie are to blame for her loss.
How about acknowledging that you took the month of August off from campaigning so you could fundraise with the out-of-touch elites in Martha’s Vineyard, the Hamptons, Wall Street and Hollywood?
How about acknowledging that even though you spent twice as much money on your campaign as a Trump, there was apparently no one on your staff that could locate Wisconsin on a map?
The Clintons have been an absolute disaster for our country.
14
5 -max of 7 States - will be must wins. All others, barring a miracle, are already decided. Biden or failing Joe then Sherrod Brown. Please God no Hillarry or Bloomberg. If I thought a woman could win those contested States, Amy Kobuchar.
2
Michelle Obama would win in a landslide.
1
Sure. My Princeton-Harvard educated landscape architect could too. She is really into organic vegetable gardens.
3
Where’s Pat Paulson when you need him?!
1
Maybe Mayor Pete could stop dressing like a cast member from The Book of Mormon?
4
The lack of mention of Bernie in this article is absolutely laughable.
9
@Chloe
Actually, the continued existence of Bernie's candidacy at this point is what is laughable. "Dead man running!"
1
Sanders and his supporters are the political opposites of Trump and his MAGAites.
Fanatics recognize fanatics.
3
Oh no, anybody but Hillary ;)
5
The same rich old white men who gave the Hillary debacle; now they want to do it again!
No thanks!
8
When T won the election I thought about it and figured that if he was not as bad as his campaign, we would survive. The big problem is that he as an old stubborn brain that makes mistakes and he doesn't realize it. Republicans kicked butt, and it was because of a bunch of factors. But it really is worse than we should have expected. W Bush was kind of the same case. He did not perform very well but the R's had the gerrymandering and the voter suppression they needed. But they are at war with the Dems, because they don't have the numbers and they have to cheat to win, but they have T as much as we do, and he is dangerous because of incompetence. So the question is: if they keep supporting him they are either traitors or they have another agenda which we won't like.
1
Buttigieg, Buttigieg, Buttigieg
Somewhat progressive yet moderate, very well spoken, young, soldier, Rhodes scholar, educated, intelligent with a wit that can beat the heck outta Trump.
What we Dems don't use is humor - Buttigieg has it. We need to make Trump look like the clown that he is -- we need to have Voters laugh at Trump ... and he will lose. Buttigieg.
5
Did you see his picture with Buddy Mark Zuck? Great combo of progressive people.
3
Who cares what those old schoo, back room deakers jerks think? Hillary? Are they demented? This is why Dems lost 2016... The DNC & DCCC & old big shots trying to manipulate voters while not giving a damn about reality. STAY OUT OF THE PRIMARIES!! NO HRC, NO DNC or Donor BS... STOP. Shuyt down the DCCC & DNC until primaries are OVER.
4
So reminiscent of the 2016 race - no mention of the man who just held the largest rally to date in this election cycle, Bernie Sanders; the man who raised the most quarterly money from non-corporate interests. Time for the Democratic party to decide once and for all are they the 'party of the people' or the party of the oligarchs?
Looks like, once again, the oligarchs and their minions are getting all the mainstream press coverage.
16
@Amaratha
Bernie missed his tide, although not for want of a good effort on his part. But Warren has stolen his thunder.
It is what it is.
1
@Amaratha those oligarchs own all mainstream press, including this one. lookup the majority share owners. It's important to recognize the tinted windows through which these articles pass.
4
These Democratic donors need to open their wallets, not to any particular candidate, but to clear anti Trump, pro working people, pro decency, pro- constitution, pro-law, pro civility- advertising messages in the swing states. Now. This is what will “prime the pump” for whomever is nominated.
"Is there anybody else?" Simple answer: No.
Nobody's perfect. Look at Donald Trump.
We have multiple choices of smart people who have committed their lives to service to the country.
We will not get some candidate who magically mixes the essences of Gandhi, Einstein, George Clooney and Eleanor Roosevelt.
Let's make a choice and support our nominee.
14
You had me until you listed George Clooney. Besides being a rich dilettante what has he done?
Translation: "Anxious Democratic Establishment" is code for the 1% that see meaningful taxation for themselves on the horizon.
21
No latecomers need apply - there are enough candidates to choose from. So, to the Democrats - stop fretting, and start taking the initiative in ridding our nation of the Trump malaise. Elizabeth Warren in 2020!!
5
Sherrod Brown and Connie Shultz are the best of America. They excel as people first and then as professionals.
Ohio needs Sherrod but, man, do I wish he got a better shake.
6
It just figures that Democratic muckety-mucks aren't happy with these choices.
The time to choose others has passed. You didn't persuade any Democrat more to your liking to run, so your discomfort is entirely of your own making.
Despite all of Donald Trump's well-earned travails, any Democrat will find it difficult to defeat him on 11/3/2020.
So, no more whines. Start selling the candidates we have.
Or start writing your concession excuses now.
I'm voting for Pete Buttigieg in the primary and whomever is nominated by the Democrats in the general.
7
We need national primaries. The early states do not represent much of the US. Everyone should be able to vote, including independents. Enough of lousy choices!
13
Moderate liberals and conservatives want a consensus candidate; It is encouraging to hear that the money wants this too. The left is delusional if they think Warren beats Trump as soundly as Bullock or Gabbard could.
3
The Democrats are their own worst enemies. The deep wound came with the 2010 election. Their inability to explain the ACA allowed the Republicans to demagogue the issue, scaring elderly voters into voting Republican at all levels of government and consequently giving them control of the House and the reapportionment process. In addition, being obsessed with the Obama personality cult, they ignored state legislative and congressional elections. After all, these contests were boring and did not encourage appearances by Beyonce and other trendy celebrities.
The result is that they have developed no deep
bench of experienced and visible governors, senators, and other people of substance and stature. Nobody is associated with any popular legislative or other accomplishment. Those who come close are in in their seventies and have other issues. The others are shallow, ideologically susceptible, offer no reason for people to support them, or are just plain nobodies.
Something must indeed be done if we are to get rid of Trump and save our democratic values and institutions.
6
Yes I am anxious too. Still think Bloomberg could carry the day but he’s rich! Such a terrible thing, NOT. So many believed in Trump because he was a “successful businessman.” Bloomberg is actually and factually a successful business man who created his OWN success and wealth. He deeply cares about the environment etc. etc. but to so many puritanical liberal voters being financially successful is unacceptable yet he could WIN if he messages with emotional intelligence.
4
My 97 year old mother in law voted for every democratic president since FDR (she can still recall that day) and she is for Bloomberg, she’s also a New Yorker and likes the way he ran the city while he was Mayor. That’s a powerful endorsement for me. I like to see him make a run for president.
4
"...Democrats who work on Wall Street and are concerned about Ms. Warren’s rise. "
That says it all right there!
18
Stop stop voters from being distracted about the I’s being dotted and all T’s crossed, Warren has eleven months to outline her plan you are being played by Fox and Trump with the same old tired dogma.
3
The fact that this article was even written, let alone that these discussions are going on in backrooms and such, proves, again, how the DNC does not have a care for We The People. No mention of the person that had the largest rally yet. No mention of his fundraising from donations by We The People. Does Senator Sanders really scare everyone so much...?
13
Are we certain that Warren is surging? Half the polls show a close race between her and Biden, some of that half the polls show her with a slight lead.
On the other hand, the last three polls listed on politico all give Biden a 9 or 10 point lead.
having said that, of course everybody would be thrilled if Michelle Obama would run. Personally, I would also be fine with Sherrod Brown or John Kerry.
Hillary?
No, please God, just No.
If all else fails and the COnvention is hung?
Congressman Patrick Kednnedy- Bobby's grandson. Young and smart.
1
There are some outstanding candidates in the current lineup.
My favorites are (in no particular order) are Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet.
I am dubious about the candidacies of Sanders, Warren, and Booker. I find each of them loquacious -- even bombastic ----- rather than thoughtful.
Remember, as well, that in the 2004 Democratic run-up to the convention that John Kerry -- months in advance -- polled at 3%. Over time, he emerged to the top.
Further back, in 1948, the Democrats were so desperate to eliminate President Truman that they sought out General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He demurred.
You know the rest of that narrative: Truman defeated Dewey, Thurmond, and Henry A. Wallace in the general election.
And Eisenhower was the Republican nominee in 1952, winning the election and gaining re-election in 1956.
I agree with Zee. Pick a candidate from the current pack .
Allow the sorting process to play out naturally rather than interjecting wild cards.
And do remember 1972, with the nomination of George McGovern. A noble Senator, but an ineffective candidate in the general election.
4
@Michael Ebner
Is Michael Bennett still running? I had no idea.
Bennet. One t. Like Bret with one t :-)
It is so obvious when a Democratic leadership attempts to anoint a leader. All of a sudden very curious polls show a blip and that blip is exposed as a wave by vested interests utilizing their media connections. Bernie was buried in the last election despite the wave of support. The Warren/Bernie coalition will be buried again. The DNC has chosen Pete after deciding that Beto couldn't get traction. It is a well-choreographed slow play.
4
Brown or Bloomberg!
Warren and Sanders are doomed by their adherence to Medicare for All, Mayor Pete is too young and yes, I'm not sure country is ready to elect an openly gay person, and Biden is just plain shaky.
Why oh why are we stuck with these candidates when this election is sooooo critical!!?
11
@Joshua
Because they happen to be the ones that voters want.
4
@Joshua
re Mayor Pete -
The country was ready to elect an old, white, amoral lunatic.
Pete Buttigieg is sane, brilliant, and passionate.
I'll vote for him.
Would you? Why so sure the country isn't ready?
3
Why even have primaries then? Just declare what "The Party" wants and disenfranchise everyone.
20
Those who want a middle-of-the road candidate, should support Biden, not join the Democratic field this late to run against him. This would ultimately be tragic for the Dems. Hillary, Michelle, Kerry, Sherrod, etal, think twice before you act.
1
Biden is too out of step. Elizabeth Warren is too spendy and asking Americans to give up their private, employer-based health insurance isn't broadly appealing. Plus, Wall Street will spend against her.
So the issue is a valid one. But...
The Clintons need to be gone, permanently.
Why repeat the dynasty-like mistakes they made by luring Michelle Obama back into the pressure cooker? The Obamas served their country already.
I'd vote for Bloomberg, but he's out of touch on income inequality and his speaking voice just isn't strong enough.
I have no secret candidates to announce.
5
On inauguration day in January of 2021, Bernie Sanders will be 79 years old, Joe Biden will be 78 and Elizabeth Warren will be 71. And now you tell us there is actually talk of Michael Bloomberg, who will be 78, John Kerry, who will be 77, and god help us Hilary Clinton, who will be 73.
What the heck is going on here?
Give us a young, healthy candidate with a fire in the belly, and the Democrats will win.
8
@Sarah
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie are the ones who have climbed in the polls by running great campaigns. Maybe we should trust them.
6
@Cornflower Rhys
Pretty sure that's what they said about McGovern & Dukakis too.
3
Melinda Gates
2
Ex Mrs Bezos. Free as a bird too.
1
@Jonathan & @Blunt
Melinda Gates? MacKenzie Bezos. Nice women, very smart & rich. But as President? Is the operative theory here, the problem that we are trying to fix, that Hillary Clinton lost because she had TOO MUCH charisma?
Bottom line, summed up by the authors own statement that the DNC is looking for their “white knight”: White supremacy is foundational in the DNC and fears that it will be threatened by candidates of color and candidates targeting racist structures are the biggest underlying reason why white DNC people are “doubting” their incredible and people-backed candidates.
3
Man, with a few more weekly debby-downer articles about Democrat election chances based on Republican and Democrat establishment talking points we might just hand the election to Trump again.
Great work!
16
Oh for God's sake. Any of the people running in the top 8 would be fine. get over yourselves, donors, and just back one.
14
So, so true! And all this wisdom from the folks that brought us Hillary’s defeat. Make room for the new! And, anyone who thinks people love their employer provided health insurance definitely needs a check up.
9
Rich neoliberal Wall St Dem donors are NOT worried that the party will lose the White House in 2020 by nominating a leftist like Warren or Sanders. That would be irrational, since Sanders and Warren beat Trump as badly as Biden does. No, these fat cats are afraid Warren or Sanders would win—and start the “revolution” in our political economy that would head us back to government of, by, and for the people, instead of the government of, by, and for the obscenely rich. Too bad for Wall St Dems that there’s no way to hold back the Millennial progressive tide. From
2020 on, the shrinking Boomers will lose worse and worse in the coming decades, till their greedy, narcissistic, “looking out for No. 1” generation is dead and gone. The times they are a really changin this time—not the brief, self-indulgent head fake the rich college Boomers gave us in the Sixties, on their way to finance MBAs.
16
@Fred White
Noooooobody is afraid Sanders will win. They are afraid he might die on stage, screaming and ranting at a rally. But nobody is afraid Bernie will win. Nice guy, but time's up on Bernie.
4
Let the people choose.
6
Now there’s a concept...
1
The first line says it all. "...a half-dozen Democratic donors." Maybe the NYT should stop focusing on them, so-called "centrists", and the Democratic establishment. I think their real worry is not losing the election but losing control of the party.
11
The current crowd of candidates is a bland, flawed stew.
Too old and/or tone deaf to what voters are seeking in next year's presidential election.
If the Democrats desire a win, they need to keep the door open to late entries.
Mike Bloomberg, first & foremost.
1
Unbelievable! Apparently the donor class is so terrified of Bernie Sanders they won't even utter his name! Bernie is the party's strongest weapon against Trump, but of course, the donor class doesn't care about the party; they care about not paying their fair share of taxes!!! Never mind the planet becoming uninhabitable, as long as they get their obscene amounts of money. Disgusting. All the triangulators named in the article ought to be profoundly ashamed of themselves. Bernie is our best bet, and if you care about winning and saving the planet for our kids, you will get behind him sooner rather than later.
15
@Ida Martinac
It's not that the donors don't talk about Bernie because they are afraid of him. Rather, they don't talk about him because he is irrelevant at this point.
3
Bernie is Trump-Left. His supporters are just as tribal as the MAGA crowd. He is just as egotistical as his rival.
He is simply the other side of the political pendulum.
4
Bernie is Trump-Left. His supporters are just as tribal as the MAGA crowd. He is just as egotistical as his rival. He is simply the other side of the political pendulum.
2
Clinton is laughable. Many of us (Dems) refused to vote for her last time (causing the trouble we are in today (Trump). Biden an Sanders are too old (I am talking as a senior). We have to go with Warren or Mayor Peter and pray. Warren has to prove to us that she is not a far leftist, rather a centrist. We must unite and be strong! Settle on ONE candidate and pool all funds. UNITE AND FIGHT!!!!
3
@Kristine
But she ISN'T a centrist. Amy is, but she has no traction.
3
The operative word is "donors".
3
There are too many democratic candidates but none of them are going to make it. Too many new idea but non of them practical. I have been a voter since Truman time so I know a little bit about American politics. What will work and what will not work. I am old but I still have a good memory and sound judgement. Trump is crazy but he is smarter than these democrat candidates. They are day dreamers. Some of them are too old to be our president. They should play with their grandchildren.
3
I'd much rather vote in Sanders, Warren, Yang or Gabbard and have them aim for the impossible, and fail, than see the Clinton blessed acolytes such as Harris, Booker, and Buttiegieg occupy the highest office. Yes, I know that would make for an unproductive and volatile four years, maybe even a waste of time, but whatever the worst I can imagine is way better than continuation of the corruption represented by Biden and the Clinton Acolytes.
That's how much I hate the status quo of the Democratic Party as well as the current political establishment, for both parties.
9
I don’t understand why pundits and party leaders are asking HRC to run again. Although I’m a fan, she’s run and lost twice, once against Trump.
If Warren continues to surge and wins the nomination, it signals that a majority of the Democratic Party support her policies and believe she has the best shot at beating Trump.
I think Warren is the best candidate in the field to go toe-to-toe with Trump. What’s the worst thing he has on her? Her saying she was a member of the Cherokee Nation because that’s what her family told her? Please. Barring any crazy scandals coming to light involving Warren, she’ll be able to attack him, his scandals, and his policies, whereas he’ll only be able to attack her plans and policies.
I personally don’t want to get into a debate on plans with Elizabeth Warren.
11
@Will To anyone who persists with the "Pocahontas" nonsense, I ask, "And what else have you got against her?" They've got exactly nothing. Whereas Trump is a one-man swamp.
4
Trump-Pence are populists appealing to the GOP's cohort of voters who neglect reality in favor of pandering promises that cannot be fulfilled.
Warren, Sanders, Booker, Harris, are populists appealing to the Democratic voters who neglect reality in favor of pandering promises that cannot be fulfilled.
Unless all voters embrace reality and turn their back on populist candidates our country will continue to circle the drain and end up like any central and south American country that is run by populists who are always disappointing their voters.
1
Klobuchar would be a good choice. She's very smart, tough and her constituents love her. She's from the mid-west, a demographic Democrats need to do better with. It would be hard for Trump to use his vile insults on her, and if he did she would give it back to him in spades. I hope Democrats will take a closer look at her.
6
@BearBoy In 2018 Klobuchar'was re-lected with 60% of the vote. That's called a landslide.
2
I regret that Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio did not enter the race. I wish he had entered and I wish that he would enter now.
Alternatively, I think he would make a great Vice-President.
3
@Brad
If Sherrod is VP, we lose a Senate seat. The Republican governor will appoint a Republican. We can’t afford to lose that seat, there are other candidates we can choose for VP.
1
The problem with politicians, especially those who have been around the block a few times, is that there is always a ton of baggage over what they did or did not support in the past. Trump was the perfect non-politician candidate. Perhaps it’s time for the Dems to consider their own left-field candidate.
My vote would go to Jon Stewart. His passionate, articulate and forceful defense of the 9/11 responders showed a different side that was hugely compelling.
Crucially, he would destroy Trump in the debates. The ridicule, embarrassment and emperor-has-no-clothes tirades that he would surgically and humorously rain down on Trump would be a spectacle that would surely rally the morale of the left - not to mention his appeal to the millennial generation.
Perhaps he could run, win and then step down to let his running mate, John Kaisich, take over. Crazy? Yes, but only until you consider what happened a mere three years ago.
3
Please, Hillary, do not get in the race. Your time is past. The Democrats need to narrow the field—not add more uncertainty—and LISTEN to voters across the country. We do not want Medicare for all; listen to Buttigieg, he gets it.
DNC: Do something different: Create a platform that combines the best plans (per voters real wishes) of each candidate and get behind two nominees who as a pair have solid experience and broad appeal. Present a president-vice president TEAM before the primaries! Maybe talk about some of the other current candidates as future Cabinet secretaries. Be bold. Be fresh. Be unified. Get people talking and excited.
Do not drag out people who have already shown they cannot win. Do not follow “the rules.” Can’t you see Americans want something, someone, new, forward thinking, not divisive? Traditional campaigning and has-been candidates are old news.
4
Pete Buttigieg has sensible policies for America. He's a good candidate. I don't need anyone else to run.
5
There are several strong candidates. They need time to hone their messages . 60-90 seconds on the debate stage and complicated issues make it challenging for candidates to communicate effectively. Each and every candidate in the CNN NYT debate would do a wonderful job leading us out of the darkness. It’s wrong to go the easy route and state there are no good choices. Voters need to learn the issues and ask fair informed ?s to candidates and their surrogates. E.g
Besides negotiating with Pharma, how would you try and lower healthcare costs
Give an example of how you would support the education of lower and middle income children
Should we be spending 700-800 billion dollars annually on defense budget?
Instead of yes or no, will you increase taxes on the middle class? (Pathetic)
1
Listen to us! We are the Party. We are the People. We like Sanders, we like Warren. We liked to some extent the youthful energy of progressive sounding Buttiegg until he got himself into the Tulsi-Putin -Clinton brawl and showed his naivety.
2
I'm absolutely floored, but not entirely surprised, that the Times managed to mention Senator Sanders exactly *once* in this article. It's not like he just drew 30,000 people to a rally less than 10 miles from your offices, or anything.
4
Michelle can and will be elected. John Hickenlooper could and likely would be elected. Michael Bennet could and likely has a reasonable shot at being elected. The rest of the current pack likely will result in Trump being rewarded with a 2nd term. Thems the facts folks.
2
Former Mayor Bloomberg of NYC? Former Governor Jerry Brown, of Ca? Rep. Adam Schiff of Ca? Jon Huntsman of Utah? (a Republican who served as Obama's US Ambassador to China and whom Bill Clinton said he could vote for!)?
Or most (almost all) of the present field of Democratic candidates. All would be better Presidents than Trump and his whole corrupt team.
Trump has betrayed American banks, American contractors, employees at his clubs and golf courses, American workers, American farmers, our Kurdish allies, his oath of office.
Are the Baltic States next? Poland? Them? You? Me? Our children?
It's simple. Vote Blue for every office.
3
Good grief. Moneybags Bloomberg? Another moderate septuagenarian in John Kerry? It's hard to find a more out-of-touch group of people than Democratic political consultants.
"Please, Joe Lieberman, you're our only hope."
2
Corporatists cannot bring themselves to admit that all the polls show Bernie Sanders would annihilate T-rumP. Why? Because he doesn't accept money from the out-of-touch 'donor class' and champagne liberals. They robbed him in the last primaries in favor of a centrist corporatist (we all saw how well that worked out for them). They want a repeat of that same strategy.
2
@AJ
Bernie Bros cannot bring themselves to admit that all of Bernie Sanders' EKGs show that the odds of him making it to Inauguration Day 2021 are the same as those for Eugene Debs
2
If the Democrat Elite try to manipulate the primary again, not only will it further divide the Democratic base, but many people will refuse to vote out of protest (again).
Talk about completely missing one of the lessons of 2016.
2
I was upset enough when the DNC derailed Bernie's candidacy in 2016. I voted for Hillary as the lesser of two evils and to please my wife and children, otherwise I was going to abstain, forfeiting my civic duty. If Hillary runs and derails the candidacy of whoever is prevailing in the primaries, I will stop voting democrat. Period.
Any newcomer must enter the race prior to the Holidays, otherwise she/he will be an opportunist not worth considering. ANY democrat presently in the field is better than this (war) criminal.
3
I'm horrified Hillary Clinton is brooding about running if there's an 'opening' for a moderate.
Hillary's 2016 campaign was one of the most inept in political history. She didn't even bother to campaign in 'must win' Wisconsin. She took the month of August off to raise money while Trump appeared at huge multiple rallies on a daily basis, reaching millions of voters while Hillary wasn't out in public. She gobbled up millions of dollars in personal payments from Wall Street from private speeches a year before announcing her presidential run.
After taking all the Wall Street speech money, HRC should not have run. She destroyed any credibility she might have had with that money grab. HRC pocketing all that money cost us the 2016 election against Donald Trump.
She lost the most consequential election in American history, at least partly because she couldn't restrain herself from taking millions of dollars in a situation that looked like business people buying access to the future president.
HRC doesn't deserve any further consideration in the political sphere.
Go away, Hillary. You're done.
6
Funny how the Democratic Party establishment leaves out the one candidate who is best positioned to beat Trump, namely Senator Bernie Sanders. Do they prefer another four years of Trump, or Pence, when Trump gets impeached and removed, over a Bernie Sanders' presidency? I'm beginning to think they do.
3
These people don't get it. The donor class are completely out of touch with the laboring masses. They want a corporatist candidate who will continue the same late-stage predatory capitalistic policies that have led us to our current state of neo-feudalism. A morally bankrupt system that has steadily been eroding our democracy. That era is OVER.
3
After our international standing has crumbled due to Trumps ineptitude and corruption, we need a military person to clean up the mess. Admiral McRaven, please consider one more mission as our commander in chief.
Aw, bless these old timers' hearts. I think they proved pretty handily with 2016 that they're out of touch with who's electable, so best to leave it up to those who have the actual power--the voters.
2
Yes, because the thing Democrats need the most right now are failed candidates from previous cycles. It would really be a blast to watch HRC or Kerry lose again and endure four more years of this nightmare. Perhaps they can call up Al Gore, too, and see if he can't lose again, but this time with a message that vaguely involves climate change.
Here's a radical idea: why don't Dems try running someone who hasn't lost a general presidential election in the past, and who is willing to use messaging and tactics from this century? And another: Why don't these *concerned* party elites listen to the voters as they decide between the excessively large field of primary candidates we already have? We need to think about the future of this party, not the past.
2
I share the angst of this columnist. It's not because I don't think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren don't raise great points -- when they talk about income inequality, health care for all, a fair tax system and a plan to dust off our anti-trust laws. But for anyone who has listened to those debates, too many candidates on the stage all pandering to whoever moderator bangs his fist on the table. I want a leader who has some courage to lead, not just say yes to everything because that's impossible. Joe Biden isn't raising enough money because he carries so much baggage, going all the way back to Anita Hill. But for someone to jump in now would be a mistake.
The best way I can think of to hand the election to Trump, all wrapped in a pretty bow, is to listen to any of these establishment has-beens. It's not 1992 anymore and "Republican lite" won't cut it. Obama had his chance and his wife doesn't want one. Look at where the party is headed, not where it has been.
3
How did the establishment get behind Biden in the first place? WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? He got like 1% in Iowa the last time he ran. The current polls probably inflate his support in the early states.
If he drops out and another establishment candidate gets in, it will look like the idea is just to STOP Warren or Sanders.
2
If a progressive wins the nomination, I give good odds they’ll pick a centrist vp. Even so the centrists will stay home claiming the nominee is too extreme to support. Conversely if a centrist wins the nomination, they’ll give all the progressives the cold shoulder and pick a centrist. The progressives rightly feeling insulted will stay home or vote third party. With a fractured party, you know who loses another popular vote but squeaks by in the electoral college.
The DNC has been the party's worst enemy since longer than I can remember. Hillary was damaged goods when she ran in 2008, when the party "leaders" did everything they could to promote her candidacy, and she hadn't gotten any more popular by 2016. Suggesting that she run now is ludicrous. Is there anyone who thinks that 50,000 people in Michigan would have voted for Jill Stein if Bernie had been the Democratic candidate? If there is I have a bridge I'd like sell them.
I would be delighted to vote for Michell Obama, but she doesn't want the job. If she did she would be leading the pack right now.
I have a "favorite" candidate in the current flock, but I also could
happily vote for at least 4 of the others. The party pundits can get together and speculate about people they'd rather see run, but they should do so amongst themselves. The voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina will winnow the field and I trust them more than I trust the DNC.
6
This is how the GOP wins. The GOP wins because they play dirty, they work aggressively in lockstep order, and when the Democrats play it safe. So now. Do we have to spell it out for you? WE DON'T WANT SAFE. We want to see some courage here! And yes, that means putting forward progressive policy ideas. Like Warren says: "I don't get why someone would get up here just to talk about what they can't do and shouldn't fight for".
4
Of course, Bernie is not even mentioned in this article. Feels like 2016. The more things change, the more they stay the same....
3
I'm more interested in a surge of support for my favorite candidate: Amy Klobuchar.
1
Boy, does she bore me to tears with her alcoholic father story who was kissed by grace and is still alive in some place in his 90s and the people who work for her who have to put up with abuse she took from her alcoholic father projected on to them.
1
There is a candidate in the race who has moderate views, is a proven winner in Midwestern districts carried by Trump, is over 40 and younger then 65. Why not consider Senator Klobuchar? She would be doing fine if she had the same amount of media coverage as the others.
2
The author seems to have a Republican bias at least if you look at most of the publications he’s written for. The Democratic bench is very wide right now and several candidates out poll Trump every time. I don’t think too many people are worried about not finding someone who can defeat Trump. The way the impeachment and other court rulings are going for Trump he will be out of office before next November
2
@Cindy Mackie
Corporate bias is just as appropriate here as Republican bias. That way you can safely include his current publisher in the list with his previous employers.
I truly believe that the corporate Dems embodied in the DNC would rather have four more years of Trump than a real progressive.
1
I just read through numerous comments and can't help but wonder why no one is stating the obvious! Due to impeachment and how that can play out, the one to beat may not be Trump at all. If not Trump but someone as far right, one dynamic could occur, and another if someone like a Romney. Also, the Democratic party leaders need to get rid of the Superdelegates which I think played too strong a hand for Clinton's nomination which kept a lot of Bernie supporters home on election day. I know, they want a Biden but dear God who cares what they think - this is the people's election not their large donors. Third, the Democrats have to go progressive as we have to meet climate change head on and who better than Sanders, Warren for that fight.
1
If Bloomberg got in, I suspect he'd immediately rise to the top. And IMO would likely be a better President than Trump, or anyone I see on the Democratic debate stage.
He's got a mixture of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, and is an extremely effective administrator. Biggest thing is that he'd have an appeal that genuinely crossed political lines.
The extremes of both the left and right would not like him, but the vast (mostly quiet) center of the country - independents (now a majority), and centrist Democrats and Republicans could easy vote for him without holding their noses.
I'd personally like some peace and stability. Trump is extremely polarizing. So are Warren and Sanders (and Biden just looks tired and confused a lot of the time.)
Democrats are rightly worried - none of the current front-runners is a slam dunk to beat Trump (and anyone who thinks one of them is needs to get out on the liberal echo-chamber.)
The party's big donors and political insiders are certainly liberal, but are also realistic and dispassionate about assessing chances, and have a bad feeling in the pits of their stomachs right now (which is what this article is about.)
In my travels across the US for business, the sense I get is that the majority of America doesn't want some dramatic revolution ala Warren/Biden, and are equally disquieted by Trump. They'd most like to just live their lives and raise their kids without needing to pay that much attention to politics.
3
Hillary lost because she was deemed by the press and social media as a shoe-in and many supporters stayed home because they thought her election was inevitable. Let’s not make the same mistake in 2020. Get to the polls no matter how difficult and vote!
The problem with the democratic field is that there is no obvious safe choice. Even my 20-something independent but progressive daughters just want a mainstream candidate that can stand up to Trump on a debate stage. Someone groundbreaking would be great, but job #1 is to dislodge Trump from public office.
As an independent progressive myself, I would even be happy to see someone like John Kasich get into the race.
1
We need to look for someone else to run. By that, I mean people who are not billionaires or not part of the party establishment. It needs to be someone who has DONE SOMETHING other than just run for office and make promises. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you...who?
Anyone of these hopeful pretenders in the race now might make a good candidate and might send Trump back to his tower, but who knows?
I would like to see so many good candidates running that the convention itself winds up choosing the nominee, like the old days long ago. A good ol'convention fight might just make for a stronger candidate and a stronger party.
Beyond this year, we have to find a better way of pushing good candidates forward. Right now, everything rests on how much money you can raise and how fast you can raise it. Then, when the actual voting starts, two or three states wind up crashing most of the candidates. This is crazy.
There has to be a better way. Surely the best minds in America, or even some mediocre ones, can help us find a better path to sanity and better government.
1
The "long knives" live again.
How can an American voter navigate this chaos engineered by armies of advanced political experts?
All motives are suspect. Some espousing one candidate may be doing so because that person is weak, not strong.
We saw how President Nixon manipulated his opposition party in an attempt to select his opponent.
The greatest threat to our way of life is wielding the most unsheathed knives. Most injuries are being inflicted out of Democrat's view -- in the dark alleys of the internet.
Now is not a time for infighting. Too much is at stake.
If only the contenders could sublimate their egos and decide among themselves which will seek to be president - then vice president, cabinet members, etc. Collectively, they have the ability to govern as never before... .
Demonstrating once again, as if it were ever necessary to repeat, how out of touch the Democratic "elite" is from what voters, Democrat and otherwise, actually care about, or want.
They would once again impose Hillary Clinton on us. They never learn. If only the Democratic "elite" believed in democracy. Then we'd have at least one part that believed in democracy.
Amazing how every name listed in this article with the exception of Sherrod Brown would leave the Neo Liberal Tenure protected establishment gravy train intact. Why, its just a coincidence and in reality they are all speaking up for love of country. It is center/right millionaires and billionaires playing at being progressive who got us into this mess. But as long as the system continues to enrich them they are all for it, regardless of the fate of the county.
1
James Webb, former Senator, is the right choice. Democrats should draft him. He worked for President Reagan, that should be a plus. He was against President George W Bush’s Iraq war.
1
@M Alem
"He worked for President Reagan, that should be a plus. " maybe you'd be more comfortable supporting one of the republicans attempting to primary Trump?
Reagan values are antithetical to progressive wing of the DNC and the progressive wing is more powerful now than it has been in generations.
Lets be honest. The Democratic Establishment gave us Donald Trump. It is plain and simple. Would they really try to do it again? I am afraid they would if given a chance.
4
The only way to win is to impeach Trump. We must impeach Trump because our democrat candidates are weak. Our democrat candidates can’t stand up to a Trump debate. Our democrat candidate’s policies like medicare for and the green new deal will put too much taxes on the middle class. But maybe the middle class will buy that only the rich will pay more taxes. Maybe medicare users will give up their medicare and pay more for medicare for all. We must impeach Trump to win.
I am a fiscally conservative Democrat but changed my affiliation to Independent after seeing these candidates. I live in rural NC and I know Warren with the medicare for all and other expensive projects cant win here and NC should be competitive for Democrats. Emphasize jobs programs, improved schools, improved internet to rural areas, improved access to health care. I am very discouraged none of the candidates represent a realistic option. This country is so fractured and angry and these extreme programs only increase the discord.
5
Reading these comments just underscore the need for a multi-party system. I do not classify myself as liberal but rather a centrist Democrat that has opinions on each issue not necessarily strictly on party lines. It seems that everyone commenting here is so far left that they wouldn't mind a Sanders or Warren presidency, whereas I definitely would. I would obviously vote for one of them over Trump, but I'd really like a middle of the road candidate that I can get behind. I don't understand why everyone is so up in arms about this article. I tend to agree. The candidates I am excited about, that are a bit more centrist, seem to have zero chance against the left-leaning front runners. This two party system is just not viable anymore.
6
Why not take another look at Steve Bullock.? The first 2 debates were held before most people were even thinking about 2020. Now you have our attention and we are not liking what we see. If Mayor Pete can't win, then give us someone who can. And none of them were on the stage at the last debate.
2
So now it begins, the Times’s ridiculous - and arguably sexist - coverage about the leading Democratic candidate focusing not on her policies or her campaign rallies or how actual voters feel but how often anonymous party insiders wish she was somebody else (somebody with a Y chromosome perhaps?).
Enough already! Didn’t you people learn your lesson in 2016? I’ve resisted calls to cancel my subscription, but if this again becomes a pattern I might have to.
35
Why is the democratic establishment ignoring Tom Styer and overlooking Amy Klobuchar?
10
Because the former is a billionaire band the latter is a bore.
4
Boring would be a nice change of pace and a welcome relief at this point, though.
Why has no one suggested resurrecting Al Franken, now that his “Scandal “ has been shown to nothing other than a Republican Dirty Trick.
6
@Forest Hills Curmudgeon
Actually, it was a democrat dirty trick.
3
@Forest Hills Curmudgeon
Yes, a "Republican dirty trick," brought about by that most dastardly Republican, Kristen Gillibrand.
3
@99 percent and forest hills —I would call it a joint effort of the left and right. Amazing that this would be the time the disparate groups worked together...
Yes. Can we draft Franken! Good man. And he would skewer DJT.
2
Trump would love for Hillary to run. It's like the democratic party is being run by Moe, Larry and Curly.
22
@Hellen
Interesting Note: Larry, Moe and Curly, while dead, are each still younger than the average member of DNC leadership.
1
And you find that interesting?
I wonder what you do for fun :-)
1
Now you know why many of us soon-to-be-ex-Democrats, but still Progressives, believe that the DNC is corrupt and beholden to big donors. I'm sick of them, and sick of Hillary Clinton. They are the embodiment of everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party.
34
If the left doesn't rise up and take the party away frog these establishment habitual losers, Trump will make himself "president for life."
11
Maybe get out of the Whitby Hotel and talk to some real people.
19
Even if you think that, why say it?
1
Maybe Democrats just need to commit political suicide once and for all and let the youth reorganize. Elder Democrat leaders not at all impressive. Voters are stepping up for Bernie and Warren, why not the DNC?
11
We need a third party. I'm sorry, but having been a lifelong Democrat I can no longer say it is my party. Perhaps I have gotten older. Perhaps I am just frustrated that no one is taking the federal deficit seriously. But I am tired that every Democratic candidate feels he has to come up with a trillion dollar plan to fix all the wrongs in the world! We can't afford to do it and we can't do it. Perhaps there is no glory or excitement in saying "we have to be compassionate but do more with less". I believe in political compromise. Let's reduce the deficit by taxing a bit more and spending less. Spend less? Yes! If the deficit is $1 trillion, increase taxes by $500 million and reduce spending by $500 million. And the reductions should include reductions in both military spending and entitlements. Everyone talks about the great income divide. 50% of the country doesn't even pay income taxes! Before you decide to increase entitlements, let's get our fiscal house in order. I am more of an independent these days. My rules have been I am pro-choice, pro-gun control, and I am pro-deficit reduction. If there was any candidate that fell into this category, they'd have my vote. None of the Democratic candidates for President nor Mr. Trump will have my vote in 2020 at this rate. We need a Common Sense Party and the sooner the better.
17
@Sean Krugman thinks that 'deficit' obsession is actually unhelpful for economic health and growth: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/opinion/house-democrats-budget-deficit.html
1
Sorry, our single-district, electoral college, and plurality winner election system allow third parties to act only as spoilers particularly in national elections. All one will do is guarantee Trump’s re-election.
1
I am not surprised that Democratic big and wealthy donors are unhappy with current status of primary Democratic race, They may be concerned the risk of failure to defeat Trump 2020 but I believe their main concern is that will have no significant influence on Warren policies if she elected as the President of USA. Moreover some of them are against her policy of wealth tax and single health car payer. I hope the rank and file of the Democratic part will not be swayed with these donor class. Warren will inspire the Democrats and all who feel that second Trump term will not only change the social fabric of USA but endanger the liber democracy in USA.
14
Unions win Democrats elections.
“I think it’ll be a hard sell to the public if we go into the general election for ‘Medicare for all,’” said Mr. Brown, citing the risk of alienating union workers who would lose their negotiated plans.
2
@ladyluck Unions have been in steady decline since the 1980s, and now only a little more than 10 percent of U.S. workers belong to unions.
In most parts of the country, there aren't enough union members left to guarantee anyone of any party election.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-membership-declined-in-2018/
As a citizen, an avid follower of politics, and someone who votes religiously, I find this whole thing offensive. Donors and party leaders trying to get a candidate who is more palatable to THEM, while other candidates are raking in tons of money from a gazillion small donors. That's our vote.
I was an avid supporter of Hillary. If she were POTUS, we'd have the Supreme Court of our dreams and would be working on a progressive domestic agenda. But that time has passed. We need to use the lessons of 2016, and one of them was that the Democratic Party leaders alienated many of their constituents and would-be constituents.
Here's an idea, support the ideas of the popular candidates. Help with the messaging. If the soundbyte "Medicare for All" is a problem for you, how about "I have great insurance, but my premium is $15000 a year and I'm still paying $7500 per year out of pocket and often get there because of overpriced tests." Or, "I can't fulfill my American Dream because my healthcare is tethered to an employer who won't even pay for proper women's healthcare..."
Compare paycheck stubs with Europeans. Our friends have more takehome pay than we do because of our "great" benefits. And then they don't have to pay even more for healthcare when they see a doctor or have a test. "Medicare for all" is more money in your pocket when you do the actual math. And it's more humane.
16
The Democratic field is fine. What I want to know is why Republican establishment figures aren't asking if there isn't anyone else other than their currently leading candidate?
16
Absolutely loved Obama, but frustrated the Obama coalition turned out to be the coalition of people who don’t vote in midterms. It’s different now - more of a collective aversion to acquiring real political power.
Which candidate gives the Democrats the best chance to take the Senate? Will forcing Senate candidates to defend Warrens agenda help or hurt? When do we make candidates admit that major reforms require legislation in both houses of Congress with people elected from diverse, including not liberal areas? No ideas proposed by the big ideas candidates are actually new (just not legislatively possible) except maybe Yangs. Even basic reforms require Democrats to win big up and down the ticket.
From the people now running you could pick at least ten combinations of candidates under 70, not both white men, some versions with no white men, that would mop the floor with Trump and pull the Senate in with them. In a party where Gabbard is on the stage but Bullock and Bennet aren’t something’s wrong.
Got nothing against old white men, being one and all, but my favorite Democrat ever is Nancy Pelosi because she knows what it takes to win, what it takes get political power and how to use it to get things done for people. People like Slotkin in Michigan took a House seat from a Republican; she’s emblematic of where and how the Democrats won the house, where Democratic power in the house comes from. Yet it’s a big story that one Congress woman, AOC endorsed Bernie.
5
Two points:
1. Democrats who work on Wall Street and are concerned about Ms. Warren’s rise are a minuscule fraction of the Democratic primary electorate. Also, if they are afraid of Warren then I count that as a mark in Warren's favor.
2. I'm glad Bloomberg has enough of a clue to recognize his 'long odds'. Why are his odds so long? Because he's a Republican and doesn't belong in the Democratic primary! If he wants to leave a mark he could make himself useful and run in a primary against Donald Trump.
13
Realistically, the cards are stacked against the Democrats, as single-term Presidents nowadays are relatively rare (Bush Sr., Carter, Ford). True, the chronic low approvals, not to mention the recent international fiasco's, do show chinks in the current administration's armor - but let's not forget the distortion the Electoral College brings to this matter - a point the Republican strategists undoubtedly understand very well. Can the Democrats defeat a sitting President who's approach to governing is a daily carnival, where rules and laws are irrelevant? Fight fire with fire? Not in the Democrat's DNA. Further, the Democrats do not appear to understand that apparatchiks are out. Without a charismatic, entertaining candidate, the Democrats will need some sort of turmoil, such as a domestic recession or difficult economic environment, to win in 2020.
2
Notice how the “elites” don’t even consider Sanders a factor? What they’re really concerned with is their status quo.
12
For a party who's mantra for the past three years has been "Trump is the symptom, not the problem" it doesn't seem like the establishment of the party actually wants to address those symptoms.
5
Does the Democratic establishment consist of big donors who are afraid that with Warren they may actually lose influence? Just asking...
7
The Democratic Establishment isn’t worried that someone like Bernie Sanders will lose to Trump. They’re worried he’ll win.
18
@David
No, they're worried he's going to drop dead
2
I've never understood why Sherrod Brown didn't enter the race in the first place. He's a center left, worker-grounded, articulate candidate who could legitimately and persuasively talk about economic issues across all strata of the country. And he wins solid victories in a place like Ohio. Maybe it isn't too late after all.
6
The reason the party veterans are nervous is probably because they can add. They know that there are only about 15 deep blue states and any Democrat candidate will need to win some swing states to win. A candidate with very leftish policies like Bernie or Warren is unlikely to take any swing states. Warren does very well with the progressives in the party and she can get elected in a deep blue state like Massachusetts but that's probably the extent of her appeal. Remember that Frank Bruni pointed out that the progressives who won house seats in 2018 took them from Democrat incumbents, every one of them. Meanwhile none of the moderate candidates is pulling ahead. Biden looks past it, Buttigieg is very young and although there are some other very good people none is standing out. Also Biden or perhaps Booker seem to be the people who could motivate Black voters.
2
Brown has always been my choice. Klobuchar is right behind him, for me.
He doesn’t call names. He acts like an adult. He would neither insult working people nor ignore the rust belt , as happened in 2016. He is both liberal and pragmatic. He would not scare off people who are scared of voting too far to the left or right.
We need to win back the Middle, where the most votes are up for grabs. Brown would do that.
He would not only win, but would govern wisely.
5
I would think these donors would have gotten the message that recycled candidates who lost in the past, will not win in the future. Is it because the wealthy donors don't want a liberal candidate? They need to be more specific, because being "concerned" is generating unfavorable headlines without addressing the issues.
5
In 2016, the reason the trickle of voters (78,000) who either stood on the sideline or switched sides was because of a "establishment" candidate like Hillary. Which part of "outside the beltway" did the establishment not get?
It frustrates me that the Dems still have a primary dominated by "delegates" who are called "super". These "super" men/women are the one who should be tossed out of the Democratic party and the final vote left the those who are true democrats and vote along party line, just like the republicans! That is the only way to move forward.
6
Why are additional candidates needed? Two dozen entered the Democrat race but several have dropped out because they didn’t raise enough money or enthusiasm for their candidacy. Are Democrats really worried that no current candidate can beat Trump or Pence? Democrats seem to be saying that a big loss is a possibility.
1
What about Governor Steve Bullock of Montana?!!! He has been kept out of the debates but continues to campaign vigorously in Iowa. He won re-election in a Red State that Trump carried. He is very progressive. Pro choice, pro union, pro public lands. He is for strengthening Obamacare and adding a public option. He expanded Medicaid in his state. He is personable and charismatic. He would be an excellent and strong presidential candidate and at least should at the top of the list for vice-president.
9
@Linda McPheters
"He is very progressive" that's just not true. Anybody familiar with montana politics can tell you that regardless of their party affiliation.
1
If only, in 2016, the Democratic Party had refused to put its thumb on the scale. And, if only, in 2016, the Republican Party has exercised its responsibility to nominate a responsible character. Seems like exactly the wrong party used party power.
And which one is supposed to be the people’s party anyway? Democrats have been Republican lite long enough.
2
Just what we need. Six rich Democrats sitting down to decide who should be the nominee. This is my ultimate fear for 2020.
The party could very well face a locked convention and step in and "save" us from the people who actually vote. They still have their Super Delegates held in reserve and I can see them using them to very anti-democratic ends -- to force the party to accept a semi-defeated Biden or a recycled Clinton or an Al Gore.
My other real fear is that if they do so, Trump will win and there will be no party left to protect us from him.
10
Al Gore, anyone? He’s got the environmental issues down pat and can attract Gen Z and Millenial voters. Plus experience. I’m all for Warren but concerned that none of the candidates are focusing on climate change.
5
A weirdly compelling idea. Maybe it’s because I’ve been thinking so much about where we’d be on climate change had he been inaugurated in 2001.
3
@Irene Marcuse
Seriously? Al Gore??!!! That's like Hillary, but without all the charm.
How about getting behind the front-runner once the primary season is well underway, whomever that individual turns out to be?
2
Basically no mention of Sanders. Going back to the same policies that left millions behind and gave us Trump is not the answer.
14
I have a message for the Democratic Establishment. If they sabotage Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and their progressive democratic socialist constituencies with a corporatist Wall Street plutocrat friendly Hilary Clinton / Hunter Biden friendly substitution candidate spouting a version of the DNC corporate friendly DNC speak (really GOP lite...) They will drive people like me, independents and Democratic Socialists to vote for the Green Party Candidate in the 2020 election en masse.
Don't even start replying to me about reelecting Trump because it will be the Democratic Establishment's doing not ours.
If that happens it will be the Democratic Establishment at fault.
12
I couldn’t agree more wholeheartedly.
2
I'd have anxiety too if all I'd been doing as a Democrat for the past three years was casting aspersion, much of it false, at our current President. Truth is, the 2020 election will be about THAT. The left's irrational politics of personal destruction, and the left's inability to acknowledge correct, well-meaning and positive action by this President. The incessant spinning of good to bad (and falsely, to "criminal") will be the undoing of the Democrats come Election Day 2020. I voted for Clinton in his first term, and Obama in his first term. Libertarian in 2016. The way the Democrats are rolling today, I'll vote for Trump in 2020 just to protest that roll. I'm not alone, and it doesn't matter WHO is the Democrat candidate. Anxious, indeed.
6
Yet somehow the non-stop attacks on Obama during his first term didn’t earn him your second vote.
2
There were 12 candidates on the stage for the last Democratic debate, that is more than enough. Truth be told, we need more viable political parties, not more Democratic candidates. I have my preferred candidate, but any of the 12 will make a heck of a better president that the current disaster occupying the White House.
3
There was someone else - Al Franken. Best candidate in my lifetime (I'm 47). But thanks to those Democrats who simply wanted to eliminate a possible opponent for their own gain, he's gone. My gosh, what a party. If they can't beat Trump.....
7
The Clintons still control the democratic party which has turned so many moderate people off. Despite her pretentions, Warren is just another Hillary and will not win. They both have ultra conservative early years, both make promises they won't keep and both are just interested in being in the history books. So stop the nonsense that Warren or any of the candidates are popular with the young or true progressives. Another humiliating defeat by Trump will squarely be on the democrats for their own self destruction.
4
Hillary so clueless as to even consider running is evidence in itself how out of touch she is. Her presence is a way to turn off an entire generation or two from the Democratic Party if not politics in any form and even disillusionment with the entire country.
My Dream is the re-emergence of Franken. A good honorable man with some experience, plus, he will make us all laugh. We surely we need that.
4
Check out STEVE BULLOCK from Montana. He's honest, sincere and smart. The country would do well with him as president. He could bring parties together with his laid back approach and integrity. Dems absolutely need to win in 2020 or our country will continue to lose respect and power worldwide. Our democracy is crumbling before us.
7
because their concerns are valid? because their concerns and the way they address those concerns got us what last time? are they kidding? they need to get out of the way and let voters decide this time. last time they thwarted us and we ended up with Trump.
1
It never ceases to amaze me how the Democrats political “establishment” shoots itself in the foot. Failing to see the disgruntled middle America uprising prior to 2016, ignoring the cascade of then and soon upcoming SC vacancies, and now donning blinders about the daily increasing popularity of Sen. Warren.
If the DNC and it’s contributors are frustrated because Elizabeth Warren doesn’t want to pander to donors then I suppose they’ve got two choices; make friends with she whose name you must not utter or get whipped in 2020. I’m not willing to risk it. I believe in no uncertain terms that this country will collapse without big structural change as Sen. Warren says.
5
I posted this was going to be a problem and received nasty replies. The main issue is that none of these candidates have positive accomplishments to run on. All they and the democratic party have are empty national promises that aren't even being fulfilled on their local turfs.
When there is scrutiny of how Democrats are doing in their local districts it doesn't look good. Deblasio is the poster child for that issue. You can't put lipstick on this. Politics are local and I will say again that democrats need to focus on cleaning up their home turf. Maybe then voters will believe they have their best interests. Until then the lack of accomplishments plus local democratic corruption protected by gerrymandered districts equals Trump gets reelected.
1
Excuse me, but shouldn't the Republicans be asking themselves this question?
7
Anti-Trump Republicans and disillusioned Trumpeteers want to vote for a moderate Democrat. Biden has too many issues and too long a record ripe for attack whether deserved or no, and Warren has to fight the general misogyny. Once both presidential candidates have captured their respective bases, the first group plus the Independents will choose our next President. The Dems that can be smeared by “open borders” and “medicare for all” will lose in the General. So choose strategically!
And Hilary, I voted for you and would not vote for you again, so please keep your opinions about other women candidates to yourself and retire gracefully from the political stage. You are not helping.
5
This is why I don't give them any money. They don't lead, they fret.
2
I can’t get past the beginning of this article. Six people sat down for dinner and lamented that the jig is up and big structural change is coming for them. Can we not put stock in what six, unknown to most people, essentially nameless millionaires, have to say about the state of our primary? No, really, post the same thing about Republicans. It’s about as relevant.
11
Two words. Nancy Pelosi. Might even have the effect of Trump resigning rather than face a sure defeat to her. Please Nancy. Enter the race.
3
@Brian
Two problems with Nancy, who I admire greatly:
1. She is 350 years old, and looks it; and
2. Despite her obvious intelligence, she is utterly incapable of stringing together a coherent sentence any time there is a microphone in front of her.
Late entry? I don't think so.. that's the same as driving past a long line of cars then suddenly sneaking in the front of the line.. Granted people do that all the time and could care less about the people they cut in front of.. But is that the type of person we want to elect as President?
Then again, we liberals love Asylum Seekers- they don't bother to wait in line- they just breach the border illegally and we welcome them with open arms.
So I guess we should accept all late entry candidates .. It would be hypocritical of us if we didn't..
3
Yes I am really anxious!!. I can't take 4 years of Trump anymore but Warren, the most likely democratic candidate so far does not convince me and I am afraid that it will not convince the majority needed to beat Trump either. I'll vote for any non-Trump candidate at this point anyway but I am not that enthusiastic. I would rather prefer a more centrist Obama like candidate but unfortunately I don't think JoeB is ready for this either :-((. I'd hope for a rise in popularity of Pete B or Amy K.
5
How about Al Franken. His sexual attacks were mild compared to most, and this man was a great senator. He's funny, charming, smart and he knows TV. Please let's draft him. I don't like Warren -- too school-marm-ish. Biden has no energy. Sanders could never win and neither could Mayor Pete, as much as I like him. Let's hear it: Al Franken for President.
6
It was incomprehensible to me that Republicans voted for and support Russia's candidate of choice.
It is incomprehensible that Dems now vote and support a candidate preferred by Trump & Russia to be Trump's democratic rival.
It is revolting to see the Trump's success among Dems of his Biden smear related to Biden's son. His 49-year old son!
Do many Dems control the actions and employment of their 49-year olds? Are we willing to do nothing to resist smear by association?
I see little hope for an America that can be ruled by a demagogue promising Mexico will pay for the wall or the equally spurious Medicare For All to be enacted despite Red State Republicans seats in the senate. Why would anyone vote for either person knowing they are manipulating a false promise for their political aggrandizement?
2
How long, oh lord, how long? The Party was the problem three years ago. Somebody please get it to understand that and get its mealy mouthed, unimaginative, gladhanding, coiffured offerings out of the way. The earth has 11.5 years in which to wean itself off all fossil fuel use as populations migrate toward the habitable nations in droves. Bland and uninspiring candidates are death to either party but especially to the party of forward looking ethics and ideas.
Jeez. How can they be so tone deaf, and so full of resentment of Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Warren?
2
A handful of very privileged/lucky rich people ought not be entitled to speak for all Americans.
They can keep funding Vice President Biden or Mayor Buttigieg if they want or they can do something useful with their money.
6
NO to Clinton, Bloomberg, and Biden. Don't you Democratic donors get that your old-school, old-timey, old people should not run 3 times, 2 times--and not even now? The previous polite oligarchic Democratic Party big-money power is not acceptable. Sanders is in the top three--and came close in 2016--because income inequality, climate damage, and healthcare coverage require seriously new approaches. Warren, Sanders, Buttegieg, et al are popular because we've waited long enough.
3
Any Democrat who wishes for HRC to perhaps enter this race has got to be brain dead. She lost to Trump and her lack of any new ideas and simply a repackaging and rebranding of policies so similar to the GOP (like her husband) actually led to the bleak chaos we are in now. I would argue the Democratic establishment, exemplified by the sellout Schumer and the dismal Pelosi is the reason the Democrats can't beat a person who should be so beatable it shouldn't even be close. But the Democratic party, since the 1990s at least, has sold its soul and sold out the working class and the poor. That is why they are in trouble today.
5
Does the Democratic establishment care about what voters want?
4
How do any of these people know who is and is not electable? How many of them predicted that the black law professor who had served less than one full term in the Senate and the scandal-plagued reality TV star would win, while the moderate decorated war hero Senator and the Secretary of State would lose?
The recent track record of “electable” moderates is really bad. What Kerry, McCain, and Romney have in common is that they all lost.
2
The headline for this article says it all: "Anxious Democratic Establishment." And what, are those of us who yearn for a path back to decent and accountable government in lieu of the rotten and corrupted ways of the spoiled and self-entitled elites, supposed to feel guilty as well? Good grief!
1
The mention of Michelle Obama in the headline of this story is in inadvertently funny. She would no more run for president than she would sign up for a trip to Mars. She didn't want her husband to run in the first place, she was not happy with his decision to seek a second term and she was chompin' at the bit to get out of the fish bowl of the White House.
She, from all indications, doesn't like politics and did not like risking her family life with Barrack running for president. At the time, I thought this was a rather selfish position to take because she married one of the most talented politicians of the last 50 years. Don't buy a thoroughbred racehorse if you don't want it to go to the track, in other words.
Both the Obama's were looking forward to the time when he would no longer bear the burden of the presidency. In fact, planning for his presidential library kicked off as soon as he was elected for a second time.
By all appearances, Barrack Obama was not a man who lusted after the power of the presidency. This was, in part, his downfall in that he lacked the sense of transcendent urgency that characterizes people of action who feel they must accomplish great things in the limited time available.
There is no savior waiting in the wings for the Democratic party. If I should hear of one, I'll let you know.
4
Definition of insanity: Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment. Doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results.
9
In this age, can't we just clone FDR?
2
My Dream Team is Klobuchar for Prez and Booker for Vice Prez.
They get the woman vote, the black vote, the independent vote, and the anti-Trump vote.
Plus, they're smart and reasonable.
Too bad they're polling and fundraising is so low, but that could change dramatically when the Biden campaign craters.
4
In a democratic process, the people are supposed to decide. Apparently, the DNC and the monied contributors to the DNC do not want the rabble to have a voice- kind of like 2016 when they said you can have anyone you want as long as her name is Hillary Clinton.
We all know how well that ended.
3
It’s quite clear that the panic this time around is just due the the fact that Democratic voters may just nominate someone “radical” (though really just slightly left of center) like Bernie or Warren.
The rich Democratic donor class likes to be do-gooder lefties on all those inexpensive social issues like same sex marriage or pronouns, but once left wing politics starts costing actual money? Forget about it.
The one thing about Trump the rich donor class likes is his tax cuts. Reverse those and there’s trouble ahead. Hear that Liz? Bernie?
If the rich folks manage to put up one of their centrist shills, like Biden, Pete, Bloomberg, or (god help us all) Clinton, they can win without me.
You tried your centrist, corporate, coddle-the-rich, milquetoast candidate in 2016 and lost. Try to learn from that experience.
2
A reader looking to be informed about the 2020 election would not be led to believe by this article that Bernie Sanders has never left the top 3 in the polls, has consistently out fund -raised all other candidates, and performs better in a head-to-head with Trump.
Bernie Sanders is not mentioned in the context of 2020 at all. His only mention comes at the end of an article in the context of the 2016 election. A reader with little information about 2020 so far would plausibly believe he is not even in the running this time around.
Does the editorial staff want this notion to persist? Are they committed to honest coverage? Pathetic.
8
The democratic field is a terrible one. Two, with zero charisma, too far to the left for the independents (and some democrats). One a mayor with no Foreign Policy, let alone legislative, experience. One an ancient middle-of-the-road politician who is losing his marbles (and he WAS the frontrunner). Several others that most people have never heard of. The "momola" a too tough prosecutor with little charisma. Yes, the democrats are shooting themselves in the foot again. Think of if their opponents were Romney and Haley. No contest for most.
Keep trying establishment Democrats. Just ignore the fund raising and polling numbers of Warren and Bernie combined. That doesn’t mean a thing. 🙉
2
I don't care if there is. Short of the clear and obvious return of Jesus Christ descending from the clouds on streamers of light, with cherubim and seraphim and choruses of angels and all the saints and martyrs rallying around, I am choosing from what we have now. Hillary? No frippin' way. She is now well and truly past her shelf-date, and much of it is by her own choice. Michelle Obama has to wait her turn and serve her formal apprenticeship--and, no, First Lady doesn't cut it. That plus, say, senator? Another matter. Let's see her run for Senator.
And if you want me to change my mind, you'd better come up with someone I LONG to vote for, and think the rest of us LONG to vote for. So far no one on offer comes close.
1
"...fretting about who is in the race and longing for a white knight to enter the contest at the last minute."
This might better be: " ...a Knight in shining armor...".
1
Why do you do this? Just to sell articles and fill newspapers? You’re simply sewing seeds of divisiveness and discord. You press played right into Trump’s hands last election and now you’re doing it again.
Listen, the President of the United States has limited power. None of these wild promises can be fulfilled without help from congress and the American people. This is the least complicated election ever. People are voting Democrat or Republican. Do we wish to save our healthcare; protect out kids from weapons in school? Or will we forgo all that to see if Hillary had email? It matters little which Democrat promises what.
2
Really, these candidates aren't good enough? They is a diverse group here if you care to listen to them. From over 70 to under 40, you have the gamut -- straight, gay, white, latino, asian, man, woman, centerist, far left, socialist.......
Pick one and support them until the end!!
My personal pick to increase the base is Pete and Amy. They can get younger voters, and part of them mid-west along with the traditional liberals.
2
Unless the Times is planning to revisit how Republicans felt in 2015 and early 2016, faced with a huge number of contenders including the appalling Mr. Trump, why don't you just cut it out? The Democrats are doing fine. No primary votes have even been cast yet. We can all calm down, including the Times, with its breathless need to run "Dems in Disarray" stories and try to throw another election.
The dream of a late entry candidate is a pipe dream. Hillary Clinton had so much baggage that she couldn’t even beat Trump. Don’t tell me she did... yes, she won the popular vote, but she in fact lost because she did not get the required majority of Electoral College votes. Not a new requirement... In incredibly lousy campaigning, she neglected the key states, assuming they would be in the Democratic Blue Wall. There was a crack in the wall, of her own making. Now, she’s playing into the hands of the Russian bots and trolls, attacking Tulsi Gabbard, just when Gabbard was disappearing in the mist. Great political instincts!
The candidates that people are supporting are out there. Iowa, New Hampshire, and the Super Tuesday states will separate the wheat from the chaff. We’ll find out which is which, and then we Democrats will get behind the nominee in order to rebuild the future for America and to get rid of the criminal syndicate and it’s Don in the White House.
1
I am not a partisan of either party so neither would want advice from me. But I think if Democrats want to make themselves feel good but actually achieve none of their objectives, then they should continue their infatuation with far left candidates.
But if Democrats want to beat Trump, then their best hope is Bloomberg. On economic matters, he would have wide appeal to independents, to all but the craziest Democrat lefties, and even to many Republicans who are disgusted by Trump. For Democrats, he is for denying all Americans the right to have a gun to protect themselves (except the police and himself).
But Bloomberg's greatest appeal as a Democrat candidate is that he is not one of the leftist crazies. He therefore does not scare the heck out of everybody except the rabid "progressives".
One lack of appeal that a Bloomberg candidacy does have is that Ilhan Omar and her crowd would despise him.
I am "left of left" but want a centrist candidate. Sherrod Brown was my first pick and that was not to be (please run Sherrod, we need you). Then Bullock who was trampled in the stampede. Now for me it's Koblachar (sic). I am shouting to the dems we need a person to move us forward, but also we need that person to be elected to do so. Sorry Warren, it's just business.
2
the reason Mayor Pete cannot develop greater support among black voters is because of his tone-deaf treatment of his black constituents in South Bend AND because he said he wasn’t asking for the black vote. The recent narrative that South Carolina blacks won’t vote for him because he is gay is an insult to blacks and a shameful attempt to shift Mayor Pete’s shortcomings onto a voter group.
2
Six whole people - sorry, donors - met to discuss this “problem”. Says it all, doesn’t it?
3
Reading this article, I feel like a guest invited by a family for having a lunch and, of course, for politeness I will not express comments about the undercooked duck breast fillet in my plate.
But here, spurred by this interesting journalistic piece - even if I still feel as guest too - I have to comment on the current “Martian” political arena in the United States of America to which, we Europeans, often watch with amazement.
Therefore I’ll be frank as a green Martian landed on our lovely Planet. Stepping out from his bivalve spaceship he will quickly shake his big head with huge bulging eyes as soon as someone dares to mention Biden or Clinton, and will say: Lame horses.
On Bloomberg the green dude will just quip: “Imagine having another magnate (even if of different cloth) to govern USA!”
Global warming has not yet displayed its massive, brutal and destructive force, the consequences of which will be better dealt with by a Liberal new President.
As a foreigner I do not know if I’m allowed to send money to Elisabeth Warren’s elections committee. If possible - it will be just a ten Euros note - I will.
1
Under no circumstances should Hillary run. However, I do worry that the Democrats are running a popular vote strategy when we need an Electoral College strategy to win this election. It does not matter is we win CA and NY by huge margins if we lose WI, PA, MI and OH. Game over. Warren and Sanders are likely the road to defeat in the general. I was particularly unimpressed by Warren’s responses on Middle East policy and strategy in the last debate. She needs to up her game on foreign policy and national security. I think Biden still has the best shot at winning the general if he can survive the primary process.
10
Do you really think foreign policy is what’s going to get those Obama-Trump voters or Obama-non voters in the industrial Midwest back into the Democratic fold?
1
@Michele
Thank you for reminding us all that we must win the swing states. I keep posting this and it is true. A progressive will not win the votes we need. We need a moderate to win the states you mentioned. Unless that happens, we will not only not progress, we'll do cartwheels back to the 1930s with Trump and the GOP.
Bullock is perfect, very electable and under the radar. If he were to bump in the poles he could define himself/introduce himself to the country in a fresh news cycle providing some energy to what feels like marginal choices in a must win campaign.
9
@James I forgot Bullock was running. He has no chance.
1
I’m voting for Bernie. American families need Medicare for All and free college or vocational education. Paying the high cost of for-profit health care and college education is an enormous strain on American families.
13
It is remarkable to me that one of the top three contenders in this race, Bernie Sanders, is only mentioned once in passing, at the end of the article. He just had a rally with an estimated 33,000 people in attendance, with AOC’s support he has secured the most sought after endorsement in the Democratic Party, with the possible exception of Obama, he has by far the most individual contributors, over a million volunteers, and more cash on hand than any of the others Democrats, almost all from small dollar donations. I believe in a little concept called democracy. I wish I felt that Bloomberg, Clinton and the mainstream media did as well. As I read this I had the sinking feeling that the Democratic establishment will manage to subvert a truly democratic process in the primary and hand another victory to Trump. Have they learned nothing from 2016?
37
They would apparently, according to precedent, rather have Trump than Bernie. I, for one, of many millions of us, would prefer not to rush off the cliff with the lemming neoconliberals and plutocrats with affluenza.
They appeared to not consider it ‘losing’ as long as they get to keep the plutocracy in place. Mayor Pete, as he’s being exposed as allied with the plutocrat Zuckerberg, seems to be more evidence of this phenomenon too.
1
Here in my red small town north of Kansas City, my Republican friends at the YMCA, retired women who admitted they voted for Trump, are impressed by and openly support Amy Klobachar. So does my 85-year-old Lutheran Republican MIL in mid-Michigan, who also voted for Trump, although begrudgingly. My Democratic women friends, also retired, are split between Klobachar and Buttegieg. Although this is admittedly anecdotal, it may be a weather vane. I hear local Republicans expressing more openness to voting for a moderate Democrat with each passing day. However no one I know is a Warren, Sanders, Harris or Biden supporter. They eye the coastal Democrats with suspicion, although I don't. My fear is that the Dems will lose to Trump if they turn too sharply to the left or choose a ticket that is coastal again, like Clinton/Kaine.
11
The Democratic establishment did everything they could to make sure Clinton was nominated unopposed in 2016. Biden didn't run against her, and he might well have won.
There were--are still--claims that Sanders, by running against her "tore the party apart." As in, didn't honor their goal that she run unopposed in the primaries.
Let this election be about what the voters want, not the Democratic powers that be.
26
Pete and Stacy. That's the ticket that would win. Warren. Biden, and Sanders aren't going to do it. Voter turnout is, and always will be, the key to any victory. Trump will have his 35%, the democratic candidates will have their 35%, and the other 30% will decide the election. This is the group that will respond to a Pete and Stacy campaign.
4
You agree with the plutocracy. Congratulations, but that’s a status quo we won’t survive.
2
The leading contenders all seem to have aspects of their platforms or personal qualities that lead some voters to question their ability to win the presidential election. The answer for some is to look outside the present field of candidates. I think a better answer would be to look more closely at an existing candidate who has a track record and a platform that is solid, wide-ranging, and pragmatic - Steve Bullock.
8
@RCS Bullock is great and I'm glad he's hanging in there. If he makes it to the primaries he gets my vote.
2
Ah the never-ending, ugly triumph of utterly sexist bias. Elizabeth Warren is being painted as shrill and extreme, of course, and she is none of those things. But it is just so very easy to tar and feather a middle-aged woman with that 'witch brush.' And I am so fed up. Has the author of this article actually listened to her positions and plans? Guess what, I seriously doubt it. And I'm sick of people just sweeping our female candidates away as if they are fluff and never to be taken seriously in the slightest. Harris is good, Klobuchar is also good. Clinton was eminently qualified. But with women you are so happy to listen to spin, because it fits your bias like a glove. Our current president is a total ignoramus, and somehow he is afforded more credibility and more agency than the most brilliant, well-informed, and capable of women. As are all men. And you don't deserve it. Look at the mess you've made of our democracy! Yes, you! You white guys have been running the show (into the ground) for generations! Men, step up! Evolve and cut it out now! Yeah, I said that. I am SO DONE.
24
@Anda
Why are you calling out white men when 53% of white women voted for Trump?
5
@Anda
Of the current Dem candidates, I’m for Klobuchar. I will vote for the Dem no matter who it is. A Klobuchar/Sherrod Brown (or vice veesa) ticket is my dream pairing.
I completely reject the notion that we should vote for or against anyone because of their gender. That is sexist, pure and simple, whether it’s voting for a woman or a man. It is a foolish, illegitimate reason to cast a vote.
3
It was my hope many months ago that Sherrod Brown would run for President in 2020. In fact, my dream team was Brown and Amy Klobuchar (sure, I'm biased because I live in Minnesota, but I really like Amy's pragmatic liberalism and her ability to work with Republicans). In 2016 we lost three or four key states and not by that much (PA, OH, MI, WI). The Democrats will win the west coast and the Northeast but what will it take for them to win the heartland? A Brown/Klobuchar ticket would bring back Ohio and Michigan for sure and would undoubtedly attract near-right Republicans and middle-of-the-roaders who voted for Trump in 2016.
The future of the Democratic Party doesn't lie with Biden, Warren, Sanders, or Clinton. C'mon, Sherrod, get in the race!
6
But you're willing to vote so far right?
@Leanne -- strange comment. A vote for a moderate Democrat is not a vote that is "so far right." Perhaps I have misunderstood your comment...?
It is incredible that we have a crook in the White House, on the verge of impeachment, he may be a traitor too, yet the Democrats are in panic that they may lose to him. About whom does that speak volumes: potency of Democrats' candidates or judgment of the American public?
13
Answer: It speaks about the judgment of the American Public.
If Clinton runs it will prove the quote falsely attributed to Einstein: “Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results”.
29
Still have hopes for Biden but his campaign has been weak. He should be pounding Trump like a hammer driving a nail, but instead he seems to wake up in time for weak response and then fall back to sleep. Warren has been the best candidate so far. But she will need to start sounding like a stateswoman and not just a progressive policy wonk.
4
This is the same old, same old. The elitist Democratic party establishment bemoaning the choice(s) the voters are making. I swear if Hillary Clinton, Bloomberg or Kerry run or any of the rest of that old white bunch I will dump my party membership. It's bad enough that Biden is running. Instead of mewling in fear of losing, they should be out there beating the drum for the quality of the candidates running. Their cynicism and fear is not only off-putting. It's dangerous.
21
They want to keep the strip-mining if the middles class going. It’s worked for them so far.
2
Oh boy. These "party leaders" are the same ones who wrecked Democrats' chances by pushing Hillary on us and denying Bernie Sanders the backing he needed. Bernie would have won. Now they want a do-over on the primaries? I don't think so. Go away, Hillary. Go away, Bloomberg. Go away, "party leaders." Just stop it. Either go away--or stay in your smoke-filled room. We're so over you.
40
“Bernie” as a self described “socialist” would not have won in 2016 and he will not win in 2020. He is not even a Democrat. Bernie should drop out now and clear the field.
Absolutely astounding that the candidate most noted to beat Trump is the one the article mentions just once in passing. The NYT seems more interested in defeating and discrediting Bernie Sanders than defeating Trump and if the nature of this article is to sift through whatever scraps of neoliberal Centrism is left in candidates with even a modicum of public attractability, it speaks more to the moral and intellectual poverty of Democratic elitism today than any weak or lackluster candidate.
Articles like this speak of the complete detachment Liberal elites have of the trajectory of the Democratic Party.
34
The only person asking "is there anybody else?" is Jonathan Martin autor of the article. STOP trying to bring more main stream democrats into the race. STOP trying to repeat what happened in 2016. It DOESN'T matter what "influential democrats" a.k.a. rich people, want. The Democratic party has to respond to working people or loose again. Sanders is there for progressive ideas. Warren is there for progressive ideas at least for now. And Biden/Harris and other Clintonites are there in case you want Trump to win again.
18
Much greater concern about Trump’s blatant fascism than Warren’s proposals.
10
This is story based on 6 Democratic donors, six, and the whole thing comes tumbling down ? I really hope the Times takes good care not to send us down the misleading path you took us on in 2016 with your coverage of the Hillary Clinton's emails, will we ever get over what your coverage did to the race, who knows but if it happens again and Trump is re-elected this republic will surely come tumbling down.
13
It is wild that this entire article does not mention Bernie Sanders.
25
@David K
It seems that the "liberal" New York Times is far more establishment and Republican than most would admit. They were in the tank for Hillary from jump street along with all of the commercial media and we can see where that got us.
The establishment knows that a President Sanders or Warren is going to claw back the Trump tax cuts and Manhattan, the Hamptons and the west side of LA simply cannot have that. The truth is they are far more comfortable with the GOP than they will publicly admit.
3
And we should care what the fat cat donors think because...?
16
Oh well, let these folks scupper the whole election and bring Hillary back in to wave her conspiracy theories about.
11
Dont fret...go with whoever is candidate..hopefully Pete. If its Biden, we support him..Warren we support her. Calm down DNC.
5
Please Please Please Mrs. Clinton: DO NOT RUN for the presidency again!
20
Al Franken would obliterate Trump on the debate stage showing him up for the fool he is. Run, Al, run!
14
Tulsi Gabbard 2020
Our only chance
5
No more retreaded egos!!!!! Especially Clinton and Biden!!!! All of these "back door" meeting candidates have tried and failed to win the Presidency!!!!
One of the dozen potential candidates deserves the chance to be the next candidate.
6
Michael Bloomberg - Please get here FAST!
2
YES
And he can beat Trump handley.
And he will mercilessly beatdown on Trump like no other current candiate can or will.
His name is Andrew Cuomo.
3
Seriously, in this day and age does it have to be a "white knight" riding in? How about just a knight, or a competent individual, or a strong, ethical candidate? Stop with the cheap tropes.
5
Most any of the current Democratic primary candidates would restore dignity to the WH and US. Indeed, while I don’t agree with much of what they say, most current Repub primary candidates, other then the incumbent, would also be respectable.
I started out as a Biden supporter this year, but have been very disappointed in his campaign and debate presentations. Warren looks good to me but for two reasons:
1. Her Medicare for All policy. While I generally agree with it, is too rigid and too much too soon for most of the American electorate. Buttegieg’s Medicare for All Who Want It is more appropriatefor the both the Dem primary and the general election. (And she needs to show how implementing the policy will be paid for; and
2. Very selfishly, I want to keep her as my US Senator.
4
Sigh. The Democratic "establishment" did everything in its power to make sure Bernie didn't get the nod in 2016, and look what that got us. The young Dems, and even some of us oldsters, are tired of "business as usual." If they manipulate this primary season too, we'll just get another four more years of Trump.
19
Can’t the people mentioned here, they are democrats, let the voters decide. These are the same people who were against Bernie being the nominee, which had he been, there would be no republican resident of the WH. As for Hillary, how many times does she have to lose? Maybe if they’d let the Democratic voters decide who the nomination should go to, we’d get a Democratic President. And they wonder why people don’t bother to vote.
13
This article made my stomach turn, literally. We have so many good candidates that, to me, any attempt to negate that reality is backed by people who want to secure an establishment win by completely ignoring the mandate of the people. Enough is enough. The DNC better support the voters and not their historical allegiance to prevent any real democratic change from happening.
19
It is Al Gore's time. Urge him to run.
He is articulate, has experience, can stand up to Trump, and he is ahead of any candidate in his efforts to fight global warming. He can save this country, and hopefully help save the planet.
7
IMO, Democrats will have a better chance in the general election if they enthusiastically embrace the candidates they have. They are a group of very capable people who have significant accomplishments under their belts. I'm not sure why the Democratic Establishment is pining for Hillary Clinton, who already lost one general election. Michael Bloomberg is another billionaire businessman, and everyone except die-hard Trump supporters is tired of billionaire businessmen. Those who don't want to run should not be pressured to run. It won't end well.
6
This country desperately needs three or more viable parties, but the two we have are so entrenched it will likely never happen. Multiple parties could more accurately express the desires of blocks of voters and would force government to work together to form coalitions to get things done. The political class needs a shake-up and building the political apparatus to accommodate multiple parties would do it.
4
So those in the hallowed halls of the Elite (read that "they believe they have the right to chose our candidate") are so annoying. We have an amazing slate of candidates, many of us have supported more than one and will continue to support the ones who came out early and began to grow a base of people who believe in them. This article is just another reason that many people have given up on elections altogether. It makes is sound like all of the grass roots support for the current candidates doesn't matter at all and at the last minute, these elites pulling strings behind the curtain are going to throw someone shiny and new out there and derail the candidates that have been cultivating support.
Please, stop doing this. We have been blessed with a set of candidates that are decent and smart and most even bring a sense of integrity and honesty with them. I am an average voter with an open mind and a huge distaste for gamesmanship in politics. I also cannot imagine living through another 4 years like the last 3.
By the way, until the last lines of this article you missed the front runner in all of this. Bernie Sanders is going to continue to grow his base, his message was just amplified to all of the young voters he might have missed and to all of the people of color who weren't sure. You might want to overlook him (and yes I know he's not a Dem so maybe that's why he's a side note in this article) but he is not going to go unnoticed.
14
Very odd that this story doesn’t mention Bernie Sanders until toward the end, and only then in passing. Last week, if I remember right, the Times published a similarly fretful article about Trump’s good numbers against Biden and Warren without mentioning that Sanders bested Trump in the same poll.
Even if there was an excuse for this in 2016 because the superdelegate numbers/DNC behavior ensured his bid was always doomed, why the blackout this time around?
22
A whole generation is missing from the Democratic Party. Bloomberg is 78, Hillary Clinton is 72, Joe Biden is 76. Where are the candidates between, say, 50 and 65? They do have some governors in that age group, but nobody with any great appeal. Steve Bullock has already dropped out, and nobody would vote for Andrew Cuomo.
4
@Jonathan I haven't seen anything about Bullock having dropped out and as far as I can see his web site indicates the campaign is ongoing.
Do Not, I repeat Do Not fall in love. We do not need to be in love with our leader or have a beer with him/her.
It's October, plenty of time to let things shake out; call out candidates to make them stronger for potential election debates and town halls.
Don't be afraid of some tussles among the Dems, they'll be better for it.
3
Bill Maher said the one person who could match Trump would be Oprah.
She could out talk him and already has a base.
3
@Bruce Roberts
I like to watch Bill Maher but we do not need an egotistical talk show host as the nominee.
1
Yes, Steve Bulloch. He'd make a magnificent candidate but due to the debate rules he hasn't been able to see the light of day.
3
Relax, everyone. If the Democrats nominate two candidates who collectively excite African Americans, young people, and moderate suburban whites, the election will be a done deal.
Clinton/Kaine did not excite enough of any of these reliably Democratic constituencies.
We have candidates who each appeal to one or two of these constituencies. Just pair them together and win.
3
@Ed
That candidate was Barack Obama in 2008. There is no Democratic candidate in the current race who “excites” all three groups, none of the candidates would get the Af-Am vote despite what the media says about Biden.
Democrats are more divided - unlike the Republicans who are singular, about one agenda - less taxes for corporations and the rich. And dividing the country using race-baiting and fear-mongering.
Michael Bloomberg would make the best general election candidate and also, more importantly, the best president.
2
"Anybody else?"
Sure--the candidate you so vehemently insist on ignoring.
The one with:
More campaign revenue than any other, collected from
1.5 million INDIVIDUAL donors (more any other)
Who fills packed stadiums in every city
The one who attracts more independents and young people to the point where major news corporations discount under-50 voters to weight their polls against him.
The Jewish candidate who just won the endorsement of 2 out of the 3 Muslim members of Congress (just before major news corporations decided endorsements were suddenly meaningless.)
The only one who addressed global warming in the last debate, despite the fact that moderators refused to do so.
The one who outpolls trump in every battleground state, INCLUDING TEXAS.
The genuine working class candidate whose campaign staff is the first in U.S. history to be represented by a labor union (UFCW Local 400)
21
An excellent collection of points. Thanks for making them.
3
@Gilman W And the one Cornell West refers to as My Vanilla Brother....and Nena Turner refers to as Senator Bernard Sanders...NYT might want to make him invisible but he's not.
3
All the time spent on impeaching Trump is backfiring. Dems have had 4 years to build a message and all I hear from these folks is that I will lose my employer plan medical coverage. Not good.
3
The party apparatchik need to get over their infatuation with the Clinton’s. Comey’s reopening of the mail server investigation was inexcusable. The hacking of the DNC’s servers was a consequence of its own incompetence. To be sure these raised the bar but, at the end of the day, Mrs. Clinton lost because she ran a lousy campaign. A campaign premised on it being “her turn” rather than an office to be earned. A second run by Mrs. Clinton will end in four more years of Trump.
13
Certain systemic dynamics are proving problematic. For example: The last debate was better, but, generally speaking, the debate format has favored the extremists, the loudest voices in the room, the arm wavers, the young, the pretty, and the glib. Serious candidates like Inslee or Bennet were pushed out prematurely, while folks like Gabbard and O'Rourke inexplicably remain. To make matters worse, Biden, who was generally on the right side of almost everything during the Obama administration, even when Obama was wrong, has always suffered from a loose connection between his head and his mouth. Another example: Trump and his supporters including Russia are inciting Trumpy policies and behavior from some of the candidates and Trump minion behavior from those candidates' supporters.
1
Hillary or Michael Bloomberg? How out of touch can these people be? Hillary would have been a good President but few people want 2016.2. And who on earth would be excited about a Bloomberg candidacy except maybe a handful of old rich people?
9
LOL I thought Democrats were supposed to be liberal! Hopefully we can get an actual progressive nominee this time if we stick together. I notice some folks are so afraid of Bernie his name doesn't even come up!
Big changes are needed to fix the climate emergency and income inequality, so get used to hearing about it!
12
There's nothing wrong with the candidates outside of Biden, Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren: Tom Steyer sounds reasonable, and he's not a moderate like Klobuchar. Michael Bennet despises Mitch McConnell--that makes Bennet a hero, in my opinion. I was sorry to see Kirsten Gillibrand had to drop out. Really? And Tulsi Gabbard got a spot on the debate panel?
1
Why not Al Gore?
He's only 71 - a mere slip of a lad compared to some other candidates - has been Vice President for 8 years, a senator for many years plus a Congressman, plus he's smart. Perhaps most important of all, he's a leader in fighting perhaps the greatest menace America and the entire world faces: the Climate Emergency - not change - Emergency.
But would he run?
Michael Northmore
4
Why isn’t anybody taking Michael Bennet seriously? He is the kind of candidate who can win the general election.
3
There's a horse in the hospital. Get the horse out of the hospital.
Then fix the hospital so that is runs so smoothly, a horse would never make it inside the hospital again. Ever.
1
In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, the DNC rigged the system for their favorite, Clinton, pushing Sanders out of the race. The result of running baggage-heavy, arrogant Clinton: A Trump victory.
As an 72 year old Boomer, I believe the Democrats must pass the mantle to the candidates brave enough to seek real change. Clinton's and Biden's time has passed.
13
Man Overboard!
This is news to Democrat leaders?
Biden: Far too old
Sanders: Far too old and too far left
Warren: Too far left.
Buttigegeg: Too young and many will not vote for a gay person in a country in which the Supreme Court is currently deciding if LGBT even have federal civil rights.
It's another circular firing squad of Democrats.
I'm Democrat.
3
@Devin in D.C., Trump won because of the electoral college, not because he had a clear vision. He may have dumbed it down to MAGA but his actual “vision” was all over the map. Case in point: Mexico hasn’t paid for the “wall”. He lied to his supporters and hoodwinked them into believing his hyperbole. Per Michael Cohen, “Trump is a con artist”. The MAGA wanted to believe that his promises were feasible when everyone else knew it was hot air and of course still is but it’s grown into a cess pool. His campaign was focused on gaslighting the gullible populace and that has persistently gotten more intense. The electoral college was our ultimate undoing.
1
Free healthcare for illegals alone with get Trump reelected. Even Bill Maher on his show could not understand the tone deaf far left ideas that put illegal immigrants ahead of suffering American citizens.
6
@MM
The small population 'red states' with the most electoral college advantage also face the highest health care costs, another article in today's NYT states that a 27year old in Montana will pay over $700/month in premiums for a 'benchmark' Obamacare plan. This is something the 'blue' voters in the high population states simply don't get. These rates are totally unaffordable. Factor in that many young workers in rural states work seasonally but make enough money in construction, etc. during the high work periods to either not qualify for subsidies or to find themselves charged with having to repay subsidies when everything is tallied up at tax time.
Obamacare works for high population density states.
But not all of us can or want to live in such states, and we (who provide much of your food, raw materials, etc.) should not be penalized for living where we do.
1
@irene "The small population 'red states' with the most electoral college advantage also face the highest health care costs, another article in today's NYT states that a 27year old in Montana will pay over $700/month in premiums for a 'benchmark' Obamacare plan. "
Meaningless to what I said. Giving "free" healthcare to people who broke the law to come to the country will lose the election for Democrats.
@MM
I entirely agree with you. Was just pointing out one of the important reasons WHY 'free' healthcare for illegal immigrants is a deal breaker.
The Democrats' worst enemy is their party establishment. You'd think that they would have learned from 2016. As AOC said when endorsing Bernie, the Dems have a strong lineup of candidates this year. The party bosses must leave well alone and not even think of foisting some last-minute choice on voters.
14:50 EDT, 10/22
11
Nope.
Hope this helps!
3
Yes, by all means please let the geniuses that shoved a centrist down our throats who turned out to be the only person who could lose to the most unqualified candidate in Presidential history force their doomed power grab on us again.
16
Perfectly said
1
Hello Democratic donors and other "establishment" types: When a NYT reporter calls you to ask what you think about the current candidates and viability to be elected POTUS, please just refuse to accept the premise of the question and hang up on the reporter. It is this kind of reporting that gave DJT the presidency. He is the kind of bacteria that kind find seams and infest. Giving him this kind of seam is deadly. Thank you.
7
While it is unfair and untrue to describe both parties as the same, both parties have fundamentally abandoned working Americans and focused on the needs of big donors.
The GOP cares only about reducing taxes, increasing loopholes for the wealthiest, increasing wars of opportunity, privatizing all government services, and reducing any kind of support or help for the poorest among us.
The Democratic leadership has also catered to the donor class at the expense of working Americans, and has turned the party from one that represented all working Americans to a party primarily focused on identity politics.
Neither party is honestly addressing issues and concerns facing the people I know and work with----and voters understand this more than the party leaders realize. This is why so many voters have thrown support behind the candidates who are actually speaking to the critical issues facing working Americans.
If the majority of voters are not heard and understood, the next step could easily be a second American revolution, which will not be pretty. Far better for both parties' leadership teams to begin listening to what voters really need and want from their elected representatives. I am not very optimistic.....
3
As others have noted, somebody around tRump is smart enough to copy the Republicans' '72 playbook when Nixon was running for re-election: kneecap the most electable general election candidate (Muskie then, Biden now), so that an unelectable candidate gets the Democratic nomination (McGovern then, Warren now). It has the feel of history repeating itself. But then, look what happened to Nixon in his second term . . .
2
God forbid we should just accept the three front-runners that voters tell pollsters they approve of. That would mean actual democracy, and we can't have that, now can we?
13
I assume that the circus is detrimental to Democrats' chances in 2020. I don't know. Maybe it isn't. It sure didn't hurt Trump. If it is, there is only one way to put an end to it before it has its full negative effect. That is for someone to declare a team now. I would prefer Warren with Amy K or Cory Booker. It would give Warren an excuse to say, "In order to get him/her to join me I have agreed to modify my position on health care and go with a public option for at least 2 years, after which we can see what Americans wants." It would be seen as decisive. She would win the nomination (and she would win big enough to bring along a Democratic Senate).
5
It's extraordinary to me, although it shouldn't be at this point, that this NY Times article makes one passing reference to Bernie Sanders, when he leads the Democratic field in both funds raised and, more importantly and by a YUGE margin, in number of overall donors (I'm not counting Tom Steyer in overall fundraising since he's bankrolling his own campaign). These groups of corporate Democrats meeting for hand-wringing sessions are preaching the exact same play it "safe," so-called centrist line they pitched in 2016 with the same degree of tone-deafness to what's actually happening in this country.
14
Vote for who will restore dignity to the office of the President of the United States. Vote for a candidate that will represent the citizens. Don’t fall into the trap of choosing someone because the are electable. That means they owe too many people too many favors. We need to push aside the big donors who are afraid of losing their current standard of living, which is at the expense of the rest of us.
2
What really needs to happen for the good of the country, is that enough of those Republicans in the Senate need to vote to remove DT from office after having the House vote to impeach, and then the whole field of those running on both sides of the aisle could changed, or be shored up, as to who would appeal to the majority of those voting in the states that only went Republican by a small number of votes in 2016.
2
The problem is that a late entrant, especially a late moderate entrant would blow the party open. An openly divided Democratic party would have even less ability to unseat Trump than one led by Warren. I am more sympathetic to moderate concerns. but I also can see the danger of a fractured party.
3
@cfarris5 - Because the primary voters are miles away from the general run of Democrats in their political views, that's why - never mind the huge number of independents who are waiting to be convinced.
I hope Hillary decides to get in the race. She will probably be asked if she will accept the results of the election. After ten seconds of cackling laughter, she will answer, "Of course, why would I lie?"
6
There is virtually no mention in this article of Bernie Sanders' candidacy in 2020. They mention the doubts about Biden, the electability of Warren, of Buttigieg...but not a single thought on Sanders. He just delivered a winning debate performance (that even the NYT determined, based on its panel of contributors, Bernie to be the victor) and secured one of the most coveted endorsements on the Democratic side, that of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And no mention of Bernie here...as if he doesn't exist. This is what his supporters mean about the flagrant, comical bias of the mainstream media. It's embarrassing to read articles here that seem to go out of their way to ignore the candidate with the most money, donors and volunteers in the entire field. Sanders just polled 2nd nationally in the most recent Emerson survey. What is going here?
38
Biden can do it. The problem isn't the candidates. The problem is the voters. They are not rising to the challenge of completing the simple task of voting Trump out. They are asking for too much change. That isn't what we need right now. We need to plug the drain, get rid of Trump and then start thinking about the future.
5
Such energy on one's own narcissism and ambitions! If the Dem peanut gallery spent its efforts messaging on substantive matters like healthcare, there'd be much less handwringing. It would be a superhero line-up shifting the agenda and sentiments.
If there's one thing Repubs seem to do better, they fall in line in service of their aggressive agenda (which is mostly about self-serving power.) It's worth it to them.
Dems frequently lose the concept of "servant leadership." Sanders and Warren are the best at talking about what, why, and how they want to serve America, identifying the key leverage points amidst all the noise and complexity. That's why they are getting traction. They have to put out big ideas, and work backwards from there. Warren's done it already.
For the money backers, there's a big transition they need to get their heads around. It's values versus more (extreme) wealth. The Dem leaders who are good at fund raising will need to change this narrative and change minds.
7
The good folks supporting the current Democratic Party nomination campaigns and debates with money, attendance, and volunteer hours are not doing so to provide a focus group to some yet-to-be-named candidate/saviour.
6
If we could stitch together Mayor Pete, Joe Biden, Eliz Warren and Amy K (sorry I momentarily forgot her name) I think we'd have a winner. Just being smart and a good debater has never helped Democrats - I'm thinking back to the first election I remember which Adlai Stevenson lost, all the way up to 2016. I've heard several Democrats who'd make good candidates, but none of them are running. Very disappointing.
1
@Horace Who are those people who'd make great candidates? I promise you, if they did run you'd find their flaws pretty quickly. We have a great line-up. Choose somebody.
2
If we could stitch together Mayor Pete, Joe Biden, Eliz Warren and Amy K (sorry I momentarily forgot her name) I think we'd have a winner. Just being smart and a good debater has never helped Democrats - I'm thinking back to the first election I remember which Adlai Stevenson lost, all the way up to 2016. I've heard several Democrats who'd make good candidates, but none of them are running. Very disappointing.
It's a bit late for someone to run. I also think the strongest candidate are already in the running.
Sherrod Brown? Really?? He's a fine senator, and I'm sure he'd be a good vice-presidential nominee.
Michael Bloomberg would be a formidable candidate, but it might be a bit too late for him What's more, I'm not sure he'd stand a better chance of beating Trump than Joe Biden.
Michelle Obama and Oprah would be very interesting candidates. Heck, Michelle might be a better candidate than her husband. My only knock on Ms. Obama and Oprah is that haven't been critical of Trump.
More broadly, I think the Democratic establishment is worried about the wrong thing. Raise some money. Win back the Senate. Let the primaries play out.
7
Remember the last time a minority candidate with a funny name ran, we ended up with eight glorious years of Obama's leadership. Don't count Mayor Pete out yet!
7
@Mark Scott - you must be joking. The rest of us sat around in horror as the weakling Obama let China rise and rise until it's now too big to stop from spreading it's despicable ideology worldwide. Thanks Obama.
5
At this point I think the true unknown is whether or not Trump will still be in office. While he may be able to win a general election again I think the rise in Republican defections from his team, and the snowballing effects of his legal self destruction, point to his not being in office in a year.
As the pressure builds he becomes more and more removed from reality, we have not seen the end of his death spiral, but it is precisely this dynamic which will force him from office. Does anyone expect Trump to take a step back at this point and do anything which would reassure moderates and independents that he isn't more than likely insane?
3
Trump’s candidacy signaled time for a change and disgust with business as usual. Bernie Sanders represents true social change and thus emerges as a true threat to the Democratic Party from within. A Sanders third party ticket could revolutionize America.
8
@Edward
Bernie as a third-party candidate would hand the race to Trump. He knows that. No chance.
4
We must vote liberal, otherwise we will lose the young kids again to a third party. The time for moderation is over and was over in 2016.
13
These centrist Democrats have to stop trashing the progressives, who are the majority of the party. Their weak and corrupt Republican lite actions for the last 40 years and their refusal to stand up for change believing nothing is possible brought us Trump. It’s like impeachment. Pelosi and the old school centrists said that the public didn’t support impeachment. Everyone knew she was wrong, without even considering the point of doing the right thing. Democrats don’t listen to the People. That must change. I’m ditching this party for a new one after the presidential elections if things don’t change.
13
The presidential election next year will be won in PA, MI, OH, IN, WI, NJ, maybe FL, NC. The Democrats should choose the ticket most likely to win there. CA, NY, MA, etc. are not up for grabs.
Warren and Sanders aren't the best bet in those states. A ticket of Biden and Klobuchar is the best bet for where the election will be won ... or lost.
4
Democrats should blame the debate debacle the DNC created to assure that only candidates they support have a chance to win. The debates and weaning process started way too early. The schedule assured that name recognition was the key to succeeding in the qualifying poles used to select debaters. The behind scenes control of long-time power brokers like Hillary Clinton remains in place. Their control will assure that no real leaders will emerge because they have to tow the line of the establishment. The current field is stale and boring. Unfortunately for the Democrats they can't shed the old line leadership and Trump will win in a landslide.
6
There are still multiple candidates in the race (too many, in fact). We don't need more. If moderates want an alternative to Biden, then support Buttigieg or Klobuchar or Harris. Any one of these would be a huge improvement over what we now have (as would Biden, Warren or Sanders). No one running is perfect, but no one not running would be perfect either. I'll happily vote for whoever is nominated. The alternative is horrendous.
4
I don't know how many Democratic donors contributed to this conversation, nor do I really care. They are a minority. The rank and file voters are slowly learning about the candidates, and most of us have concluded that almost any one of them would be 1000 times better than the conman we currently have using the title "president." The New York Times just loves the "Dems in disarray" narrative; most of us reject it and will continue to listen and learn. As for me, there is really only one I have no time for, but she's unlikely to make it past the first primary. Of the others, I will happily pull the lever for any of them, even tired old Bernie or Joe. The New York Times would do well to reflect on the damage it did during the 2016 election with its obligatory Hillary-smearing, before it begins to try to sow doubt and consternation among Democratic voters again.
11
Warren is smart. She knows Medicare for All in a senate that includes red state senators has as much chance to pass as the chance that Mexico would pay for the wall. She is willing to treat the voters as fools and that is the path of a demagogue populist.
Warren offers to make Republicans the defenders of 100+ million Americans' health care and muddy the 2020 topic from a consensus on Trump to a fight over Gov't knows best socialism and the protection of workers' health insurance. Won't go over well in the industrial midwest.
Republicans elected Russia's choice for president. Must Democrats elect Trump's choice for an opponent?
2
The article is really missing the point. What the election depends on is voter turnout. There needs to be a lot attention directed to new voter registration and to combatting voter suppression. Any of the front runners could defeat Trump IF voter turnout was high enough.
6
I think the true target of Hillary’s attack on Tulsi Gabbard is Bernie Sanders. The DNC will do anything to stop him, but this time he’s not going to fold. The Dems are afraid he’ll respond by running as a third party candidate. Tulsi is a logical pick to be his running mate. The Democrats can run anyone they want, but none of their establishment candidates has much appeal. In the end the Democrats will be the third party.
17
Hillary should stay aloof.
7
@Edward I find Tulsi unimpressive and I can't imagine Bernie selecting her as his running mate.
Edward. Given how the DNC and the elites have treated Bernie. I hope he runs as a third party candidate if he is not nominated
1
As I read in an NYT article the other day, Trump campaign is richer, better organized, more experienced and has multiple media propaganda networks aligned with them. Trump base is strong and united in their universal hate against Democrats. And since clearly democrats are already so divided, I am mentally preparing myself for Trump second term.
The rise of Sanders and Warren has some established democrats worried, because they need to worry about how they would continue their crony capitalism. With Warren and Sanders gaining popularity, the change might be too painful for democrats who have been cozy with Wall Street and Silicon Valley billionaires so instead of supporting what most of democratic base probably wants, they would rather play politics and lose yet again.
25
Why is it the mainstream media dare not mention Bernie Sanders' name? In 2016 he polled well against Trump. Sanders' message is a message of kitchen table economics. Issues like college affordability, retirement, healthcare affordability, the regulating the finance industry are all topics people from all walks of life can get behind.
20
Big Democratic donors who convene at dinners are swank Manhattan restaurants are over. The lesson of the past 12 years is that voters do not want someone who is held sway by "the Establishment." Those who write big checks and think that can again run the government. If nothing else, Trump is the ultimate backlash to this model. For all intents and purposes, a 2016 Democratic victory should have been a landslide--but it wasn't. The reason Sanders, Warren and so many other Progressives now hold the attention of the public is that people know they can deliver on their promise to ignore Rich Fat Cats. Joe Crowley was the Democratic Eric Cantor--get it?
9
@Carl Millholland
Well said. I was actually wondering how “Democratic donors attending a dinner hosted by a progressive group” can even exist. Seems oxymoronic to me.
3
The Democratic Establishment gave us Clinton and we ended up with Trump for four years. If they give us Biden this time we could end up with Trump permanently.
15
A rematch of Hillary vs. Donald would be epic. And Hillary would win -- she won the popular vote last time. Let's Do It!
1
@John Jabo,
Is this satirical?
The massively funded Trump machine would simply run endless television ads showing Hillary as Gollum from Lord of the Rings in desperate pursuit of the Precious.
Or how about the entitled Hillary sanctimoniously claiming BEFORE the election that Trump was refusing to accept the results of the election, juxtaposed with clips of Hillary claiming the election was stolen from her by big bad men like Comey, Putin and Bernie?
She is utterly preposterous, much more repellent than she was in 2016, which doesn’t even seem possible.
No, I have to assume you intended to be satirical.
5
I must live in an alternate universe when I hear the Democrats are concerned about winning.
I know it is a true concern but for the life of me I cannot understand that after watching and listening to trump for 3 years that anyone could even consider to vote for him.
I just don't get it.
He acts and talks like a Dictator and anything that comes out of his mouth is most likely a lie.
I throw my hands in the air. All I have is my vote.
4
All that was known and knowable and he won the electoral college. It is likely to happen again.
When the Democratic wealthy donor class is asking, "Is there anybody else?", what they're really asking is "Is there anybody else who will continue to protect the financial interests of us?" They are very concerned that a Warren or Sanders presidency might make real progress in decreasing some of the inequality in this country by increasing taxes on their wealth or making their businesses less monopolistic. However, even if any of these changes came to pass, they would still have plenty of wealth.
If the Democratic donors really care about this country, its institutions and democracy, they should get behind whoever is nominated, even if it might mean a little less for them in the long run.
17
Um . . . It’s not just the establishment, folks. Medicare for all is flat out unpopular with the general electorate, and it’s not all that popular with democrats, depending on what poll respondents think it is. Warren needs to figure that out. Actually, she no doubt already has, but we are all waiting to see how she will deal with it.
If we define the establishment more narrowly, and perhaps more appropriately, to mean large corporate interests, they will still he looking for alternatives even if Warren manages her health care messaging effectively. In that case, she will win the nomination anyway.
Actually Medicare for All is popular with the electorate. American families struggle to pay the high cost of for profit health care
1
Hillary, I voted for you and have no doubt that you would have been a good president, but please go away.
17
It's sadly amusing that the Democratic "elites" and the major donors are alarmed by the current candidates. Though now diluted, it's a reminder of the role that super-delegates play in the nomination process in circumventing the will of the voters. One thing that is 100% guaranteed is that if a backup "savior" candidate enters the race, enough voters will be discouraged from voting which will result in a Trump victory.
5
Like many Democrats, I will get behind the candidate who wins the primaries, whoever that may be. Of greater concern are swing voters in the Midwest. They will decide the election. If you push policies like Medicare for all, that may resonate with voters in San Francisco and New York, but fall flat in Milwaukee and Grand Rapids. No matter who the candidate is, they need to appeal to moderates and swing voters with their policies. I fear Elizabeth Warren is digging her grave (and ours), by pushing this policy. I would be perfectly happy if the ACA was stabilized and improved and a public option was made available to allow citizens to decide for themselves.
4
This is the most diverse and progressive set of candidates in any presidential race in history. I know the DNC only has a couple corporate candidates to choose from, and the two of the most plausible at this point are anti corporate, but maybe they should read the writing on the wall. Bernie Sanders and his ideas are were the party needs to go to move our country to the left and create an economy with more equality across the board.
7
Anyone who is just a tad left of center for me gets my vote. Bernie and Liz are nice but they’ll scare away moderate and independent voters.
2
@Alan all 10 surviving ones.
The true believers on the right want to completely upset the apple cart to take the country back to the 1950's, when all those "lesser folks" knew their place.
And the true believers on the left want to completely upset the apple cart to enact what they think are wonderful "free stuff" plans but are actually, as the sensible Amy Klobuchar points out, pipe dreams. Are these left wingers really willing to embrace punitive tax rates and a pared down American lifestyle to eliminate student debt, gift everyone with a college education, provide child care and medical treatment to over 330 million people? Because countries that bestow such "freebies" on their citizens do pay exorbitant taxes, and do not support populations as large and diverse as that in the U.S.
Warren and Sanders are not being honest about the repercussions of their socialist utopia, and their arrogance in assuming an "enlightened" majority of the country is buying their act will give Trump four more years in the WH. It isn't just the party establishment that is spooked, but rational and practical rank-and-file party members.
Unfortunately, both of the respective party bases are not only alienating but downright scary to most voters. This is no normal election, and the Democrats have every reason to be worried. There is far too much on the line to nominate someone who will drive people to stick with the devil they know.
4
I want Warren but can she beat the Ian Fleming villain from Queens. She must move toward the center millenials wanting a lefty to be nominated is irrelevant except had Bernie been the nominee in 2016, there may have been a different outcome. Additionally, what seems far-left today would not be perceived that way except for the so-called Reagan snake oil manipulation back then and the Koch brothers version today. Everything is relative.
The notion that the party elites are waiting for someone from the outside to ride in on a unicorn and win the nomination is strange to me. If they don’t like Warren or Sanders as an alternative to Biden, there are several other Democrats in the race, doing the work, that one can choose from. Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, and Klobuchar are all in the center of their party, philosophically. And yet the party elites would rather wait for a savior rather than back one of them. I guess they are just waiting for Biden to totally bottom out, maybe.
6
No mention of Adam Schiff? He’s got the smarts, experience, and morality that would get us out of the abyss trump has caused. I too am worried about the leading candidates who are running. I share their values, but the most important factor, by far, is can they beat trump?
2
So the donor class is in hysterics because its chosen candidate is teetering on the brink.
Let this play out democratically.
Warren OR Sanders can beat Trump, so long as these same democratic donors don’t abandon them.
6
The Democrats have an extremely strong field running for US President in 2020, and many brilliant ticket combinations.
But a baked potato would be more qualified than the Russian asset sitting in the White House today, befouling the office and the nation.
1
You mean anybody BUT Bernie and Elizabeth? They are by far the most popular, but the DNC and establishment are trying MIGHTILY to ignore them.
Anybody else want to jump in? Hillary? Want to give it another go? Michael Bloomberg? Any other washed-up has-been darlings of the Establishment want to give it (yet) another try?
6
"While much of the daydreaming about a last-minute entry comes from pro-business Democrats.." This is telling. They are not about winning and replacing Trump. They are about protecting their wealth.
You don't win by not offending the other side. You win by firing up your base and driving them to the polls. We've seen that in 2008 with Obama and in 2016 with Trump. And that will be Sanders or Warren this time. Let's not repeat Debbie Wasserman shenanigan and fiasco this time around.
6
Please, isn't there a candidate who is younger than 70 and can refrain from antagonizing the broad center of voters. You know, the people who fear global warming, believe in helping refugees and the poor, and want a fair chance for everyone. But who value business, have a few qualms about abortion one minute before birth, and understand the need to protect our borders. Someone? Anyone?
5
@Carla Marceau That would be Pete Buttigieg.
2
The Democratic nominee has to inspire. It’s that simple. All of this angst about winning the southern Black vote or midwestern swing-state voters is certainly understandable, but at the end of the day, the nominee needs to be a great communicator, a unifier and a humble leader. I’m optimistic that several of the current candidates fit the bill.
6
At this point in the election cycle four years ago, Hillary was a shoo-in and Trump would never get the GOP nomination and certainly would never win. Twelve years ago, it was considered impossible for Obama to get the nomination or win. I'm voting for Elizabeth Warren because she is the best candidate and I'm betting she will win. The professional prognosticators have been wrong to often to put stock in what they say.
6
Democratic donor class are to blame for putting America in this situation with breaking the social contract, pushing for transnational trading agreements that harm the working class, for bailing out the banks. Always thinking they know better than the average democrat with a lower case “d.” Don’t shoot our democratic party in the foot. Keep calm and vote progressive!
301
All I know is that a too far left, too socialist candidate will let Trump win again.
No one will want their taxes eating half their pay up.
This is a simple fact.
20
Most American families pay from $7 to $12 thousand dollars a year for our portion of employer based health insurance (premiums, co-pays and deductibles). If the government offered a plan with all the folks who are paying for private healthcare,whose main goal is to make billions of dollars in profit after paying their CEO’s hundreds of millions, most families would pay less overall. Just asking if you would pay more tax vs. would you pay way less out of pocket for healthcare, is not an honest question.
38
@Randy L.
Tax. The. Rich.
Problem solved.
The rich can afford to pay more and they WILL;)
17
@Randy L. Those are opinions, not facts. The only facts we actually have are the poll numbers. The polls clearly show Sanders beating Trump. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. For. The. Last. Two. Years. Fact.
31
Just stop this, NY Times. There's a strong Democratic field; Trump, who "won" by 70,000 votes in three states is historically unpopular (54% in favor of impeachment and removal); Warren, Biden, and Sanders are all winning in polls head to head with Trump.
So stop.
12
The progressive group American Bridge....
founded by David Brock, who Politico described as a "former right-wing journalist-turned-pro-Clinton crusader".
Is American Bridge a 'progressive' group? Is there any evidence of this?
In the same way that plutocrats are populists, I guess.
8
The debate within the Democratic party is being dominated by the progressives. Unfortunately, America is not made up of readers of the New York Times or the commenters to this post. I think the Times should run this editorial in smaller newspapers across the country and then post the comments they get here. Then, maybe we will get a more balanced perspective around which we can generate a consensus.
2
@Karen I love this idea. I am a NYCer who moved to Ohio right before the 2016 election and none of my progressive friends believed me when I said I was worried Trump would win, based on what I was seeing in Ohio and what the polls and the Times were failing to capture in its coverage. I believe a Dem can win, but a more balanced perspective needs to be reported--not just deep rural perspectives and coastal city perspectives.
Why?!! Please stop throwing moderate Democrats at us! Few in the current field offer any change, and the suggestions here are also terrible. Big money shouldn't determine the face of the Democratic party, but I recognize it always has, the same way it does for Republicans (and look where that's gotten us). Some of those on the Democratic ticket have a good chance to offer new ideas, and thanks to Trump's crookedness and buffoonery, may win despite what would normally be long odds.
10
I’m tired of these conversations.
Donald is by far the worst president in American history. We have an excellent group of Democratic candidates. Warren is my choice, but any of them would be exceptional, especially compared to trump. More and more smart people are seeing through Trump. I’m feeling optimistic.
9
He is right in front of you. Why doesn’t the establishment start taking Andrew Yang seriously? Lots of us do. I admit he is a little awkward on the debate stage but his ideas are bold, well thought out and important. At first, I thought I’d vote for Biden even though I like Yang’s policies, just to get rid of Trump. But now I am thinking Yang is the one to beat him. Yang has been making efforts to reach Americans of all types and it is working.
5
@Other Annie, Yang is horrible. He talks like a robot, laden with empty corporate speak. He seems to think (like Trump) a country should be run like a business. Some of his ideas are not bad but his universal income won’t work in the current economic environment. He also seems to believe most problems can be solved by throwing money at it.
He’s of course preferable to Trump but compared with the other candidates he’s very lackluster.
1
@Wurzelsepp Sure. Yang is kind of a nerd but the idea that he wants to run the countrry like a business is a misconception. A quote from his twitter: "In government most all of the time you are building consensus. You provide a vision and try to rally people around it. You build relationships. You compromise. You appeal to common goals. Things often happen more gradually. But when big things happen they can improve many lives."
And UBI is a great idea and has been around for a long time.
This is tough one for the Democrats. It appears a large segment of the country prefers a class clown to a serious politician for president. Maybe the endless drivel on TV has finally rewired enough brains so that ability to clown around is now the number one quality desired in a president. In general Democrats are not good at clowning in public. Rather they are obsessed with explaining complicated policies, something which the American rewired brain probably simply filters out. Donald Trump certainly gets the new rewired brain. At a recent rally he pretended to be presidential and noted how boring that would be if he kept up the act. He then reverted back to the usual character he plays as president, a clowning buffoon. The only Democrat that may be able to defeat Trump could be a late night talk show host. Maybe the Democrats ought to see if one of them want to step up and take on the former star of The Apprentice.
2
"Would Hillary get in..."? That's great. Was it actually a secret meeting of Republicans hoping to stay hidden and so pretending to be Democrats? Or an impromptu comedy club gathering?
9
Hillary’s sense of entitlement was truly revolting in 2016: she took the month of August off from campaigning so she could focus on fundraising on Martha’s Vineyard, Wall Street, the Hamptons and Hollywood.
Queen Hillary never did make it to Wisconsin, maybe she couldn’t be bothered with peasants in flyover country.
Hillary lost in 2016 because she promised to maintain the status quo, even though prominent voices like Michael Moore told her that the status quo wasn’t working for the peasants in flyover country or the coastal peasants like myself.
After Hillary lost the election, she made herself look pathetic, vindictive and delusional by blaming Putin, Comey and Bernie.
Nobody knew better than the Clinton machine how the electoral college operates, so they had no excuse.
The Clintons can’t relinquish power. She reminds me of Gollum from the Lord of The Rings in pursuit of the Precious.
If Hillary ran against Trump in 2020 she would lose worse than she did in 2016.
And now she’s clearly come unhinged with this latest conspiracy theory about the Russians and Gabbard/Stein.
Hillary, we desperately need you to go away! All you do is remind us of why Trump won every time you open your mouth!
24
There doesn't need to be anyone else. We have plenty of candidates, each one better than Trump.
I'd rather lose with a winner than win with a loser.
6
These people are so arrogant! They always have to do this?? Sanders, or Warren, or Buttigieg, or Yang, or Harris, or Booker, or Klobuchar, and yes Biden (he's still right up there), any of them would be awesome presidents! We don't need some entitled suit-wearing thumb to save us from real change. They're going to "save us" from an election victory is what they're going to do.
8
Come on, Democrats. We will win a year from now and we will win big. Stop being so timid! Did you see the crowd that Bernie Sanders got in Queens? The energy that's out there for anti-corporatism? The energy that young people are bringing to the table? Stop worrying about all the things the candidates "aren't" and start backing the candidates who are. Donald Trump is a sick and dangerous man and if the American people can't get away from him, there's nothing we can do about it. The country will go down in flames. But Sherrod Brown or Mike Bloomberg, as good as these men are, simply represent the Wall St. gang. Stand up and vote and back your candidates without being such whiny babies.
6
@Joanna Stelling
Do your homework. Lumping Sherrod Brown in with Bloomberg as a Wall Street lackey is patently ignorant.
He proposed to REINSTATE the Glass-Steagall act in 2013. I was dismayed when he declined to run for this election.
2
This is simple. Retired Admiral William Mcraven. His resume is solid gold & the current president would look ridiculous next to him, Please, someone ask him to run.
2
Who are these “party leaders”, none of whom are identified in the article? Are they still leaders if no one is following them?
11
As a Kennedy Democrat Abroad member, I'm so despairing about the current prospects that my heart jumped when I saw Colin Powell on GPS with Fareed Zakaria. Can he be fast tracked to the convention for nomination? Gravitas and Service personified!
Let's not overthink this. As an non-affiliated voter, I will vote for whomever the Democrats nominate. Once they settle on their nominee, the supporters of the rest of the field need to get behind that nominee.
4
The "democratic establishment" has no idea who can beat Trump. Do they not remember what happened when they picked Hillary in 2016? If the party had nominated Bernie, he'd probably be president now. People show up to vote for candidates who excite them more than they do for milquetoast candidates who try to fit some kind of "electable" establishment profile.
11
This kind of attitude is exactly why my daughter voted for Jill Stein last time (fortunately not in a swing state) and why my son-in-law won't vote for anybody but Bernie. Business as usual won't win.
7
People want Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to run again?? Have they learned nothing from the past??? I’m so tired of these dated notions about electability. Donald Trump was possibly the least “electable” candidate in history. Meanwhile both parties urged voters to get behind John Kerry, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton despite an obvious lack of enthusiasm, and they all lost. I really want the winner of the primary to be someone who can beat Donald Trump. But it’s clear that electability has become extremely difficult to predict. Instead of trying to get inside the minds of other voters, people should just vote for the candidate who they think would make the best president. Chances are if you like them, other people will too.
7
The age of smoke-filled rooms and behind the scenes king making is thankfully over. Vestiges of that style of politics persist as the uncertainties that seem to be a permanent feature of the Trump presidency stain the landscape. Time to hunker down and aid the best to rise and properly be chosen, then work hard to reinforce that choice and get her or him elected. The work will be exhausting because it always is. Grow up and deal with the challenges we face. And start enjoying the hurly burly of the contest. It's the best way to thrive in the kind of contest we just happen to be facing.
1
There are a lot of people who will vote for "anyone but Trump" in the states that will decide the 2020 election. Even some Republicans would vote for a center-left Democrat but there's a limit to how hard people will hold their nose. This is why Democrats other than "true believers" are nervous.
1
The value of this article is that it exposes where the “party establishment” sits.
That they’re wishing one of the past losing candidates would step into the race is astonishing. Let’s take Hilary. Half of her own party wouldn’t vote for her. A majority of her party is exasperated every time she pops up and injects herself into the current race. The disdain for her outside of her party is as extreme as it ever was. She secured the nomination (with help from the party establishment), and then lost to Trump, the worst Republican candidate there ever was.
Please explain to me how you think she can win this time. Who, on the left, do you think would support her for a 3rd run? How do you think the voters will feel when Hillary jumps from behind the curtain and pits herself against Elizabeth Warren? Do you really see that going well on any level? And if you, the party establishment, thought she would win last time with your game plan, why should we, the voters, put any faith in your opinions on viability anymore?
The moderates in the pool aren’t catching on fire. The progressives are, and they’re a threat to the “establishment.” The voters pushing for change and see it on the horizon need to be vigilant and quick to defend the party and process against backdoor maneuvering from the likes of another D.W. Schultz.
We have a great group of candidates, even on the moderate end. The process has to be allowed to play itself out. Then we’ll get behind the winner for the final push.
10
I agree with others here that it’s time for the Big Donors and Establishment to finally consider deeply why Clinton, obviously the more capable candidate and part of the long-time Democrat Establishment, lost. Sure there was Comey, Putin’s hackers and meddling, and Assange. And also 40 years of Republican anti-Clinton propaganda. That should make Party Leaders and Donors consider that it’s time for new faces that will energize new voters and also those who haven’t paid enough attention to understand how dangerous Trump and his lemmings in the GOP are.
As for issues of “electability” those questions seem to be primarily coming from the pundits who proclaim who is “electable” and who isn’t, without offering any hard basis, just their own opinion. In recent polls, say by FiveThirtyEight (statistics-based political analysts), voters don’t seem to share those opinions.
2
It’s understandable that a group of influentIal Democrats are concerned that the putative nominee runs the risk of defeat in 2020.
Part of that concern, let’s face it, is predicated on the truth that none has the gravitas, charisma and oratory skill of Obama.
Also no one is so feared by trump as is the former President.
My coterie may not be representative of the typical Democratic voter, but our vote would go to any of the nominees who still qualify for the debate stage, as well as those like some mentioned in the article who have flirted with a run.
Anyone, anyone who will defeat this man is enthusiastically embraced by us.
Nothing is as existentially important as getting him out of office either by removal or losing the re-election in 2020.
Givenii
The democratic powers that be want to play it safe. They are making the same mistake they made when they rigged the system to pre-select Hillary. That went so well you have to wonder when they show that they want to repeat their error.
6
Please. We have a fine group of candidates.
This species of Democratic Dinosaurus Elitus needs to chill and realize the world, and the party, have moved on.
They can sit and count their cash and reminisce about the goodness ole days while we work on recalibration the wealth deficit, among other matters.
5
The Democratic donor class and party leadership is going to sabotage the Democrats' chances yet again, and then the ballgame is over. Our republic will slip away, and we will be yet another oligarchy in a world run by and for the extravagantly wealthy.
7
How does this article fail to even mention Steve Bullock? He is already in the race and would be a far stronger general election candidate than any of the people you mentioned.
3
Why does the democratic establishment not respect the choice of the voters? Warren and Sanders are popular because they have a vision. Michelle Obama has repeatedly said she doesnt enjoy politics and wont run. Additionally, for a country that fought so hard to not have a King, we sure love political dynasties in this country.
The democratic establishment should follow the advice they so viciously said to Bernie supporters in 2016 and emphasize "party unity".
1031
@Zee
They only meant party unity behind them.
73
@Zee The problem is that both Warren and Sanders could easily lose to trump, which would be disastrous.
56
@Zee
Because Warren and Bernie together barely crack 40% of the Democratic electorate according to the most favorable polls, and 30% according to others.
They’re both extremely popular with their respective bases, but not with the general public.
67
Lifelong Democrat here, of the Xennial micro-generation. It is just astounding to me that any part of Hillary Clinton thinks she still has any kind of political future. Talk about out of touch. We didn't want her in 2008, and her self-serving, arrogant "my turn" campaign in 2016 is part of the reason we are dealing with the nightmare of the Trump administration.
Anyone who even remotely reminds younger voters of Hillary has no chance. That is why all these moderate, establishment triangulators are getting no traction.
Since 2008, the Democratic base has been ready to turn the page on the politics of the Clinton era. We want what Warren wants - "big structural change."
I held my nose and voted for Hillary in 2016, but if she (or a surrogate) is the nominee in 2020 by some horrible twist of fate, I predict you would see most of the younger Democrats split off into a third party.
1142
And Trump will thank you.
61
@Jane Grey
Exactly correct. The best thing HRC can do now is stay far away from the party and avoid being a lightning rod for GOP attacks.
Hoping that some new savior will ride in at the last minute is a losing strategy.
138
If anyone who reminds voters of Hillary is a non-starter, how is Warren a viable option?
40
I’m about to give up on the DNC and this country. I’ll vote for Bernie. I’m not sure about anyone else. I’ve had it.
12
If we're deserving of a candidate who has a perfect blend of self delusion and ego to think that he can do a better job than Trump, I nominate Jose Franco (me). The absence of sensible political representation has clouded the American dream by Democrat extremists. As a result, we now have Donald Trump in the White House. Ideally, the President of the United States is cast in the role of subordinate agent, seeking in “good faith” to carry out the instructions of the lawmakers for the people, who is understood to be the principal. Instead, Trump's rhetoric harshly and repeatedly reminds us we’re not all equal (most opportunities are subsidized by access to wealth) It also doesn't help that unequal results of human achievement conjure up simplistic notions of injustice. If I were President I'd encourage a society in which the dignity of each person - not one’s station, or employment, or the accumulation of goods - is the prime consideration, enabling equality of opportunity to exist. Unfortunately, most individuals often learn harsh economic truths through self discovery in the pursuit of financial sustainability. Regrettably, prior to self discovery, human impulse is generally towards generosity. Ideally, all capable people should look for reasons to start/continue the work of self improvement. Unfortunately, equality is as undesirable as it is unrealizable. Nobody is equal to anybody. Even the same person is not equal to him/herself on different days.
2
The Democrats are justified in having serious doubts and reservations on multiple fronts. The field of candidates is far too numerous. The process inevitably is flawed in that you are greatly restricted from having in depth and meaningful discourse in debates. Further, the US is, and for the foreseeable future, a capitalist country where the seeds of socialism have never taken root.
Biden is too old; Warren's policies, at best, are a pipe-dream; ditto Bernie Sanders. Pete B is an intellectual but has very little executive experience to become president of the US. That leaves Kamala Harris the only candidate with significant executive experience having run the second largest attorney general department in the US. What baffles me is why she has failed to get any traction? Her initial take on health care was so muddled that, even she didn't know, what she was proposing. Begs the question who is advising her and that her campaign staff don't see that she is sinking in the polls and need to revitalize her. Perhaps like Clinton she is a poor campaigner. In my humble view none of the other tier candidates have much of a chance recognizing that Trump and his allies will find every dirty means and then some to demonize the eventual primary winner. If there is ever a time that providence needs to intervene, it is now not just for the US but the free world at large so that the thugs around the world are put on notice and not molly coddled by the current president.
Here's a crazy idea...maybe they should just let the primary play out. The voters will decide who they want. And maybe they should stop trying to stonewall Bernie Sanders and others who they deem unacceptable. As far as I know, they also have the right to vote in the primaries, and they can cast their ballot for whomever they please, just as I can. And that should be the limit of their influence on this or any other race.
11
This needs to stop right now. The only "problem" that certain people see here is the failure of Joe Biden amid the success of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
Take the hint "centrists": nobody likes you. Moreover, nobody is going to vote for a centrist candidate over Trump. We need change - not retro nostalgia.
13
Hopefully, the Democratic leadership will not make the same mistake it made in 2016--undermining the candidacy of an electable liberal candidate to anoint an establishment figure who had the appeal, to independent and many liberal voters, of a jar of jellied eels.
10
Each of the Democratic candidates have vulnerabilities but primaries are the accepted democratic way to select the candidate. Mrs. Obama clearly does not want to run and won't. Democrats are so obscessed with impeachment despite the certainty he will not be removed from office that the candidates will be deprived of a chance to have the spotlight on them. It will be impeachment, impeachment, impeachment like Russia, Russia, Russia. We know how that movie ended.
The Democratic establishment should be very nervous. After all, it’s their greed and gutting regulatory system gutting that brought the country to the precipice. Now the Democratic establishment is worried about keeping its ill gotten gains, not safeguarding the American people’s needs or interests.
VP Biden, has demonstrated that he’s not the candidate for today. He lacks the vision to restructure the economy and regulatory system. Like Sec. Clinton, he offers more of the same. Today’s NYT is reporting that 1million babies have been dropped from Medicare, for instance. It’s remedy requires strength and vision to challenge the establishment. OxyContin pushers like the Sacklers should be jailed, not called philanthropists.
Candidates like Sen. Warren offer a vision of change and return to, at the very least, FDR era regulations that served the country well for decades.
5
That is an idea that would dilute the vote for first place in the primaries and guarantee the Democrats would lose the election. As it is, we have a good field. Let's go with it !
1
Corporate democrats need to realize the majority have moved past them. No more phony promises and no more special favors for the rich, OK?
7
Sherrod Brown & Stacey Abrams --an unbeatable ticket --
likewise, Mitch Landrieu/ Abrams
I do like most of the current candidates --but unfortunately, they all do have potentially fatal downsides in a general election --count me in for new entries, but please oh please, not Bloomberg as a Democratic nominee --that's a death wish.
2
This article sounds like it is part of the Russian disinformation tactics. Plant doubts in voters’ minds about the Democratic candidates in the hopes of stirring up a drumbeat for Hillary Clinton again as the candidate.
She brings about a book just at the right time to be seen and heard all over cable and the Internet. In this case I am not sure who the person attempting to sabotage the Democratic primaries really is. Is it the Russians or Trump campaign trying to lure Clinton into another defeat. Or is it Clinton herself daydreaming about securing the nomination at a deadlocked convention and utilizing the accommodating press to plant stories about unsuitable Democratic candidates.
Either way it is not fitting for a mainstream newspaper to allow itself to be used as a tool in such an obvious manner.
3
Hillary Clinton? Hmmmm... I recognize that name. Didn't she run for president once before? I could swear she did. I am going to look it up on Wikipedia. Yes, I was right: She ran in 2016, and lost to Donald Trump!
6
Oprah. She may not want the job but there's no one out there more universally loved and better equipped at healing this divisive country.
1
No, Hillary. Do not enter this race. I can’t imagine anything Trump would love more.
2
The Democrats need Oprah Winfrey; Trump will wilt if he has to debate her. She understands ShowBiz and a lot of White men like her. She can stand up to Trump without getting baited into going into defense mode.
1
All the way with Amy K.
Al Franken! Now!
1
It very, very, very often seems, coincidentally, for some amorphous, poorly-defined reason, that women and people of color are just not *quite* the right choice. I'm a white guy and it's just transparently a product of tacit white supremacy and sexism. You can hear it in what people don't say about strong female or candidates of color.
"I mean, sure... she's smart, experienced, capable, organized, principled, respected, a good debater, relatable, focused, and popular... buuuuuttt... uhhhh... I just .... have feels."
OK, friend. Sure. There's a secret undefinable problem that can never be succinctly described that's the REAL cause of your hesitation. It's not your bias. It's a... thing... that just... feels like the thing that will... uhh... keep them from winning. Or something.
10
This is such a slanted piece. Not a single primary has taken place; the majority of the voters aren't interested yet and couldn't name five of the people running that crowded the debate stage.
But the right-wing Dems backing Biden have woken up and noticed what others already knew: he's a terrible candidate. Biden ran twice before & self-destructed - the Obama team called him the "gaffe-machine". He is too old, too sexist & too clueless-if-not-exactly-racist (Google the Popcorn/swimming pool speech.)
So the monied, business-as-usual Dems are panicking. Bernie or Warren may win. Gabbard or Buttigieg might become Vice-Pres. We might actually have an anti-war, anti-greed administration.
I have no worry at all about nominating Bernie or Warren - Democrats will win easily if and only if women, people of color & millennials turn out.
16
Some species eat their young but Democrats, it seems, regularly eat their leading candidates.
7
This is my joke. A Democrat is someone who nominates someone they hope a Republican will vote for. Except I'm not laughing.
4
Good Grief!!! Any of the Democratic candidates would be "Huge" improvement over what is currently in the White House. Get out and Vote Blue no matter who.
7
Al Gore. Then, at least, climate change would be addressed.
4
Just because the GOP found its Anti-Christ doesn't mean the Dems need a Messiah.
Trump is so far out in corruption and rot that nearly any of the candidates now (and I am including his supposed right center primary challengers) should be enough of a corrective.
I think we overestimate the Trump cult and underestimate how broadly fatigued this country is of this administration.
Four people pounding a table make a lot more noise than the four hundred shaking their heads and furrowing their brow.
3
Who are these party leaders that consider Biden credible? I haven't heard him complete a sentence without stumbling in the entire campaign. We love you Joe, but go play some golf or something! You've earned it! And whoever wins the nomination, please consider Stacey Abrams for VP. Clinton's mistake was demoting black voters from representation on the national ticket. They deserve better and must be in the #1 or 2 spot from here out. History does not go in reverse! Expectations have changed!
7
Biden, Warren, and Sanders are all pretty bad. Democrats are right to be worried.
Biden is old and tired.
Sanders is old and crazy.
Warren needs to weasel out of her Medicare mess. Otherwise she's toast.
OMG, what next? ...2016? Remember, the "Democrat", Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA. That made the rich a whole lot richer, and killed the jobs of 4 million formerly middle class working Americans. What is the difference between that and what the Republicans are doing to working people? The Dem. "establishment" should just join the Republican party where they belong.
6
Sherrod Brown. Brains, decency, pragmatism, social skills, and political smarts. He has it all, and could whip Trump.
3
I could do a better job than Trump (I'm not kidding).
1
This doesn't mention Bernie's campaign even once. The mainstream media plugging their ears and covering their eyes isn't going to change the fact that he's a front runner! Shame on you for trying to pretend Mayor Pete is more obvious choice than him.
12
@SM
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.
Talk about a glaring omission.
6
Here's a little factoid that the NYTimes should write about: If I was born in 1492 and made $5000 each day from then until today, I would still not have 1 billion dollars. Nobody needs this much money. Nobody deserves this much money. Americans are catching on to the fact that 3 billionaires have more money than half of their fellow citizens. Most of us who live in the real world are fed up with living paycheck to paycheck. We are terrified for our kids -- that they won't have a habitable planet, that they won't be able to afford to go to college or marry or have kids. Why would we want a candidate who thinks the Obama years were just peachy? Why would we want another billionaire president? Why would we want to relive the Clinton or Kerry campaigns? Our country is broken. Our system is rigged. We want RADICAL change, not a younger version of Biden. The donor class has owned our country for decades. They have destroyed our present and ruined our future. Time for them to share. Time for the Times to ignore them.
6
Another run for Clinton... or Obama... really? Is the Democratic establishment trying to make Fox News happy?
We've got plenty of choices already. We've got leftists (Sanders, Warren), Midwest centrists (Klobuchar, Buttigieg), cuckoos (Williamson), oldies (Biden) and young Turks (O'Rourke, Buttigieg, Gubbard). Let the people decide. At least 3 or 4 of them would make very good candidates.
11
Talk about a losing attitude. Anyone that wants to see Clinton run again is out of their minds.
12
Sherrod Brown, in a brokered convention
2
Printing a 1500+ word article on this topic with not one mention of Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign is absolutely shameful. While NYT and their correspondents have no obligation to support the campaign in any way, actively pretending that it does not exist is now damaging the valuable institution's credibility on a regular basis.
7
Bernie just had the biggest fundraising quarter ($25.3 million from 1.4 million donations according to the NYT) of the primary, the largest rally (approx 26,000 people according to Politico, Democracy Now, and Time), and received endorsements form AOC and Ilhan Omar.
Yet his name was not even mentioned (even to say that he had a heart attack). Can someone please explain this?
13
@JT
I think the explanation is this:
The New York Times *is* the establishment.
8
You have got to be kidding me. There are some wonderful candidates this year, 3 I would be happy to see in office. With headlines like this, democrats look weak and self-doubting. Please stop indulging in your worst side and step up to lead. Signed, an independent who just registered dem to vote for Pete.
3
Dear 'The Establishment',
Slow your roll. You blew the last election. How about you let this one play out and you sit on the sidelines? We, the electorate, can figure this out and we don't really need you.
Thanks
S.
12
Perhaps if they would quit obsessing about the top 3, who the media focuses on, and look to others already in the race (like Klobuchar), they wouldn't have to go on a mission to find someone else. And Hillary Clinton? Oh my, didn't we learn our lesson the last time??
Hillary Clinton? Mike Bloomberg? John Kerry??? The nervous nellies of the Democratic establishment need to let Democratic voters decide! The establishment isn't particularly good at picking winning candidates.
4
This white male does not want a white knight!
The “Democratic Establishment” didn’t want Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama. Outsiders with new ideas are the only candidates who win.
3
Not a mention in this article of Bernie Sanders in the current race (and only mentioned near the very end in regards to the 2016 race). How incredibly pathetic. Sanders has the largest Democratic war chest and a definite force in this race. Yet this journalist again has the blinders on and can only focus on the establishment. How myopic.
7
Al Franken for President in 2020
See how easy that is,,,?
2
Good heavens. Some 26 grafs, discussing everybody from Bentsen to Bloomberg, and it takes until graf 25 to so much as mention Bernie Sanders, the *only* Democratic candidate polling ahead of Trump in Ohio? Either Dem elites are willfully blind, or this Times correspondent is. Likely both.
5
The more Biden sputters and fails, the more Clinton/Harris bumperstickers and yard signs are being readied.
FFS. There are so many great candidates already in the race; the hardest decision for most of us is who to support. (Not that those of us in NY actually get to make that decision due to the staggered voting.) This may be the NYT's idea of a news story, but it perpetuates a right-wing talking point - that the Dems are a bunch of losers. I disagree. Just about any one of the top ten Dems can and should beat Trump, in debates, in policy, and at the polls.
2
So, playing identity politics has finally caught up to the Democrats just as they were warned it would. You cant keep dividing the American population in to segmented groups for long or you lose enough votes to have change ability.
By the way this impeachment garbage has turned a lot of my liberal friends to the other side of the isle as well. I realize a lot of people here do not like Trump but believe me as much as you despise him there is an equal and opposite amount of despise for the progressive agenda.
Try running a candidate that is a middle of the road liberal, or even a right leaning liberal and that person would take all of Trumps votes but the DNC doesn't seem to understand this. This is so funny it hurts. Trump was right about one thing. I am sick of winning but it's not nec. Trump that is winning rather the Dems losing.
How'd that Hillary Clinton work out for ya last time "big democratic donors"?
Just fall in line with whoever wins the primary. That's how you win elections. If anyone is concerned about "electability" then they obviously haven't been paying attention to the fact that we currently have a demented baby as a president who just repeats the last thing anyone says to him.
9
Elizabeth Warren taps Michael Bloomberg for VP - home free.
1
Ambivalence? Trump just gave Syria to Putin and topped the cherry on impeachable acts and this is the rabbit hole you expect me to jump down? The worried establishment? The fretting sweaty few? What’s wrong with Warren again? Oh yeah she wants me to have healthcare instead another F fighter under my Christmas tree. How awful! However will we pay for that? The other party rips us off for zillions with a bogus tax cut but how will we pay for good health? Oh dear!
5
Every once in a while the players open their kimonos, a peek. Thus we have the person who purports to represent the interests of America's teachers (and parents, and kiddies), saying this: “For as long as I have been in politics, I’ve heard Democrats fretting about their presidential contenders,” said Ms. Weingarten.
Says it all. Teachers (who are not all progressive Democrats) should think about that next time they peruse their pay stub and note their involuntary contribution to the union. It's politics, baby! Shut up and do whatever you do in those things called "classrooms."
1
Hey Richard. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Membership in a public sector union is voluntary for the record
ANDREW CUOMO ANDREW CUOMO!!!
Tough, dogged by persistent charges of corruption. Armed with Trump’s tax returns. Ready to take aim and fire. Love him, hate him He’s the right man for the job.
1
I like Amy Klobuchar. She'd generate lots of excitement if her hair was dyed blond. Blondes have more fun.
Were it not for the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Barack Obama would be the obvious choice.
@Hank
Save Obama for 2024, when 45 claims that amendement doesn’t apply to him.
Are they trying to get me to vote for Trump?
1
Let me make sure that I understand.
You seem to be saying that even though we have a mad man for a president who is intent on making our foreign policy the policy dictated to Him by Putin himself, who humiliates the USA and diminishes and cheapens us to the world, that somehow none of the Democratic candidates are good enough against this man, who is unable to consider detail or express an iota of empathy towards anyone, and has zero knowledge of the USA Constitution and dismisses it as phony.
We could easily place a turnip at the resolute desk and have as much intellect in the White House as we do now.
And, none of the democratic candidates in your eyes is good enough.
Give us a brake already.
3
“Everybody needs to calm down, it’s early. It’s so early.”
1
The civil war in the Democratic Party will cause Michelle Obama to throw her hat in the ring, heal our party, become our nominee and then our president. A second term for Trump is absolutely abhorrent to the Obamas.
1
@Doug
i like michelle but i would rather see her as the vp nominee with sherrod brown at the top of the ticket......i think this would be a strong entry and a WINNER
1
This is ridiculous. We have an embarrassment of good candidates who would use government properly and run things with intelligence, compassion and toughness (when needed).
Whining about why we don't have some guy riding in on a white horse, looking like a movie hero and sounding like the voice of god, is just plain childish. That's not how the world works.
3
Well, no better way to highlight the out-of-touch establishment —including NYT— that Sanders, who has been clearly on the top three for months, is not even mentioned ONCE in this piece. He is thought of as so inconceivable a candidate, so alien to their world view, that they don’t even have him on the radar
5
General Mattis could beat Trump.
1
The suggestion that Hillary Clinton should run is repulsive and insulting. She is like Donald Trump in this: she has no shame.
6
You're edging into troll territory, Jonathan, and I was wondering whose PR person pitched this idea to you, although given the , well, centrism of the political staff at the Times, maybe not. If you have problems with Elizabeth Warren, say so, although I get your reluctance in view of what the political press did to the woman running for President in 2016. That cannot happen again.
1
With all respect, Secretary Clinton:
Go away.
3
Oprah! Are you reading this?!?
Please consider running. Save our country!
None of the current candidates can beat Trump and his well-greased, Russian-backed campaign machine.
Jonathan.... If you cannot contriute positively or to the benefit of the whole, best to keep quiet - maybe make a career change.
My advice to the Democratic Party Establishment:
Shut up and listen to your Constituents. They know better than you whom they want to elect. So, Be Good and stop wringing your hands!
3
Bloomberg yes.
Clinton no.
OMG!
The hand wringing by the scaredy cat rich elites is nauseating.
Forget their concerns. Forget about their deep pockets. It’s what got us into this mess in the first place.
The people have the power.
For me, it’s Warren/Buttigieg. Easy, Peasy.
But whoever gets the nomination, and I mean whoever, has my vote to get that lying, corrupted, careless, thoughtless, uneducated, inconsiderate, bullying tool out of the Oval Office.
3
How about Jose Franco? The absence of sensible political representation has clouded the American dream by Democrat extremists. As a result, we now have an underwhelming being occupying the White House. Ideally, the President of the United States is cast in the role of subordinate agent, seeking in “good faith” to carry out the instructions of the lawmakers for the people, who is understood to be the principal. Instead, we’re harshly and repeatedly reminded we’re not all equal. Access to most opportunities are subsidized by access to wealth. Unequal results of human achievement conjure up simplistic notions of injustice, akin to a Trump discourse at one of his political rallies. Trump fails to encourage an American society in which the dignity of each person - not one’s station, or employment, or the accumulation of goods - is the prime consideration, equality of opportunity can exist. Regardless, individuals most often learn these harsh economic truths through self discovery in the pursuit of relative financial sustainability. Unfortunately, prior to self discovery, human impulse is generally towards equality or generosity. Our political lives would benefit if voters had a greater awareness of the critical economic paradoxes that underpin our society. Our goal shouldn’t be perfection, we should strive to do the greatest good through the most pardonable inconveniences. Download my free e-book http://stoopjuice.com/how-to-get-better-by-2020.pdf
If Joe Kennedy has the nerve and the fire call him up.
Gavin Newsom, Gov CA, would make mince meat of 'liddle lyin' Donny'. Gabby's got it all. Everyone else seems a bit desperate and the party needs a face on it and needs it soon.
That these people even consider Michelle Obama as an "established" Democratic politician says all I need to hear & py attention to from them. Get real.
Thank you New York Times. Keep up the good work. Those pails the GOP are having you tote must be heavy.
1
The Russians, the Russians! Day and night for three whole years has made me jumpy. The Clintons should be charged with sedition and exiled to an island off the coast of Canada.
Why does the media indulge them?
Sherrod Brown??
He was accused of domestic violence and had a restraining order placed against him.
However, this was in the late '80's. So it doesn't "count"
Unless, of course, your name is Kavanaugh and you're a Republican...THEN it 'matters"
1
Reading what these people are saying & possibly conniving to do reminds me why I have resisted ever joining the Democratic party, despite consistently voting for and even donating to Democratic candidates at all levels. The self-entitlement and "insider presumption of ownership" I read here is reminding me of the extremely high levels of disgust that the shenanigans of Wasserman-Schultz's DNC and the "Hillary Victory Fund" in 2015 conspired to lock anyone else but HRC out of getting the nomination -- including Joe Biden, who probably would have won if HRC had locked out all the funds from anyone else -- because (and they actually SAID this as a slogan!) it was "her turn."
I have little desire to ever support Tulsi Gabbard, except as a last resort, but her comments about what went down in 2015 are one of the few things she says that ring true for me.
I'm not a Bernie supporter either, but I applaud that he got the rules changed in 2016-7 so these "superdelegate" types would not hijack the popular will, again. Now if they would just SHUT UP as well, and, you know, maybe give real *democracy* a whirl again, after that disastrous 2015 turn towards rigging the outcome in advance?
1
Many people I have spoken to about the last debates were energized by what they saw in our candidates.
I've come to the conclusion that it is a good thing we have so many debates as candidates with new approaches and refreshing ideas are coming to the fore. As a few commentators from the NYTimes have said, Pete Buttlgieg and Amy Klobachar
were stand-outs in the debate.
These past awful and anxiety-producing years with unstable Trump have been insane. Pete Buttigieg pointed out in the debate that, if we think things are tough now, we need to get ready for the time that follows Trump's presidency, as this will be an equally difficult time. I believe he is correct. I believe the press needs to listen to the people and stop thinking that you, personally, have all the answers; we have good candidates to choose from: Wise, focused and caring candidates. Let's not screw this up, Dems, by fussing too much that there is no one perfect.
2
Sherrod Brown!
1
Is there anything Democrats can't screw up?
This is the kind of thing that happens when candidates turn on each other for a "sound bite".
Amy Klobuchar provided two commercials for the GOP and Mr. Buttigieg provided one in the last debate and, of course, they got a bump (those attacks only CONFUSE the electorate and are, ultimately, disingenuous, as NO-ONE know how the details of their plans will work out).
The candidates are not the issue, they are all (well, almost all) qualified for the job; it is the fragmentation of the party itself that is the problem.
And, it is a false divide, as, no matter which of these Democrats are elected, we will get approximately the same outcomes.
These candidates aren't really that far apart on issues and they WILL have to work with a certain amount of GOP senators so stuff like Medicare For All ain't happening anytime too soon anyway...
A GUARANTEED way to lose the race is adding to the confusion with NEW CANDIDATES!
OMG how stupid that would be.
I hoped for Sherrod Brown as well. I think Michael Bennet would be great, but he doesn't have name recognition or ability to excite and rally, evidently.
The only criterion for a Democratic candidate is who can best beat Trump. I think moderates have the best chance, but others disagree, obviously. Endless debates over Medicare for all distract. Unless we win, we lose our democracy. I am not being overwrought or exaggerating for effect here.
3
"While much of the daydreaming about a last-minute entry comes from pro-business Democrats, it is not confined to the wealthy."
No, but it's not hard to see or understand why the concern is dominated by the wealthy. And there's never a shortage of political operators who will be concerned whenever the wealthy are not placated. (Where will we get our money?) Their mere existence, without naming any names, doesn't change the fact that this is a panic of the rich and well-connected.
Expect a full court press in the media to stop Warren, in favor of any no-nothing "moderate" candidate promising to fill out Biden's faltering empty-suit candidacy. They are even willing to consider an "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking" gay guy.
There's no cause for average voters to fear a Warren Presidency even if they disagree with some of her proposals, since those must pass through a Democratic Congress still representing diverse interests. But a Warren Presidency would be a world of hurt for the cozy Washington-Wall Street insiders game that plays, out of sight, on the field of executive orders and administrative regulatory interpretation and enforcement of laws. There, without need to pass legislation, Elizabeth Warren's agenda, appointments and, well, integrity would reign supreme. Which, after Trump's reign of corruption has decimated our executive agencies, turns out to be a fine reason to vote for her, even if one doubts most of her proposals will ever pass into law.
6
As far as I can tell here in Chicago, especially standing with her and the teachers union today, Elizabeth Warren is our dream candidate. On the ground, I'm not hearing these concerns from regular, working class people...we are thrilled to have her
5
Consider how many different speechwriting teams Clinton had going during the 2016 campaign. Clinton went from message to message, policy book to policy book, never settling on a coherent, easily understood rationale. That was one of the reasons election victory slipped away. And unless the Democrats settle down and come up with a solid cohesive way of talking (other than "I have a plan")-- and unless the candidates quite taking clever little shots at each other -- we'll see a repeat of 2016.
1
Sometimes if feels like we have three parties: far-right Republicans, Moderate/Centrist, and Progressives. The left is going to start losing moderate voters if they keep demanding that all democrats across the spectrum fall in line and vote for the anointed candidate like the Republicans do.
3
The worst enemy of the Democrats is the Democratic party establishment. If Hillary Clinton couldn't beat Trump in 2016 she will not beat a President who will use any means, regardless of legality, to become an absolute monarch. Her unsubstantiated attack on Tulsi Gabbard shows why the former Secretary of State is dangerous to the party's health.
The only one named here, besides Michelle Obama, who has chance against Trump, is Sherrod Brown because he could attract not only old line Democrats but independents and young voters. All others, even Bloomberg, have the Biden problem (not money but being out of touch with modern America). But Senator Brown, as progressive as anyone in the race, would have to agree to some form of Medicare for All to get support from Warren and Sanders backers.
I doubt that it escaped Brown that Sanders was correct is saying that GM, as a cudgel against striking workers, tried to remove their health care.
2
I watched the last debate and not once did I think that what was missing was more candidates. Save Bloomberg, Obama or Oprah, any other entry would just be more of the same.
Here's what the field needs. It needs a more honest, open-minded and critical media. A media that would acknowledge the limited appeal of candidates like Castro and Gabbard. A media that would acknowledge that Biden's can't put a coherent sentence together (rather than focus on some position he took 40 years ago). A media that would challenge even one of Warren's famed plans (a few of which have gone unquestioned by the media only to crumble in seconds when scrutinized by opponents during the last debate). A media that is willing to stray from a narrative if the facts indicated something different (there is no reason to continue to print that Buttegieg doesn't appeal to non-white voters unless you're going to print the policies or beliefs that support this).
5
Obama was NOT the Democratic Party establishment's first choice - let us not forget that. It has been apparent for years that democracy is not valued by party regulars, but they are oblivious to the fact that their anointed presidential candidates often don't have legs.
In the last election Hillary Clinton was the chosen nominee put in place (at least in part) by some seriously non-democratic maneuvers. It was not a shock to me that many people were turned off by this heavy-handed approach.
DP Establishment PLEASE let the primaries and the election run their course. A win can't be guaranteed, but the alternative is another replay of the myth of Oedipus: in a frenzied attempt to avert a particular outcome, it's guaranteed to occur.
2
It’s a pretty sad assortment of Democratic candidates, but solid gold compared to Trump.
1
The Democratic establishment handed us Hillary Clinton and put every obstacle in the way for me to choose someone other than her or Bernie. She was cold in almost a robotic way, an elitist, and ran one of the lousiest campaigns in my memory. When she used the word "deplorables," I knew she had lost her minuscule lead.
Now, these same establishment types want to force more candidates on us, just as we are getting to know the current crop. I'm happy with Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bennet, and Booker.
There's a reason why I became an independent after the last election.
2
Why not allow Marianne Williamson onto the debate stage? Her followers are not only Democrats, which may be why she has not reached the poling requirements for Democrats. Her campaign is gathering momentum.
1
We already have a winning progressive candidate in the race - Tulsi Gabbard - who gets a lot of love from the Republican party and Fox News, but zero respect from her own party and liberal news outlets. If the Democrats ONE goal is to "Beat Trump" and have a progressive plan forward then choose the candidate that Trump Supporters and Republicans can get behind; whom also aligns with Andrew Yang's and Bernie Sanders' policies and who stuck up for Sanders in 2016. We need to choose someone that can't be labeled as corrupt or a corporate shill and can get the support of all Americans to beat Trump & move the country forward in a progressive and positive way.
1
It’s obvious that the energy among the voters is with the progressives, Warren and Bernie. It’s time for Big Business to stop exerting so much influence. We need major change in this country and not some moderate already beaten candidate. The time for moderation is over. We have huge disparity between the haves and have nots, a criminal in the White House, and our planet in crisis. Let’s get real people!
8