The country is at the crossroads and what is needed is someone who’s competent, ethical, moral and has the force of conviction to restructure the country. We’ve had about over 20 candidates with all types of backgrounds and ideas , and little by little the number is dwindling as expected. Being smart or a woman or a guy or a person of color or, or.... is not enough, if you don’t have a plan for action: jobs, fair wages, healthcare are just three issues that need emergency attention. The candidate has to be able to communicate and address the existential experiences the country is going through.
Regrettably, money in politics has corrupted the system, as Bloomberg demonstrates. Neither Sheldon Adelson nor Putin should be the deciders of our leader
16
Cory Booker has come highly recommended to me by a relative in Iowa. But his argument that the Democratic primary may have no one left of color leaves me cold. Why should the color of your skin, or mine, or your gender, or mine, or any other ethnographic "divider" matter? Martin Luther King Jr's wonderful I Have A Dream speech talked about judging people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their characters.
22
"Democrats Ask: Do We Really Want an All-White Final Four?" Do you not realize what a racist statement that is? It suggests that we may not want the best qualified Democratic presidential candidates, which is racially neutral; it's that we want the best racially diverse qualified Democratic presidential candidates, which suggests a racial thumb be put on the scale of candidates to ensure diversity. Diversity is an important goal in many opportunities, such as who gets into which school, but it should play no part in selecting a presidential candidate. The voters should choose the best candidate regardless of race.
8
Joe Biden has earned the votes of many blacks through the decades. All Democrats want to beat Trump.
We need candidates who are going to add to Biden's strengths. Amy Klobuchar has proved she can win in communities that voted for Trump and we need them to win.
4
Outside of Mayor Pete, the panel will be old, white and wealthy. When did the Dems become the Republicans?
3
It want anyone who can beat Trump. Period. It doesn't matter what ethnicity, gender, whether the chosen one is gay or straight. Defeating our current president is the only thing that should matter. We are standing on a precipice. If he wins again, we'll all fall into a deep, dark chasm.
4
There are multiple reasons why a candidate doesn't make it to the finish line but at the end of the day it is the candidate and how he/she is received by voters. The fact is neither Harris or Booker have appealed to black voters. Their failure to garner real support from black voters can't be blamed on lack of money sexism or racism. They simply did not excite voters.
6
While the majority of us do most certainly wish to believe in Martin Luther King's statement that we should all be judged by our character and not by the color of our skin, America has thus far proven to her citizens that being straight, Christian, white, and male means far more than anything else. That same demographic is responsible for the theft of $13 trillion dollars from the middle class, given to the top 1% (again -- white males), they are responsible for the 100 years that America has been at war destabilizing other nations. We reap what we sow. Vote at your peril for yet another white male.
1
The Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed of a day when people would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Senator Booker’s crass self-interest in playing the race card does not at all suggest he is amongst the top 4 best candidates.
5
So Asians are officially booted from the POC camp. Thank you, NYT.
5
Mr. Booker, whom I admire greatly, bemoans that Ms. Harris dropped out because she did not have the Iowa voters voice.
Not so. She simply did not have the support, financial and otherwise, to propel her into the top tier of candidates.
The article goes on to say:
“When people make the case that the standards and requirements should be lowered so that candidates of color can make the debate, as a Latina, I find that insulting,” said Maria Cardona, a former D.N.C. official. “The reason why the candidates right now are the ones at the top of the polls are because these are the candidates who are getting the majority of support from, guess who, voters of color.”
Q.E.D.
4
I am more concerned about the balance between female and male, regardless of their race or ethnicity. Here's why:
As of July 2019, the breakdown of the Democratic Presidential candidates field was:
White Male: 60%
White Female: 18%
African Amer Male: 10%
African Amer Female: 4%
Latino Male: 4%
Asian Amer Male: 4%
African Americans of both genders comprise about 13% of the U.S. population. Latino Americans of both genders comprise about 18%. Asian Americans comprise about 7%.
Women comprise 51% of the U.S. population. Men comprise 49% of the U.S. population.
Thus, the Democratic field in July represented the same percentage of African Americans of both genders as exists in the total population. Latino and Asian Americans were under-represented. However, the group that was the most under-represented was women!
On the debate state this month will be a whittled-down number of six: four white men and two white women
So despite the absence of any racial or ethnic minority candidates, the imbalance between women and men in the next debate is the starkest in my view. But it is better than it has been in the past.
On a personal note, I am delighted that Senator Amy Klobuchar has qualified; she is my favorite and she continues to emerge in this crowded field as a solid, experienced, upbeat and gritty Midwestern moderate who actually gets things done.
We will see what shakes out going forward.
1
It looks to me the Problem is $$$. Most of the candidates who dropped out was because they were not able to raise Money to continue. If I remember correctly a couple of months ago Sen. Booker was on the ropes cause he need fund to qualify for a debate. It's not going to help this cycle but we Must take money out of the System. If not we will see more like Steyer and Bloomberg in the future, The Conventions became too much of smokey back room deals, so Primaries were born. It Time to get money out of the equation.
3
Many thoughtful comments here. It seems the system winnows out those candidates whose skills and experience are not fully developed yet, and they are left behind by a chaotic but basically fair system. We want a longer track record and more experience in the candidate who must banish Trump. Many of those falling behind have several more election cycles to hone their strategies. They will be back, if they persist, and I look forward to seeing their reappearance.
1
The whitesplaining taking place in this comments thread isn't surprising. But it's disappointing. It's also disappointing that the Times Picks all seem to be variations on the theme of erasing the significance of a candidate's identity as a factor in their ability to represent us as a nation.
Booker isn't claiming that race is "enough" to make him a leader. But to talk down to a brilliantly qualified candidate like Booker and tell him he's had "equality of opportunity" and therefore the current "outcome" is due to him being a lower achiever is more than outrageous. There is no "equality of opportunity" in this country yet, for people of color, for people with lower socioeconomic status, for immigrants, for those crushed by student loans, and on and on. THAT is the point. And someone like Booker or Castro adds value by having the true lived perspective of it, which would inform their every action as president.
What's more, please listen to what Booker is actually saying: he isn't claiming that his lack of traction right now is due to his race. He's telling the truth: money is what buys ads at this stage in the campaign, and the presence of unqualified billionaires taking up airtime and media attention edges out more capable candidates like him.
Most people, particularly young people, aren't even paying attention at this stage in the race. We can't afford to lose Booker's candidacy now, when he's so clearly our best viable centrist option.
Rather than lamenting the possibility of an all-white December debate, Democrats should be rightfully proud of what the party has achieved. The diversity of candidates offered to the electorate is precisely representative not only of the country at large but also of a bedrock principle of democracy: No one should be denied opportunity to achieve any position because of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or ethnicity, nor should they be assured of that position on the basis of any of these these.
15
Perhaps Democrats should value not skin color but candidate's mental coherence and content of character. They need a dream.
4
At this point, gender and race feel like a distant second to talent, intellect, morals, and ability to win the election. Saving the country from a second Trump term is crucial.
4
Let’s do what Obama did: win, and then bring in an administration that’s a dream come true for diversity-and-inclusion (D&I) advocates, like me, of every stripe.
Bloomberg did that in New York City, by the way (and let’s let the stop-and-frisk policy horror, for which he was rightfully shamed, drop, now that he has apologized).
Check Bloomberg’s D&I record, and let’s see that published.
2
Let me state as a person of color that this unabashed identity politics sickens me. Cory, you can't have it both ways: insist upon the equality fought for by MLK and others, yet militate for special treatment exactly because of that color. It should be beneath the dignity of a person of color to recruit on the basis of that alone. Waggin' my head.
5
Two women (one in her 70s) a Jew, a gay dude and a Catholic are not an “all white lineup” like the context applies. With the exception of Kennedy (we all know how that ended) Joe Biden is the only one of his category that has ever been elected president. There skin might be white but they aren’t “white” in this context which refers to the White Anglo Saxon Protestant male that has always been in the traditional seat of power in this country.
2
Also stop pretending this is a white conspiracy. Minorities have just as much say in not supporting candidates of color who just so happened to be bad candidates. Hmm maybe Americans vote for the best candidate not just their skin color....
3
The intimation that race excluded woman and candidates of color from the "final four" does not resonate with me. Yes, I certainly voted for President Obama because I viewed him as the best "person" for the job. Initially, I contributed to Senator Harris's campaign until she elucidated her position on "Medicare for All" - which I am strongly against. Yes, I am a life-long Democrat white male, who judges candidates on their character and positions; not on their color or gender. And yes, I reject the proposition that I have infected by some sort of - albeit supposedly conditioned - unconscious racism. Let the best woman or man win. P.S., like Robert Kennedy, I think Senator Harris would make a tremendous United States Attorney General.
2
"Risks presenting an all-white lineup"? While the Republican lineup is... Trump and Trump. Look at the polls and keep the possibles. I am down to Biden, Sanders, Warren. The DNC thinks too slowly.
2
What a shame that color is a criteria for electing someone for the most important office in the world. The same can be said regarding gender.
In the last election Trump was elected because enough people wanted someone different, to "drain the swamp". Look where it got us.
The only criteria, in this particular election, is to get rid of this aberration currently in the White House.
3
Ethical principles and the integrity accompanying them are absent in nearly every professional politician I hear. Compromise for self service is the theme not trumpeted.
As for the leftist, that crowd is nothing but evil. Moral perversion, national subservience, and the acquisition of personal power drives that lot.
If you like Pelosi, move to her district as I hear there's a program to give you a free tent. Watch your step though.
1
ha! you are joking. Right?
1
Most Americans do not remember - or do not know - that in 1974 then-President Ford signed a law (the Federal Election Campaign Act) limiting both contributions to and expenditures by candidates for federal office. It also limited so-called independent expenditures and the amount of money a candidate personally could spend on his or her own campaign. In late 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (Buckley v Valeo) in favor of limiting individual contributions - and we still have limitations today - but said that restricting a federal candidate's expenditures, limiting independent expenditures, and capping what a candidate may invest in his or her own campaign are violations of the First Amendment right to free speech.
I bring this up because, despite some Democratic Presidential candidates' protests, our system of financing campaigns is a result of this 1975 ruling and subsequent decisions affirming the basic premise. Given the current and likely future makeup of the Supreme Court, the role of big money in campaigns is not likely to be curtailed. Our only recourse, as the saying goes, is "If you can't change their minds, change their faces." One more reason to vote next November.
1
Two related points. First, we should be aiming at equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. That is how things work in the real world.
Second, and more importantly, we need to get past the idea that a candidate's race, sexual orientation, or dietary choices have any real correlation with what he or she will do for us. It is quite possible that the candidate who will do the most for Black voters may be white. It is equally possible that the candidate who will do the most for white voters may be black. We need to be working towards MLK's ideal of judging a person by the color of his character, not the color of his skin
28
Given that the overwhelming number of candidate who have already dropped out are white, is this really a thing? Statistically speaking, non-whites constituted 21.4% of the entire 28 candidates who entered the race. Of the 13 who have dropped out, only 15.4% are non-white. and of the 15 remaining in the race, non-whites constitute 26.6%. In other words, their proportion of the overall circus has actually risen. What's the crisis?
3
The candidate with the plan and budget that appeals to the most Americans, an honest person, deserves to win.
Martin Luther King said people should "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Booker, Harris, Castro, of good character, offered no substantive plans for their presidency. Yang offered a "money giveaway" plan, but that's it.
Projected voters in 2020 will be 12.5% African American, 13.3% Latino, 4.7% Asian, and 66.7% of white. (Pew Research)
Candidates must appeal to all these demographic groups.
The top 4 offer plans of income redistribution, higher wages, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, better K-12 education, child care and green industry.
These ideas apply to all Americans, which is why the top 4 are on top. Ideas, actions, honesty count the very most.
4
Nonwhite people are just as power-hungry as white people, and they are taking every opportunity to assert that power in the context of this election. That there are no persons of color at the top of any of the tickets is because none of them were good enough to make it there, and it had nothing to do with the skin color. Always with these people it’s them saying they made it by virtue of their work, but when they don’t it’s because of their skin color. 
5
Depends on if you see Jews as white or not. In this case Jews are white. When Jews are the target of the right they are not. This whole conversation is really tone deaf.
Also Sanders is second only to Lieberman in closest a Jew has gotten to the white house.
4
Harris qualified. So as long as it is not clear from polls where her voters have gone she should have some say in who should replace her in the debate.
My choice for the nominee of the Democratic Party for President would be multi-racial (sort of cream colored with Asian eyes but a Native American nose). Under 60 preferred.
She would be trans gender. She would be single but date a variety of people with no particular preferences - just enjoys likable, smart and kind people.
Her parents would be Jewish and Muslim - having met during the 6 Day War. But she eschewed established religion later in life to join the Church of Bacon (it exists). She continues to enjoy Middle Eastern food of all types.
In lieu of that candidate, I will vote for anyone who has the chops and the support to remove Trump from office. The debate over diversity would have extreme merit in another time. Not now. Get focused, people!
Some version of the above or an old white guy. Whoever has the best chance. Nothing else really matters at all. The existential ("word of the year"!) future of the planet is at stake. Once the mad king is gone we can go back to important discussions of social justice and how we should love diversity.
7
It's a primary. The candidates with the most support advance- those with less drop out. The Democrats seem to oppose democracy. Just re-write the rules and say only people of color can run for Democratic office. Until such a racist policy is enacted people need to stop complaining.
3
Who gets called by pollsters? I have contacted 56 adult family members and friends from various States and cities. All have cell phones and many also have landline. Not one has been contacted by a pollster in this year and every one, all 56, said they have never been called by a pollster. I was contacted once by a pollster during George W. Bush’s second run for President. I think the DNC rules to get on the stage are flawed and they should suspend with the polling requirements.
1
Who gets called by pollsters? I have contacted 56 adult family members and friends from various States and cities. All have cell phones and many also have landline. Not one has been contacted by a pollster in this year and every one, all 56, said they have never been called by a pollster. I was contacted once by a pollster during George W. Bush’s second run for President. I think the DNC rules to get on the stage are flawed and they should suspend with the polling requirements.
1
I was actually called one time in my life. I still had a land line then.
Bloomberg has moved from 3% to 6%, and climbing.
He contributed 1.2 bin to his alma mater for scholarships, funded climate and other social issues, including opioids, he contributed substantially to the success of 2018 including Va and Kentucky.
As a not perfect NYC mayor, he reduce crime, built infrastructure and under his guidance, the economy improved.
He can stand toe-to-toe with Trump.
Go Bloomberg!
5
Racism, classism, xenophobia and sexism matter, but the race, gender and ethnicity of a candidate should not. Too little identity politics in a diverse country like the US leads to racism, sexism, etc. Too much identity politics leads to India where nothing gets done efficiently except protests, perpetual victimhood, perpetual politicking, intimidation, thuggery, etc. America is a hundred times better in a more balanced identity politics debate than India.
1
Racism, classism, xenophobia and sexism matter, but the race, gender and ethnicity of a candidate should not. Too little identity politics in a diverse country like the US leads to racism, sexism, etc. Too much identity politics leads to India where nothing gets done efficiently except protests, perpetual victimhood, perpetual politicking, intimidation, thuggery, etc. America is a hundred times better in this front than India.
1
Polling seems to show that being a colored candidate doesn’t seem to help since Biden has the Black vote. But then that is polling, Blacks seem never to come out and vote when the Democrats need them.
Either you are color blind and it doesn’t matter or you look at a group and count up skin tones.
Can we just stop the reporting like this and just count individuals and ideas?
I stopped caring about the color of a person”s skin a long long time ago.
5
The idea that diverse voters have a preference for candidates who are racial or ethnic minorities over Whites is a pathetic, racist and insulting idea. Harris dropped out because people saw that she was a terrible candidate who only looked good by comparison to Donald Trump. Most of us minorities support Biden and voted for Obama twice because Biden is sensible and decent, Obama was decent, charismatic and the smartest president in 60 years. Their color could've been purple with green pokadots and those facts wouldn't change. After Trump we need someone who knows how a president should behave from day 1 and can start the job running, who does not embarrass our country every time he opens his mouth or tweets. Booker and Castro are whiny third-rate candidates who want affirmative action in politics. There's no affirmative action in politics. And oh yeah, most people who voted for Obama were White. Booker, Castro and all the other third rates should drop out now so primary voters can focus on the 3-4 who actually have a shot.
6
Since you ask, no, we don't want an All-White final four; we want a final four whose principle qualification is not skin color or gender.
These "appropriately" tinted candidates, along with a dozen or so of their white colleagues had no place on that stage in the first place. But, the Democrats, in their suicidal quest for transcendental rectitude have turned the process of selecting an adversary capable of defeating DT into a beauty contest of diversity and incompetence.
And before this fiasco is over, we all will be paying the price.
3
The headline is a very silly question. Sanders and Warren have worked harder than other candidates. Being a good speaker is huge for all politicians. I don't remember anything in particular that either condemned or promoted Booker. Certainly money has been an issue. Harris had her record as DA and AG to deal with. I didn't find her inspirational at all.
4
Maybe the ultimate nominee will not have participated in the debates at all. Bloomberg can buy all the publicity that has been showered on all the debate participants, like it or not. Deval Patrick has friends with a lot of money. They might give him enough resources to compete with Bloomberg when you factor in their records.
1
Racial diversity does matter. A lot. But why is LGBT diversity invisible? Isn’t it ironic and consequential that Mayor Pete is running for president in a country where he can be legally fired in many states? LGBT people are not full citizens in the US. Isn’t that an important point of the diversity debate?
2
How can anyone vote for any of these candidates? Maybe the Bidens didn't break the law but they clearly were cashing in on their influence when Hunter was paid by the Ukrainians and his company received 1.5 billion dollar investment from the Chinese. Not one of the candidates are jumping on this. They would not be silent if it was Trump. So outrage is purely political. No attacks on Warren for her American Indian claims and affirmative action. No one candidate says he or she will deport a single illegal immigrant ever. They are not for open borders but no one will get deported, especially not if they have a child or aged parent or spouse. Generally they want to take away my current health insurance and replace it with the same policy the homeless man on the corner has. They want to increase corporate taxes which will drive down the stock market and lower the value of every pension plan and 401k. New taxes will not be used to deal with the national debt but instead increase spending resulting in higher taxes and higher debt. They all want to grow the population of the USA to 400 million over the next 20 years. Trump is terrible. They are far worse. How can anyone vote for them?
We've already elected an African-American president ( twice) and have seen a female nominee for the White House.
Can we accept that we've made significant progress already and that right now, the most urgent task is to simply take back the White House, not focus on the racial ( or gender or any other physical attribute) of the "final four"?
4
Democrats not only have to win over the 12.5% of African American voters, the 13.3% of Latino voters, the 4.7% of Asian voters, they must also win over the 66.7% of white voters. (Pew Research)
Skin tone is not what garners votes and donations. Only universally supported ideas do that. Charisma helps.
Obama did not talk about skin tone or racial injustice, although he was well aware of it. He delivered a universal message of hope, which appealed to everyone, especially after the Great Recession.
The leading Democratic candidates offer healthcare, criminal justice reform, education and wealth redistribution programs. These ideas affect every ethnicity. They HAVE ideas and plans.
Bernie has the largest campaign fund of all, built on small donations from individuals. He has no Super Pacs.
Booker, Harris, Castro and Yang simply did not offer universally appealing programs to voters. In fact, aside from Yang's money giveaway, they offered none.
3
I like and certainly respect Mr. Booker. But this smacks of playing the, or a, race card to cloud the fact that his campaign has floundered--including, apparently, with regard to his appeal to people of color. Two other things I'd note: we had a black president for eight years. And blacks represent something like 13% of the US population, according to the latest US census. Juxtapose those two facts and at least some people might conclude that the whole notion of widespread racial bias when it comes to voters and voting is a tad overdone, as is the notion of underrepresentation of blacks at this stage of the electoral cycle.
4
I would love a diverse field. That said, I was interested early in Cory Booker. Because I was born in Newark, and grew up in NJ, I have long been aware of him and thought well of him. That said, I heard an interview he did on NPR a few months ago. He got a listener question about healthcare. In response, he rambled around talking about what he had done with "fair housing." When he actually got to healthcare, he said he had supported "several bills in the Senate including Medicare for all," but said nothing more about them. Then there were stock phrases "we have to bring down costs" and " we have to get more people access." In short, he offered nothing of substance. There was no passion or any one path. It seemed to me that he was trying to please everyone.
Since then I've seen clips of him talking about how its all about "love." Sorry, but while we do need to improve civility in this country, we need to solve problems. So, no, it's not just about being unfair to people of color or stacking the deck against them.
Is there unfairness built into the system? Yes. We can do more to help those with less access to money and/or influencers of all kinds. Other voices must be heard. Maybe the debate rules are unfair and need to be reconsidered. Still, candidates gain momentum and money largely based on what they offer or don't.
1
Why is Biden ahead? Black voters. Yes Cory Booker is bright, articulate, and likable. But his platform? His passion?
2
Are you kidding? The DNC needed to raise the bar a whole lot more months ago, so that huge crowd was narrowed down on stage. The fact there are no longer a representative of each and every minority group should not matter. What the candidate says and plans to is what counts. This is getting foolish, every litmus test.
6
Sometimes it is a real challenge to remain a Democrat.
It was a diverse field that began the race. It was a level playing field. The most qualified are still in the race. And it appears that some of the least qualified are sore losers. Next time: Learn and do better!
4
In 2016, many black voters and many young Sanders voters stayed home on election day. If they had voted, we would have avoided the current disaster in the White House. I think Senator Booker is concerned that the same scene will replay in 2020, and he is trying to alert the party to this possibility.
Many of us voted for Clinton, not with our hearts, but with our heads, realizing that pragmatism was necessary in the face of a candidate we knew to be unfit for the presidency.
It is understandable that inexperienced voters of color and younger voters may not realize that the perfect may be the enemy of the good.
We may not like identity politics, and we cannot deny that it is a factor in politics today, especially under the cynical current administration run by right-wing media.
Mr. Booker is telling us he is still in the race. His resume, temperament, policies, character, and personality are commendable. He would be an asset on the 2020 ticket, probably as vice president and heir apparent in 2024 or 2028. I am an older white voter and have supported him from the beginning of his campaign. I would be proud to have him represent and lead us.
2
@EB
If these past four years of Trump do not motivate the Blacks and young people to vote in 2020, then they will deserve another Trump term.
2
What “unfair standard” was Kamala Harris held to? Coherence?
8
So, what - we’re supposed to vote for him ‘cause he’s black? A self-proclaimed token? Booker’s a smart guy, surprised he’s going that route. Desperate times, I guess.
4
I don't care if the Democratic ticket is two whites, two blacks, or one of each. It just needs to be a ticket that will beat Trump.
Nothing else matters.
6
This is the first thing that I clearly don't like out of the mouth of Cory Booker. I have no consideration nor do I care if the Democratic nominee is black, white, brown or purple. I care if he or she can unite this country enough to remove the corrupt lying criminal that is in the white house currently. I care that their ideas are reasoned, that he or she uses facts, logic, science and a host of other attributes absolutely none of which the "president" today has or uses. I care that they are not petty, childish, peevish, deceitful and utterly classless like the current president is. Let me repeat Cory Booker, I don't care what race they are.
5
Arguing against a candidate because they are an old white male is ageist, racist, and sexist. The Democratic Party can’t rail against discrimination while so aggressively practicing it while being understood by voters to be anything but hypocritical and pandering.
Perhaps failing candidates should look at their proposals and selves before insulting voters.
5
Skin tone is not preventing the disgruntled candidates of color are from debating in December. It's because their principal ideas, flaws, or personalities failed them.
Booker and Harris carried a message directed at the 12.4% of projected African American voters in 2020 (Pew).
Booker lives in a poor neighborhood. Kamala grew up coffee-colored. These facts are not qualifiers for President. Neither emphaized programs that would serve all Americans.
Obama never mentioned skin tone...one could see his. His message was universal--of hope--and his programs were for all.
Being Latino, Castro targets the 13.3% of projected Latino voters in 2020. He never offered any programs.
Then there are the 66.7% of white voters to persuade. The leading candidates offer healthcare, criminal justice reform, education and wealth redistribution. These ideas affect every ethnicity. They HAVE programs.
Bernie's got the largest campaign fund, built from small individual contributions and no Super Pacs.
It's not skin tone that attracts votes and donations. It's ideas. Those of Booker, Harris, Castro, Gabbard and Yang weren't compelling.
1
I am really getting annoyed at folks who claim there is a lack of diversity in the top tier. President Warren would be the first woman president. President Sanders would be the first Jewish president. President Buttigieg would be the first gay president. And President Biden would be, I believe, only the second catholic president. Do these “firsts” and “seconds” not matter?
3
There's only one color I'm interested in: The one that can beat Trump.
3
The obvious answer is a race, gender and sexual orientation quota. You would just have to limit the gender identity category somewhat because of space limitations on the stage.
1
Enough with the forced diversity fetish. We should strive mightily to be the absolutely best place to live, work, and play. Diversity should happen on its own as bright people pursue opportunities.
Don’t care what color or orientation or height or gender you are. The only questions are:
- will you fight government corruption
- will you make universal healthcare and climate top priorities
- will you fight the corporations and billionaires
- will you are you a true patriot with FDR values
- are you uncorrupted and incorruptible (not perfect, just not a sociopathic criminal)
- are you authentic, consistent, clear, tough, fast thinking and mentally sharp
- do you understand how to beat down sociopaths like Trump and McConnell
- and do you have a progressive pro-worker pro-middle class pro-consumer outlook? Are you going tonight modernize America’s public services, parks, social, business, environmental and engineering infrastructure?
2
Perhaps Mr. Booker would prefer it if we set up a quota system for our nominations? CB is one of my favorite choices in this crowded
field. That said, I’ll vote for whomever we nominate to defeat the pathetic pretend King we’re stuck with today.
Dump the Electoral College!
1
the epitome of racism is the person/people who constantly rely on race as a determining factor in their actions, opinions, words, and claims.
Consider who in our times is always talking about race and how one race is "bad" and to blame for all their perceived evils and harms.
Fact of the matter is that Black and Brown people have not been impressed enough with the current Black and Brown candidates. At least not impressed enough to open their own wallets to support them.
These Black and Brown candidates were crowing about how the Democratic Party rules for the debates would propel them to the nomination. Until Americans of with their own skin color refused to support them enough....now they blame those very same rules.
They are now demanding yet another rule change because it is too hard for them to compete using the old rules.
sound like a familiar refrain? it should It is the call of the Culture of Victimhood. Those adherents keep demanding the rules change instead of rising to the challenge of the very same rules everyone else has to live by.
Who is the racist in these situations? the person who constantly claims the rules are too hard for them or the people who live and succeed by the those rules?
who is the racist? the person always complaining things are too tough for them or those who live by the rules and succeed?
do we really need to allow the Culture of Victimhood to continue and to grow? or do we need to squash this childish behavior once and for all?
2
As a fellow vegan, I see a lot to like about Senator Booker as a candidate. But when another candidate of color qualifies for the next debate but quits and he has had several debates to make his case, it seems a little far-fetched to complain. Three women, one candidate of color, one Jew and a gay man qualified for the next debate. That does not seem like evidence of exclusion.
2
If the moderators of the last debate had given Andre Yang the time of day and not ignored him for fully the first quarter of the two-hour debate, he might be qualifying for the last poll need to get on the next debate stage. Not that it would matter -- he'd just be ignored again. And anyway, he's not a person of color who counts. Everyone knows that for the Democrats, it's blacks who they're talking about, and to a lesser extent hispanics, as this article amply illustrates.
4
Oh for crying out loud!
The litmus test for the Democrat’s nominee is becoming ridiculous!
Policies and ideas and steadfast ability should be the cornerstone for a candidacy— not race or birthright or money from your own bank account.
Now race is being used as an appeal to voters, to make sure this is not an “all white” race.
Democrats destroy themselves in presidential primaries by such ridiculousness.
They lose the big election by falling for it.
I’m a Democrat from Boston (originally from NC) that voted for President Obama twice. But I don’t understand this purity test that seems to exist for every single thing, including the color of skin.
Getting a Democrat in the White House is the goal!
Compromising and holding your breath may be involved.
4
You cannot choose to be either colour-blind or colour-conscious whenever it suits you. You have to be either one or the other. Otherwise your integrity is in question. It is not ok for one seeking public office.
The party needs to "reckon" with this? Seriously, who cares. I would love some day to see someone who looks like me in the White House, but not every election need be about breaking barriers---though if you're all about this type of stuff, even among the "white" candidates, we still have a Jewish man (never thought I'd see the day); a few women (never thought I'd see the day); and a married gay man who is the son of a Maltese immigrant (oh man!).
So, the only thing the party needs to reckon with is how it lost to Trump and how its message isn't resonating with everyone in the nation. And, the only question Democrats should ask is: Do we really want to rest on our laurels as we did in 2016?
2
This is nonsense. What the country needs is someone who’s competent, ethical, moral and has the force of conviction to restructure the country. We’ve had about 20 candidates with all types of backgrounds and ideas , and little by little the number is dwindling as expected. Being smart or a woman or a guy or a person of color or, or.... is not enough. The candidate has to be able to communicate and address the existential experience the country is going through. Regrettably, money in politics has corrupted the system. Neither Sheldon Adelson nor Putin should be the deciders of our leaders.
1
It should give us pause that in an article supposedly devoted to a discussion of how "candidates of color" have been faring in the 2020 presidential race, the word "Asian" does not appear *once* despite Yang being Taiwanese and Gabbard Samoan. Meanwhile, black or African American appears 9 times and Latino
or Latina appears 5 times. New York Times, I *know* you have the wherewithal to be more competent and neutral than this. Please start to more proactively include Asian Americans (and issues unique to the community) from conversations about politics.
3
Only the Democratic party would seriously discuss implementing affirmative action into the selection process of its presidential nominee. No wonder Trump thinks he will win next November.
2
If Harris couldn't run a campaign properly, how could one trust her to run the country? This affirmative action version of democracy is insane. The girl lost her game, plain and simple. Booker's looking for a boost on the basis of something he did not earn - his race. So how does he differ from Trump in this respect?
2
Sorry, but "Democrats in general are NOT asking "Do We Really Want an All-White Final Four?"!
Only self-serving, utterly disingenuous politicos like Booker and Castro are doing so, in a blatant effort to generate attention for their stagnating campaigns and to try to inject the element of race (or implicit racism) into the Democratic primaries.
Shameful posturing!
3
Well, when the “electability” excuse is used, what can we expect?
1
Working class African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, and Asian Americans know this election is about their interests, not the color or ethnicity of the candidates. The agonized concerns about "diversity" are the concerns of the punditry and self-serving middle class professionals. Harris was hardly the voice of the working people, and she had no program.
Does the campaign start too early? Are there too many debates? Maybe. But blame money, not some handy white racism excuse.
2
Why have none of the democratic candidates caught fire and excited the majority of their voters?
Does anyone think that any of them stands a strong chance against Trump’s foul mouthed popularity with an equally profane Republican voter base?
We may come to realize that the only real competitor to Trump will be a candidate with a similar vile temperament.
1
Why not follow the Trump model for polling? Do crazy stuff, get free media coverage, get ahead in the polls, qualify for the debates.
A lot of people are lamenting Kamila Harris’s campaign without acknowledging the complete dumpster fire that the campaign and the candidate were. She wanted Elizabeth Warren to sign a petition to get the President kicked off of Twitter. And she attacked Tulsi Gabbard for going on Fox News. And she had two campaign managers, one was her sister.
On the first point about Trump getting kicked off of Twitter. That is pretty much un-American. When we try to deny anyone the freedom of speech, even if he is a crazy president, we lose our county.
On the point of Fox News, we should not accept any leader who is such a coward that the can’t stand up to propagandists on their own venue. A significant portion of the nation watches Fox News. Why not offer that audience a diversity of voices to expand your base.
Democrats need to stop being whiny high school kids who complain about how student elections are popularity contests. ELECTIONS ARE POPULARITY CONTESTS. If you want to be popular you have to talk to a lot of people and listen to their concerns.
Lastly the DNC needs to get serious about their debates. Have less people on stage, and pay for the full debate without commercial breaks. Why is the DNC trying to make money off of the debates? Maybe Mike Bloomberg can chip in.
Sorry but Kamala Harris's departure from the presidential race didn't just happen. Harris started firing campaign staff and the money dried up. Harris's campaign became a scary slow motion trainwreck. It was only a matter of time until she had no choice but to pack it in.
3
While racism, classism and sexism as institutional barriers should matter, race, skin color, gender and class of candidates, in any sphere of work, should not, and subtle biases on such matters should be brought out. In that regard US is way ahead of India where four generations of quota and reservation have only empowered the rich and the cunning lower castes, while poor lower and upper castes remain poor. In universities everybody is shouting victimhood and nobody is listening or doing the work. The politization of identity politics, started by Dravidian parties, has ruined the standards of education. Those interested in education and real competency are leaving the country in droves.
Could it be identity politics are falling short? How surprising, we have never seen them fail before.
Most interesting thing. The highest polling non-white candidate is barely mentioned in the article. I can not understand why the media is lending so much attention to Booker and Castro while they ignore Andrew Yang?
Is he still considered a joke? To nerdy? Not enough emotional identity politics?
This silence does not pay respect to one of the most progressive and pragmatic candidates of this year. Especially considering how much traction he still has, despite of the unfavorable news coverage.
1
The article forgot to mention that Gabbard could be in the debate if the DNC allowed the poll with her best state numbers (done by an approved pollster). I suspect that the DNC will let her in the December debate if the lineup stays all white.
Maybe Booker is trying to shake things up and put some life into the party, the Democratic party. Someone needs to do something. None of these Democratic candidates are setting the world on fire. There is no magical VP who will entice a record turnout either. Barring unforeseen circumstances , I see a lackluster Democratic nominee who cannot get to 270.
1
It would be easy to dismiss Cory Booker's complaint except how else to explain Amy Klobuchar.
The Democratic Party is not the GOP. We care about the candidates history, character, and likelihood of delivering promises. We look at the substance of their campaign and not the things that make us feel warm and fuzzy inside. We are not manipulated by lies and fear.
1
Since the debate criteria relies on polls, perhaps it's worth asking: How reliable are the polls? The polls got 2016 wrong, and there's always discussion of various groups that the polls overlook, whether it's rural Americans or millennials who don't pick up when the pollsters call. Why not have more lenient debate standards to allow for as diverse a range of voices as possible, and let the VOTERS winnow down the field when they actually vote?
4
The Democratic Party, or at least some aggrieved, vocal part of it has to drop the identity politics and labeling. And fast. The party has to focus on candidates that can beat Trump by winning, and winning big. That calls for sounding themes that resonate with as many Americans as possible. While Trump and his enablers in the Senate and House are busy selling us out to foreign adversaries; when Trump, and by extension all of us, is a laughing stock at NATO and the UN earlier this year; when the radical right is dismantling the laws that protect all of us as they shape the judiciary into a rubber stamp for their authoritarian agenda; there can be no hyphenated Americans.
As for Booker, he doesn’t have what it takes and never will. Proof positive is that the national press hasn’t dug into his tenure in Newark. If he was relevant at all they’d be looking under every rock in Essex County.
11
"No hyphenated Americans." I like that a lot.
The Democrats at least tried to field a diverse team. It didn't work this time. But, trying is not failure forever, and is better than not trying at all. Think how many more people now believe this a good idea.
Now, let's pick a candidate who will win - and work even harder to have a diverse cabinet, Presidential staff, and 2020 Congress. Let's keep trying until it becomes almost natural to see multi-racial/gender/thinking leaders in our nation. And I say "almost," because bigotry easily creeps back in unless we work constantly to prevent it.
Let's not beat ourselves up, but learn from both trying and from our mistakes, and to better next time.
4
It’s the Democrats Achilles heel to be so obsessed with identity politics. Race and gender equality and empowerment are important, but those issues are not the only challenges facing the country. Undecided voters tend to be concerned with a variety of issues like the climate, the economy, our infrastructure, attainable healthcare, and our global standing. Identity politicians singular issue message alienate voters who don’t identify with that singular issue then ironically associate that message as the defining trait of that candidate’s push for an exclusive promotion of empowerment for which all are not included. I would hope the candidate nominated is the most qualified to lead the country and the most capable of beating the corrupt incumbent. A person’s skin color, ethnicity, and gender are not how capable people become leaders.
9
I have been appalled by the debates. I have watched them all. What I saw was disproportionate time given to Warren, Biden and Sanders to the detriment of the other candidates. I watched in order to learn about the alternatives. When they are not given time to speak, how can you expect them to break out of the pack. I doubt there is anyone who does not understand the plans of the top three. Are they our best choices? Not necessarily. Who is? I don't know because I don't know enough about the alternatives. I am a moderate but the only moderate with a lot of time and media attention is a man who needs to pass the torch. My generation had it's chance now let the next generation try to put the country back together again. Before the first primary, people that might interest me have been eliminated or will be eliminated because of poor media coverage, poor debate equality, and poor polls (which apparently were faulty during the 2016 election). The system needs to be changed. Quit pandering to the leaders and give everyone an equal chance to speak. Reduce the amount of time (like Canada) so that the whole thing doesn't become a joke. Have a national primary so states that do not represent the country do not eliminate candidates who might do better in a general election. Our country is in a desperate situation. I will vote for whichever Democrat is nominated. We need to come together and rid our country of Trump and ALL his enablers in Congress.
3
Almost all the candidates, with the exceptions of Biden, Sanders, and Warren, have been running for Vice President and/or as a warm-up for 2024. Harris is still in the running for Veep and 2024. By "dropping out" now, it improves her intra-party image and largely removes the microscopic vetting (as well as slander and lies) directed at Presidential candidates.
In the Times yesterday, bemoaning Harris' withdrawal, Melanye Price wrote, "The left’s hyper-focus on beating President Donald J. Trump...." And Charles Blow's column was much the same. Add to that Booker's and Castro's comments, and one can't help but conclude they would prefer we not focus so much on defeating Trump, that instead we nominate an aspirational "category" candidate less likely to win. I would ask of all of them: exactly how will four more years of Trump help Black people?
Those columns and comments read like ads the Republicans will use in 2020 to help elect Trump by depressing Democratic turnout.
14
And we see yet again what's wrong with the Dem field and plenty of progressives. The nomination isn't something where everyone gets a trophy and no one's feelings get hurt. Or a "conversation" where all the voices keep being heard endlessly regardless of the quality of their ideas. One person wins. Please, please, the one with the best policies and the best leadership ability, able to appeal to the greatest range of voters. Whoever will beat Trump.
7
Booker does the lofty speech thing well, but his lofty speeches haven't been supported by any structure or scaffolding to hold them up or set him apart. What's his signature policy position? Is there one? I've paid attention and I haven't heard it.
5
Why does this article barely mention Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard? They, unlike Booker and Castro, have very good shots at making the next debate stage. Yang consistently gets far less mainstream media coverage than his polling, fundraising or grassroots support would suggest. You would think the media would be interested in someone who went from literally no name recognition to 5th in the race without buying their way in, but apparently not. He has completely shifted the national debate, making UBI a possibility for the first time since the 60s, but the media largely ignores him.
12
@Will Same goes for Tulsi Gabbard, who enjoys pretty surprising levels of grassroots support - especially from voters who would be willing to peel off from Trump. People can disagree with her positions on some matters, but she is a woman of color as well even though she refuses to play the identity politics game.
1
@Will-I was thinking the exact same about Andrew Yang. He was given no time to explain his views at any of the debates because the moderators spent way too much time with the front runners Biden, Warren and Sanders. What a disgrace.
1
We have had five Democratic debates.
And they have been overflowing with so many candidates that it is challenging to hear much from any of them.
The DNC has always been transparent with its rules for the debates. If anything, they have been frustratingly easy to achieve.
The candidates all had the same opportunities to be included in the debates.
Now some are not getting enough in donations from all 50 states and polling requirements to make the mark to get in.
Sounds a lot like sour grapes, people.
Face it: you had your 15 min of fame and America said, Thanks but no thanks.
It has nothing to do with gender or race.
It has to do with you.
Time to move on.
6 people will give a better opportunity for the American public to hear each one out and have a real debate.
If Yang and Gabbard, a GOP plant if there ever was one, are not in the debate I will not care one whit.
4
@Simon Sez Gabbard is probably the only candidate other than Sanders and Yang who stands a chance at peeling off Trump voters and pulling spectators off the sidelines... if she's a GOP plant, she's a very strange choice. If she ran third party, she'd probably ensure a Trump loss. Her strongest base of support is military and ex military and Sanders cross over voters who are unlikely to vote in the general if one of the two of them isn't involved.
Senator Booker is rightfully upset with the arbitrary rules of the Democratic National Committee. His concern is not that he hasn’t received higher polling results or that his fundraising is lacking ( as defined by the DNC).
He and other candidates deserve the chance to participate in debates which will may improve his polling and fundraising.
The DNC should let voters decide if any candidate should continue their campaign. If voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and other early primary states fail to support any candidate it will be clear to the candidate he or she should stop their campaign. Natural selection will narrow the field. Arbitrary rules by the DNC may discourage voters and candidates prematurely.
The “formula” of the DNC is arbitrary and therefore faulty.
The progressive candidates received most of the press coverage because of the “plans” put forward. The plans are nothing but public relations ploys with little chance of being passed by a divided Congress. If progressives think Democrats will control the Senate, and therefore pass these policies they should review the Senate seats up for election in 2020. Their myopic vision of a Democratic Congress in 2020 makes them poor candidates and unlikely to defeat DJT, which is the goal of all candidates. The progressive candidates and their policies won’t be approved if they don’t defeat the the terrible president we now have.
4
It is a shame in a way that Booker has not caught on in a big way. Unlike Harris he actually had some legislative bills he originated. That said. The DNC and Perez have not done justice to this field in the last two debates. Two nights were set aside for debates but instead of have 5 or 6 each night which would give more candidates a chance to express their vision the DNC crammed everyone onto one stage for one night.
4
I am disappointee by many of the comments here. The Times audience is majority white and their insistence on the "best" candidates missed the fact that the early nomination process is NOT a meritocracy. Candidates of color simply get marginalized because they don't have the type of wealth, connections, and goodwill white citizens get from one another. There's a serious racial divide in this country that so many are blissfully unaware of.
4
Exactly! The comments are perhaps a proportionate representation of what we’re seeing in the polls. People keep saying the candidates at the top are just more qualified and better able to lead? Are you kidding? Besides their age, Biden isn’t showing himself to have a perspective relevant to today’s Democrats, and Bernie, whom I do love, is highly unlikely to win the general election and far more of a risk than Booker or Harris. And he and Warren are also highly unlikely to make anything happen if they get elected; compromise and unity are needed now. Buttigieg has no greater claim from a meritocratic standpoint than Booker, who has far more experience. Booker did a commendable lot for Newark, which had so many issues when he took office it wasn’t really possible to transform it into a prosperous city. Actually, Americans everywhere are soon going to find themselves in the same kind of water emergency as Newark’s, but I digress. These billionaires should put their money towards candidates like these instead of shoving themselves on the stage like this; is a progressing Democratic Party really supposed to back the same kind of billionaire many have come to see as destructively corrupt or at least unjust forces in our democracy. Finally, Klobuchar. She should be in the top four, at least. Has she lacked press attention? Money? Fame?
2
#1 priority is to defeat Trump. To do this, the Dem candidate must appeal to moderates in both parties. Highly likely this will be a moderate white male. Young Progressives can attempt to reinvent the economy in 2024.
3
I can think of no more effective a strategy than basing candidates' desirability on race -what could go wrong?
Why would anyone think that complaints of "too many White people" on the stage could possibly turn off White voters?
Let's add in the gracious blaming of racism of -which group would that be? - when a candidate of color is, in likeability, temperament, and policy positions, uninspiring at best.
Trump is/was an anomaly, at a time when forgotten people with nothing to lose voted for change- any change. We have a robust economy, that strategy is not viable for the left.
To win, you have to appeal to people's hopes, without inspiring their fears- the votes are in the middle, not the noisy extremes.
4
There's no way to read this headline reasonably as other than "Cory Booker and Julian Castro think Democrats are obligated to fund and vote for them because they're not white."
That's as offensive as it is wrong. Supporting a black candidate doesn't mean supporting ANY black candidate (yes, I voted for Mr. Obama, twice, and would happily contribute to and work for Michelle Obama should she run. It's terrific that they're black, but their strong values, intelligence and skill are much more important.) Julian Castro is particularly weak, and Mr. Booker needs to make his case on the merits, not on his identity. His argument weakens minority and candidates of color nationally. How about "support the only male candidate with a shaved head?"
You want to be President? Convince the electorate. And don't be surprised, much less whine, if you don't get nominated or elected; most candidates don't, by definition. As for being black, black Americans are less than 15% of the population according to the 2010 US census. Viewed solely through the narrow lens of demographics, the odds are not in Mr. Booker's favor, and odds, like mathematics generally, are race-blind.
Aside from all that, I like Mr. Booker's candidacy, I just like Ms. Warren's more.
6
Old. White. Billionaire. Men - don't represent me, and don't represent the diverse democrat electorate. The deck is stacked against candidates who don't have enough money to run ads and get higher in the polling.
For me, it's not only about beating Trump. I'll wait out the next four years for AOC.
Democrat candidates - So White.
@Sam If AOC is the nominee, Trump could run for a third term and win. Horrifying. She's one of the most hated politicians in the US outside of NY and California. She'd be the one to save McGovern for the ignominy of his legacy.
2
Don't want to sound politically incorrect, but basing one's vote on a candidate's race or gender is rather backward. Biden is leading in the polls because he has experience and because he is a moderate.
5
I think Cory Booker is an extraordinary man and a very fine NJ Senator. But it’s time for him to withdraw from the race. Please Cory do not play the “ race card” ( I dislike the expression)- leave the stage gently and you will continue to be admired as a real mensch.
3
Minorities account for roughly 40% of the population. Candidates need only 4% polling to qualify for the debates. Clearly minorities have spoken, and what they're saying is that it's the content of candidates character and not the color of their skin that matters.
Booker is a corporate sellout and a shill for big pharma. Harris was a self-serving flip-flopper. Gabbard and Castro have no ideas and minor league experience. All the candidates have worts, but to be frank the "diversity" card was really the only defining factor for all of these candidates. Ivory tower progressives (who are overwhelmingly white) might espouse the intangible benefits of "diversity." But the irony is that minorities, who tend to face more uncertain economic prospects, want someone who can offer real world experience and ideas not just more active melanocytes.
11
It saddens me to see Senator Booker play the race card, as he has in letters to those who have supported him. I based my support on his maturity, his reasonableness and his positions. But if he must leave the presidential race for lack of sufficient funds, let him do so with his dignity intact. Judging by what I have learned so far it looks as though he will leave it behind.
4
I'll vote for the best candidate. I strongly believe he/she will not be named Trump.
3
A persons color is not something I care about in a candidate. The fact that Obama was black did not matter to me at all, he was simply a great leader. These politicians, like Castro and Booker, are banking on their color to get them a place at the table, but, so far, neither candidate has been inspiring or inspired. I also suspect the Booker is not quite comfortable with how he presents himself, like he’s acting a part.
1
The DNC is risking making the same mistakes from 2016. Protecting and promoting an candidate who was not liked by most Democrats. The DNC should remove the arbitrary criteria for inclusion in debates. The Democratic voters will narrow the field in due time. The DNC regard their role as king makers not administrators.
2
The polling numbers tell it all: only a small percentage of people think Cory is very credible as a speaker or a candidate. He's never going to be President or Vice-President.
2
Enough with these candidates polling under five percent. It’s time to accept the inevitable and get behind the front runner.
Continued in fighting will only hurt our party in the general.
Bernie 2020
2
There is fairness, and there is representation. Somehow the Dems need to balance this between a chosen candidate and their running mate. We need diversity of opinion and experience, and two white men just isn't diverse.
Complaints about diversity of race ignore that diversity of gender is an even worse problem in this country. It is being ignored that there are still women on that stage. Why is that being ignored?
This is the National Democratic Party’s nightmare, and well deserved. Rather than allow the process of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Wyoming to advance the start of the Presidential primary, the Party took it upon themselves to insert these debates - great theater by the way - to force all candidates, rich or poor, previously known or not, into running a national campaign on Day 1.
All of them could have generated the resources to run a competent campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, where voters would have a year to get close to all of these candidates and register their experience on the first caucus and primary day. The voters that found a discerning eye for Carter, Mondale, Simon, Kerry and Obama.
But three of those five never made it to the Presidency, so Donna Brazille and Tom Perez choreographed a nomination process that would force everyone to a national stage at the outset, favoring the establishment faces and boxing out the the people of color - the diversity generation - from having a fair shot. What a surprise that the establishment would revise the rules just as the upstarts were coming of age.
How ironic it is that at the next DNC debate, the Hispanic DNC Chair and the African American former Chair invented a system that left out any people of color on the debate stage two months before the Iowa caucus.
Shameful.
1
Wasn't the idea, along with reducing the impact of super delegates, to do just the opposite?
It's not about "Race." It's about "THE Race." And so far, Cory is losing.
1
I thought that Elizabeth Warren was a woman of color, as described in her bio in a law school publication while she was at Harvard. In fact, she was known as the first "woman of color" on Harvard Law School's faculty.
6
Booker has just disqualified himself from consideration for the presidency for all future time.
Equal opportunity does not guarantee what the outcome will be. Booker wants an outcome guarantee.
The race started out with plenty of opportunity, and the diversity of the aspirants reflected that. Lots of white candidates have had to drop out since the start, so why should the dropping out of black candidates be any different? Booker is dead wrong. Very disappointing that he doesn't get it.
3
Six months ago when we were being bombarded with endless analysis of Kamala Harris’ prepared bussing monologue, no one said anything about how the DNC rules were racist. Yet here we are, with Booker seeming to say the reason he should be on the debate stage is the color of his skin. Yang and Gabbard are on the cusp of qualifying too.
3
@Luke Ironically, Yang and Gabbard have very legitimate grievances with the DNC and yet per usual the media doesn't grant them any attention. Gabbard should have already qualified had the DNC not arbitrarily deemed a poll irrelevant.
This witless insistence on having a full Crayola box is precisely why Trump will win. When will Democrats focus on a winning strategy?
10
The same arguments are advanced by Americans of all races and genders across the political spectrums. It’s a Gordian knot.
Booker's making the same mistake as Castro. Nobody has an inherent right to be up on the dais. If you can convince voters to support you, OK. If you can't qualify, you probably shouldn't waste your time or ours. Asserting that a "person of color" deserves a slot simply because of their ethnicity is incredibly wrong-headed and frustrating. Booker seems to be an earnest and nice guy. But is he the best of the bunch? I don't think so.
3
I am curious why Bernie Sanders because he's Jewish was required to condemn Israel more than other candidates. But the Black and Hispanic candidates never condemn the wrongs of their own people but instead just have a laundry list of grievances and demands. Castro said he supported affirmative action because he benefited from it. Imagine the uproar if a white woman had said she supported preferences to whites because she benefited from it. It is time the people of color and women running for office aren't doing so under the guise that they're giving preferential treatment two groups of people that are already getting a massive disproportionate amount of government attention and funds. It is bizarre to call white men who vote for Trump racist when Democratic candidates make it clear that white men are only of importance for shaking down.
5
I have no idea why Booker isn't polling better. I think he'd be a great nominee. He has an exemplary record, plenty of experience, and good ideas. He also seems charismatic. Does anyone have thoughts on why he isn't catching on?
5
I haven’t watched much of the debates but it doesn’t seem he gets to say much. I think he’s great and hope he gains some momentum.
2
Booker isn’t polling better because he isn’t known nationally and he is a thoughtful moderate. We are so early in the process that polls are just name recognition. You either have to be already known nationally or say outrageous stuff to get media attention. If we look at the top tier:
Biden has been a national figure for decades
Sanders lost the primary in 2016 so he is known to everyone
Warren tries to out do Sanders promising free stuff and radical change
Buttigieg is the first openly gay candidate
As I proud native of New Jersey, I have to say Senator Booker is up against the same prejudice that kept so many women from being named Miss America back in the day when it meant something. The women who won were from Texas or California or a midwestern state. People who vote - for whatever the contest - for some reason look down on us wonderful people of New Jersey. We have lots of great people in New Jersey and we produce lots of results that have contributed to our country. We don’t get the recognition we deserve. I am serious about this. Talent is not confined to one state. Give New Jersey people a look.
1
I agree that candidates should not be judged by their demographics (age, race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.), but rather by their character and platform, and Booker's and Castro's appeals for a "diverse" set of candidates on the debate stage is a transparent attempt to stay relevant in the race longer.
That being said, however, the point about the billionaires is well worth noting. Bloomberg and Steyer combined are polling at 7-8% in this week’s polls. If the mayor of Los Angeles or Chicago entered the race in November, they would not be polling where Bloomberg is. If a local financial advisor or nonprofit fundraiser joined the race in July, they would not have qualified to make the December debate. Steyer and Bloomberg, however, have essentially been able to buy their way into the race, which does raise the point about how unfair it is for everyone who is not a billionaire who can advertise their way into better standing. That is definitely an equity issue that should concern all Americans, regardless of party. And, if that 7-8% was directed towards different candidate(s), who knows if it would allow some of the bottom-polling candidates to make the debate stage?
This week’s polls:
12/2 The Hill/HarrisX Poll: Bloomberg 6%, Steyer 2%
12/3 Politico/Morning Consult Poll: Bloomberg 5%, Steyer 2%
2
The following sentences contain valuable pointers away from the argument advanced by Cory Booker:
"The polling requirements give an advantage to candidates who can invest in extensive television advertising to get their name out. Others note, however, that the candidates of color in the 2020 field have not drawn significant support from black and Latino voters."
One of the authors reports in today's On Politics newsletter that benefits from TV ads have a life of about one week, unless they lead to heightened media coverage (which, I would add, is skewed away from plain-vanilla candidates). In other recent Times reporting, we learned that most black voters are not looking for racial representation.
Still the discussion of endangered representation bowls along among Democratic activists and commentators. Voters are trying to tell us they have more grown-up requirements of a candidate, but it seems that they're to be seen and not heard.
If white males have a structural wind at their backs, it's not doing them much good. Several have dropped out. When Beto O'Rourke entered the race after a period of excited "waiting for Beto", he was expected to upend the field. He took in a huge amount of money. But what looked like the perfect gift for the White Man Who Has Everything did not, after all, bear his name on the tag.
I like Cory Booker and would vote for him. Still, it's not so surprising that he can't gain traction. His feet are just a bit too slick.
1
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense at all. Cory Booker has had as much chance as any of the other candidates of getting good poll ratings or raising funds. And the question raised here is about ratings in the polls.
3
Typical Democratic identity politics! Carson or Seinfeld once said: "I don't care about diversity, I want funny!"
15
I'm indifferent. I see POC and women in the Democratic party as being as tone deaf about anti-Semitism as the far right.
9
We don't choose candidates based on their skin color. We vote for the best candidate.
28
The person who can beat Trump is who should be the Democratic nominee. I don’t care about their gender or skin color.
27
What happened to one person, one vote?
Booker feels he has nothing to lose (since he is almost out of the race) to play the race card to his advantage. Who wants to choose a candidate on their skin color, ethnicity, gender, ....
What about a candidate that will beat Trump and bring us together as a country. Running based on the color of ones skin does not move us forward.
22
Era of identity politics is over and Booker will not benefit from the race card. He is falling behind in the numbers game and that is a cold hard fact. I think he will be the next one to be out from the race and into the senate trial.
24
All I want is a responsible, measured, and intelligent person who can restore our reputation on the world stage, restore respect for the rule of law, and restore the dignity of the office of the presidency.
7
Cory Booker, Julian Castro and Kamala Harris apparently bought into the Woke Twitter hype that the Democratic candidate needed to fall into some sort of precise paint by numbers perfect PC candidate. And they ran their campaigns as though they were running for president of the Bay Area or Hipster Brooklyn.
Evidently, the rest of us un-woke peons, including the vast majority of southern black Democratic voters, weren’t interested in their all too precious, identity politics, losing platforms —- The benefits of which excludes the vast majority of white voters who will be crucial to winning in the swing states.
Maybe had they ignored the tightly-wound, never satisfied progressives and, instead had focused on what ALL voters actually wanted such as protections for pre-existing conditions, more secure health care options, lower premiums and prescription costs, jobs, training, and infrastructure, they might be on top of the polls right now.
I can only hope this is a lesson to the Democratic Party and, especially the far Left. When you go woke, you go broke.
34
In addition to the very visible split between moderate and progressives we now have the additional split between whites and people of color among the Democratic candidates. The Democratic Party has to do some real soul-searching very quickly before the these fissures widen and weaken the party, and along with it its chances of defeating Donald Trump. The appearance that money is what's driving the debates should be anathema to all Democrats and the party must work to address it. At a time when the party is confronting the white male nationalism of Trump, they are on the verge of having an all white male top-tier of candidates.
4
I don’t think any Democrat — candidates and voters alike — want an all-white field. That’s a facile premise. We want candidates with the right credentials, experiences, and policy proposals. We want a candidate who connects on the human level and inspires voters. Most importantly, we want a candidate who can soundly defeat Donald Trump and put Republicans on their heels, up and down the ticket.
What I explicitly do NOT want, and what no one I know wants, is a racial/gender/identity litmus test for public office. That’s pure poison to a diverse party like ours.
19
Putting aside race I don't understand why Booker is not getting more traction. He's very bright, personable and it's unfortunate that Biden, Sanders and Warren are getting all he airtime. Booker would make a great nominee. Biden is losing it and Sanders and Warren are never going to get the nomination.
3
In my heart of hearts, I hope Cory Booker becomes the VP to whoever wind the nomination. His policies may be too centralist for my tastes, but his warmth, intelligence, and sincerity is a comfort during these terrible times.
4
Why should the race/color card be injected into a truly crucial election? If Americans have not realized the danger in having four more years for Trump, they need to wake up from their slumber. It's about time every one knew that the only important identity for this nation is JUST BEING AMERICAN.
The need of the moment is to throw the current occupant of WHouse out. Democrats need to decide how to do that. I hope they rally around Joe Biden who has a chance of doing that. If they go for any one else in the field, they will help Trump win.(Pl note I am not white,)
3
He’s obviously angling for a VP spot which I think would be a mistake. Our goal is to defeat Trump, not to soothe someone’s ego
7
Booker bloviates. He mistakes moments for oratory with moments for a knock-it-out-of-the-park answer. On a recent MSNBC primetime appearance he was given the softball, teed up and ready for a home run, about Trump's extortion in Ukraine. And Booker went on, and on, and on, about how what Trump is doing is hurting democracy around the world, in Latvia, and wherever else, and on and one and on. How about,"America, Trump is selling you out every chance he gets. He's selling out your country. He's selling out your vote. And he's selling it to Russia to get him elected -- again."
7
Perhaps certain candidates are not going to be on stage because of their performance, not their color.
I’m all for having a diverse set of candidates, but if we choose candidates based on votes (or, polls for debates), then do we upend that simply because Cory Booker says we need nonwhite people there?
I personally hope Booker stays in the field, but I think this is a rather lame piece of commentary. The implication, of course, is that there is some conspiratorial racial bias in the Democratic Party / primary voters, which I struggle to believe in this day and age. In the general election, sadly, it may be more of an issue...
2
"“The way this is shaping up, especially with the rules of the D.N.C., it is preferencing millionaires and billionaires and a lot of other things that do not ever translate into viability in Iowa,” Mr. Booker said on Tuesday night."
Booker's historic problem, with this voter at least, has been a too cozy relationship with the titans of Wall Street and corporate America. He should expand at length on how he plans to reign in corporate greed and oust Wall Street influence from the smoke filled rooms of the Democratic Party. If he does that in a credible way, I will give his candidacy a hard look. And five bucks to keep him onstage.
Beyond that, the article demonstrates both the Democrats' ongoing commitment to the principle of affirmative action and the inevitability of its attendant problems. Should the DNC create a 20% debate stage set aside for persons of color? Maybe so, but the psychological downside to receiving affirmative action is that it implicitly maintains the stigma of inferior qualification, both in the eyes of others and for oneself. Clarence Thomas has spent a lifetime unsuccessfully wrestling with that one.
4
I thought we ere supposed to judge people by their character, values, intelligence and accomplishments, not their race?
9
Shouldn’t we vote for the most qualified candidate regardless of race!
10
Let's be real. Trump, with the help of Russia, denied the nation its first female president [thanks to the Electoral College]. Biden knows he must have a minority women on his ticket. If the worse happens and President Biden dies in office, you have the first female president. If President Biden at some point feels that the job is too much for him and he decides to leave office, you have the first female President. It makes so much sense. Harris is the only Democrat that fills the bill.
You mean, not Amy Klobuchar? A much more experienced, measured, rational candidate.
Good grief! Trump and the republicans are destroying the country and its democratic institutions, and Booker and others are obsessed over a "an all-white candidate" field? This is what elects republicans. They should be obsessed with the issues that will win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, at a minimum, not to mention Ohio and Florida.
It's bad enough that this impeachment folly will enable Trump to play the vindicated victim card. The trial will be a circus and will enable republicans to continue the effective smear campaign against Biden, who, despite his flaws, has the best chance to win those states. Hence the ferocious republican smear against him.
4
"The Democratic primary is facing a reckoning over diversity, fairness, & representation in the primary process..." What??? This is ridiculous. Booker & Castro are polling at 2% & 1% respectively. Sanders has raised 4 times the amount of money as Booker. Biden has raised five times as much as Castro. A recent poll shows Biden at 44 percent among black voters in South Carolina. The same poll had Senator Sanders at 30 percent. Booker & Castro are polling in the very low single digits among black voters. It's over. End of story. There is no path to the nomination for either candidate. The voters have spoken. They don't want them to be the next President. To have them on the stage in December is just blatant tokenism & at a certain level absurd. Because you're a POC doesn't give you a divine right to be at the Democratic debates when you haven't earned that right. Biden, Sanders, Warren, & Buttigieg have earned the right. Booker and Castro haven't. It's time to leave the field of battle with a sense of grace & decency. This whole debacle is being driven by progressive zealots who are determined to push the Democrats into another circular firing squad. At this point, I have to say who cares what these fanatics think. The question should NEVER be do Democrats want an all-white slate of top-tier candidates to be the face of their party in 2020? The only relevant question: who is the best candidate, who can win in 2020? Questions about ethnicity are irrelevant & should be ignored.
4
These racial politics demonstrates why the Democrats are in deep trouble. The truth of the matter is that both Kamela and Booker spoke almost exclusively to African-Americans and their concerns. Which is fine and good but it isn't enough to carry a plurality. The Democrats desperately need to get rid of identity politics and forge coalitions on the commonality of problems and start acting like people of the same society! So many people are just turned off by this fragmentation and will vote against it. I liked Booker and his spirit and don't understand why he isn't higher up in the polls. But every election cycle, going back to 1972 there have been candidates, mostly white, who I've felt that way about. Defeat should inspire some humbling that leads to taking responsibility for the failure and a possibility of becoming successful down the line.
4
Oh pshaw! Corey Booker had his chance, as did Kamala Harris and the unappealing Tulsi Gabbard. They all qualified for a number of debates. The voters looked, listened, and decided. That’s the way it works. None of them deserve to be in the top 4 or 5 or 6 simply by virtue of their race. (Booker and Harris will be high on anyone’s list as a possible VP choice, so we could end up with the most diverse ticket in history.)
5
Cory Booker could fix this problem...he should be a more believable candidate.
1
The majority of low-polling candidates so far have been white men like Michael Bennet, Jay Inslee, John Hickenlooper, Eric Swalwell etc. Many candidacies have come to a quiet end because they weren’t good enough candidates to win. Only one will make it all the way.
1
Sore looser. Too bad, I liked him.
4
I really don't care.
I voted twice for Barack Obama, I was glad to have a Black president, but I don't need a Black candidate who can't win.
16
Maybe Cory's 'Spartacus' moment wasn't that ennobling.
Maybe Julián shouldn't have lobbed that cheap shot at Joe Biden.
Maybe Tusli isn't a real Democrat but a Fox plant.
Maybe winning the lottery doesn't qualify you to be president.
8
This is a perfect example of race pandering. It has nothing to do with gender or race, he and Kamala are not good candidates. BO was, they are not. He’s making excuses just like Hillary, neither have enough respect to just own the truth. Unfortunately this is a quality that runs rampant in the Democrat Party.
22
Booker is upset that the field is all white even though he is still running.
Let me think this through.
Booker knows he is black, but believes he cannot ever drop out to avoid an all-white lineup, so we do not have a choice but to elect the black candidate whenever there is one running, unless there is more than one black running in which case the other thinks they are white or does not believe they cannot ever drop out.
Got it.
Booker's smart. We'll miss him when he drops out.
Oops, now he cannot do that, can he?
4
I really like Booker and think he'd be a great nominee and a goodPresident. I find his inability to break from the pack one of the most befuddling elements of this nomination process. I think he has it all... But a range of factors have limited him:
–not a new face
–no signature issue
–not taking corporate donations
I would LOVE to see him catch fire and make it to the stage in December. Fingers crossed.
1
For comparison to the Republicans last presidential election cycle, CBS/NY Times Dec. 4 - 8, 2015 GOP primary poll had three minority candidates in the top four: (in order) Trump, Cruz, Carson and Rubio.
4
Vote for me because I am the only green person on the ballot. Substitute black for green. Mr. Booker, one should be totally colorblind as a president.
8
Sorry folks, no Affirmative Action tilts when it comes to actual voter decisions. You have to win the game on your own.
16
If the Democrats really cared about their constituents they would have set a hard number for the number of candidates and not eliminated anyone until ACTUAL voting started. Michael Bloomberg dropping $30 Million on adds is all you need to know about the process. It apparently works because he's polling already without participating in one debate.
African Americans should be disgusted with Senator Booker playing the race card in 2019. African Americans are a part of the dynamic that has driven this country since it's inception. Playing the Race is in and of itself racist. It implies that people can't make up their own minds. Senator Booker gets to campaign as long and as hard as he wants. It's his job to connect with people not the other way around just because he's Black.
Before 2016 how many people even know who Bernie Sanders was or in 2008 who Barack Obama was. Get back to work Senator. Your supporters expect more from you.
5
African Americans picked their favorite candidate - his name is Joe Biden. The people had a lot of choices - good choices and they have spoken with their donations and their polls.
10
The framing of the racial makeup of the ticket is starting to sound plainly like tokenism. Elsewhere here Mayor Pete is being torpedoed; the paper isn't talking about the possibility of an "all-hetero" ticket.
10
We need an affirmative action in the way we pick the final candidate for the President. That way, you don't have to play by the rules set up by your own party's rule makers. You just get grandfathered in based on the color of your skin.
The same way we admit students with low grades in ivy league schools.
4
This isn't news, nor is it isolated to the presidential campaign.
Consider the Democratic nominee (and winner) of the most recent NYC mayoral election: white male.
Of the most recent NY State governor's race: white male.
Of California's most recent governor's race: white male. Same with Illinois.
As Gabbard, Booker, Castro and the others are finding out - it's a small club, and they ain't in it.
1
This issue is so overblown. Leftists would take a 100% old white guy Supreme Court if they all voted like former Justice Brennan, and conservatives would take a 100% non-white, transgendered, polyamorous Supreme Court if they all voted like Neil Gorsuch. The only thing that matters anymore is if a person in political life is authentic and clear about her or his positions. We can take it from there.
4
Why is race so important? I think it is immaterial now after Obama served two terms and proved to be one of the best Presidents ever. BTW, Booker hasn't really been a standout Senator. He certainly has potential but for now he should stick to the Senate. Booker may identify as a black man but he is hardly much darker than me, a man of Danish heritage with a tan.
2
Democrats don't want an all white field, we want Truly Progressive, strong candidates.
I saw Mr Booker speak Spanish during one of the Democratic debates and it still haunts my dreams.
5
More ridiculousness here.
This group was too big to begin with ! Eventually it will get down to just 1 person so brace yourself, more people will drop out.
Hopefully the best candidate is the last one standing.
Kamala Harris has had ample opportunity to capture the interest of those who might have supported her.
That didn’t workout but she gained experience and may able to take another run in the future.
1
Uncle Joe will be the nominee, and he will ask either Kamala or Deval to be his running mate.
I was prepared to like and support Sen. Booker when he entered the race, but after seeing him on the debate floor, I felt like he was too coached and is not his natural self. I like Sen. Sanders because he's not afraid to stand there brows furrowed and say we need to have the guts to create Medicare for All, because he knows it will be best, in the long run. If Sen. Booker can let his guard down and stop trying to follow all the rules in the Dem play book, I might consider him. Amy Koubluchar is the same way: give me a break from all the hand gesturing!
1
I am a lifelong Democrat, who happens to be white. I happily voted for Obama four times (primary and general elections) because he was the best person for the job. I am approaching this upcoming election with the same attitude. If the Democrats adopt an affirmative action plan for the nominating process for their national ticket as per Senator’s Booker’s demand, the Democrats will lose the 2020 election.
4
Shame on Cory Booker. We have had a black president and a woman candidate. If that isn’t diversity I don’t know what is. Is he against white candidates? It’s who gets the support and the money. And who can beat Trump,
6
As a Black American, I am more interested in the vision and ideas of a candidate and his or her ability to deliver and lead than I am the color of their skin. Yes, diverse perspectives and insights gained from living a non-privileged White life is important. But it is a BIG world with lot of BIG issues that are beyond race and just human: healthcare, climate, immigration reform, economic reform and more. Obama let us down on a lot of issues even though he was Black (not real anti-poverty program that help Black and White alike).
So Mr. Booker, give us a vision that sticks and we may follow you!
6
Democrats want a charismatic leader with good ideas and strong moral backbone that will help turn this country around.
I don't see anything in there that specifies gender, skin color, etc. I do agree we need more diversity but Kamala for example simply didn't have much of a spark.
That being said though I think the DNC has fallen short once again with this huge field and their various rules. We should have something in place moving forward so we don't have so many nominees. Several really shouldn't have bothered. Several are pretty good.
The whole campaign process is just one more thing that needs to be fixed. We need to level the field in terms of finance reform, transparency and make the campaign season 3 months long tops. This 2 yr long process is a bit much.
2
Simple solution: Have an undercard debate. This gives the lower tier candidates visibility and ultimately allows the voters to decide who they like on primary day.
There is no single way to achieve the Democratic choice for President, but a durable and proven method is to have a good candidate that fills an unmet need of voters. In 2008, the person was Barack Obama, a creature identified, groomed, and promoted by David Axelrod. Simply stated, Obama prevailed in white Iowa and demonstrated that he gained sufficient voter, with Axelrod's assistance,while living within the rules set by the Democratic Party organization. Perhaps US Senator Booker,or another nonwhite man or woman, will follow a parallel path to victory. But to bury the rules now is a very difficult argument to make and runs counter to the most recent contemporary electoral history. I say the outcome for Democrats was not predetermined by the rules and the make-up of Iowa.
Most knowledgeable people realize that, in order to win the next presidential election, the Democratic Party has to field candidates who appeal to a variety of voters. A higher percentage of African Americans exercise their right vote than any other ethnic group. If the Democratic Party nominates an all white ticket, Trump will win. It isn't difficult. Just common sense.
Cory Booker - a good man but clearly struggling to stay relevant.
The Dems fielded over 20 candidates. There was a good mix of gender and ethnicity. I'm not sure what more they could have done.
"Mr. Castro, after missing the polling threshold for the November debate, decried the outsize roles of Iowa and New Hampshire, with their primarily white electorate."
To put Castro's complaint in context, you need to know that he is not required to hit the thresholds in Iowa or New Hampshire. This is a dodge.
He could satisfy the threshold either by polling at 4% nationally or by polling at 6% in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina. Nevada is heavily Latino and South Carolina is heavily Black but Castro isn't qualifying in either state. And for further context, Castro is not even polling at 6% in his home state of Texas.
Castro's complaints of unfairness reflect more sour grapes than any failing by the party. Also, the fairness point is not to have affirmative action for candidates, it is to serve the voters. And while Castro may not like it, after almost a year of campaigning and 5 nationally televised debates, the minority voters are going with the old white guys (Black voters for Biden & Hispanic voters for Sanders & Biden). Are we really supposed to disrespect their choices?
10
But for perspective, let's also look at those Democrats who have dropped out. Ten of 13 dropouts are white males; that's 55% of the white males who have entered the race. Two dropouts are female; that's 1/3 of the females who entered. Two dropouts are people of color; that's also 1/3 of the non-white candidates.
In other words, white male candidates are being forced out at a faster pace than either women or people of color. Yes, the next debate stage is currently all-white. But the overall picture is more complex than Booker's intemperate comment makes it seem.
7
Courtesy of Mr. Booker this week, the Dem Party takes another big bite as it continues to consume itself. Please pass the salt.
There is not a true liberal out there who would NOT vote for Harris, Booker or Castro if, first, they found those candidates's policy view to their liking and, second, if they thought one of those candidates could beat Trump.
To imply that Harris dropping out, and Booker's own and Castro's own failures to gain steam with the liberal base is the result of bigotry is counter productive and flat out wrong.
Liberal voters across the spectrum proved color blind in 2008 and again in 2012. We prove it in elections at all levels.
We're liberals. We think, we research, we analyze. Mr. Booker is treating us like conservatives.
8
It is a mistake to think that only a person of color can relate to POC issues. America is now a melting pot of different ethnicities with many common problems and aspirations. Imagine if we all wanted a president in our own image! Electability should be based on the candidate’s platform and reforms that he/she plans to bring about for all. By focusing on a candidates color only, we are diminishing their other virtues.
2
Are Booker and Castro really getting support for playing the blame game? They criticize the outsized role of Iowa and New Hampshire, with predominantly white electorates, but neither Booker nor Castro are polling well with voters of color so they may be in a worse situation if the first primaries were in more diverse states.
3
This, like a somewhat similar op-ed yesterday about Kamala Harris' withdrawal from the race, seem to suppose that the race and ethnicity are key relevant factors when voters consider candidates in the Democratic primaries. For most voters they clearly are not and it's why anyone thinks they should be.
3
Stop the identity politics already. We just want the best person for the job irrespective of gender, race, sexual orientation, age or religion. If neither Booker nor Castro have gained traction maybe it’s because they have not been able to inspire a significant number of people to support them and it has nothing to do with identity.
6
Unfortunately, the Democrats have been crying that they wanted diversity, inclusivity, minorities, etc, but yet have failed to back a single alternative candidate, instead going with old white rich Washington insiders.
If I was Mr Booker, I'd run for Bob Menendes seat and consolidate NJ as blue for decades to come.
As president he will not win, but perhaps he can do some good as a representative.
1
It's close enough to Christmas, I'm entitled to a "Bah, Humbug!". This has been a tough year for Democratic candidates; deservedly so. Few came prepared, few had honed an effective message, or even a dynamic presence. And so they have been rejected soundly in the polls. The four frontrunners are all deeply flawed, it is not clear if any will emerge electable.The Democrats' salvation may well be a Mike Bloomberg/Mark Warner ticket, but I can't imagine a scenario where we get there. Then again, Trump may have dug his own hole deep enough. But in a year that should have been dedicated to preparing to trounce Donald Trump, the Democratic party instead gave us the year of the Clown Car Campaign. It is true that a candidate of color must attain a higher standard, BUT isn't that what we are looking for - the candidate that meets the highest standard ? Cory Booker needs to ask not why the voters aren't there for him; he needs to ask what he didn't do to draw them. And the remaining Democrats need to ask themselves that question too, or face the most humiliating November in American history. And here Mr. Booker and Ms. Harris have a telling moment. What will they do now to help deliver a victory in November?
3
If the percentage of Blacks including multi-racial African-Americans is only 14%, why does Senator Booker believe that not having a POC in the current top is a problem. Cory Booker is a fairly well know name around the country especially among African-Americans. I've seen opinion pieces and in comments threads that suggest that African-Americans may vote in lesser numbers if they aren't represented on the ticket. I hope that's not true,but it does seem to be what Senator Booker is saying.
2
Booker was never going to get my vote. Newark is a hot mess. Why would I want him to run the country. I don't care about my President's ethnicity. I care that he can run this country with everyone around the table. It would also help that he was a decent man. For the record, Obama's term was not a failure. If anything we failed him. Obama's problem was that he thought too highly of the American public. The very people he tried to help turned around and voted in the "Just Say No" to everything.
4
I agree; Representation is vital. It's a central part of how issues and policies are conceived and shaped. And I am so happy that Castro & Booker have seen fundraising gains. Their voices need to be in this conversation. However, the machine of extreme wealth that is behind Bloomberg's candidacy infuriates me.
At a certain point it will be necessary to accept that only one person will be the Dem's candidate. That point is approaching fast. When it happen, it's imperative that the Dem candidate is strongly supported, lifted-up, and be given the charge to bring all those inside the party to stand together and remove this administration.
We are fortunate to have many talented people running for the Dem nomination. I am hopeful.
1
Senator Booker, just so we are clear: policy positions are and must be more important than skin color or gender or age. The policy proposals of Senator Sanders, for example, on a host of fronts, will benefit people of color, women and young voters more than yours and far more than those of Senator Harris or Mayor Pete's and wipe the floor with those of Joe Biden.
12
"Two weeks before the December debate...the criticism has centered on the qualification rules, which are tied to numbers of individual donors and poll results."
I'll be the first to say that our primary system is imperfect. But I have no suggestions for better qualification criteria in addition to - or instead of - individual donors and poll results. Those seem like the best ways to define and narrow the field of candidates without resorting to arbitrary (and probably elite-driven) criteria such as experience, values, etc. Until critics like Booker can suggest a better system, their complaints will sound like sour grapes to me.
29
Cory Booker doesn’t get it. It’s not about skin color or gender or sexual orientation. It’s about who will be the best person to be the President of the United States. With the current candidates, I think Amy Klobuchar would be the best, and Bloomberg comes second. My opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own, including people who believe the best is the current corrupt clown in the White House.
7
I'm told everyday by the NYTimes that the thing that matters most is not you as an individual, but your physical appearance. I can't be the only person offended by this.
31
I think that Senator Booker misunderstands the reasons that (the majority of) voters vote.
Hint: It actually is not because of the color of the candidate's skin color or gender.
Why isn't this seen as tremendous progress?
12
I'm not a long time voter but long enough to see some issues like the elephant in the room. I believe diversity is wonderful. However, many of these candidates would never win the nomination, regardless of color. Why is it that this party holds up picking the VP for the nominee to select when that person wins the nomination??? Don't voters need to have a say if something regretful happens? Booker, Mayor Pete and Castro would make wonderful VP's for no reason other than lack of experience. I don't know how to fix the VP issue, but there has to be a way.
3
It wasn't and isn't an all white field. The non white candidates were in the field, but haven't gained traction. That's not the same thing as saying it was an all white field.
6
Three reporters writing this story and not one remembers the last election. Donna Brazile should not be used as a source on the topic of primary elections, particularly with regard to debates. She did more to unfairly influence the last Democratic presidential primary than the Russians did. She should not be quoted here.
16
This is ridiculous. The DNC required a high NUMBER of donors, not that the donors give big money. This was done to open UP the field so candidates with enthusiastic bases could get in.
If anything the DNC debate requirements were way too loose, not tight. Remember, Harris made it to the stage — she just didn’t have a viable path to the nomination.
I’m fine moving some more diverse states replace Iowa and NH, though they will fight against it tooth and nail.
12
Cory Booker has been a strong, and, to my mind, stand-out candidate (his many endorsers agree) this whole time, and I have no idea why he’s been ignored. He has a compelling message of unity, the ability to appeal to both moderates and liberals, charisma, and insightfully considered, non-pandering proposals. Has he not gotten traction because people might discriminate, putting him as a black man in the same box as Obama? He’s a really interesting guy, and comes across with more heart than Kamala Harris as well as Castro, not to mention the “white contingency.”
Diversity for the sake of Diversity is not productive. Cory Booker is no Obama. Julian Castro's attack on Biden seemed petulant and petty. I hope Booker stays in the Senate, but let the Democrats produce a ticket that can topple Trump. Skin tones should not be a factor; character should.
3
I'm sorry why would the corporate Democrat Booker appeal to any significant fraction of Democratic primary voters?
And why would the mass prosecutor of minorities (Harris) appeal to those same voters?
Then there's Booker's work for big Pharma, right he's not just a defender of Wall Street.
Now, I can see how Democratic Party elites would like Booker, but look what happened to their forced choice in 2016.
4
The elephant in the room is that we are still a white-majority country. No one wants to acknowledge this but look at the Hispanic category. Many who could call themselves Hispanic opt for white instead on the census.
Indeed it never made sense to me.
3
I do not understand why Booker et al are claiming that the debate will feature only white candidates. From what I know of the six, there will be five white and one native american candidates. Remember, she claimed that in both Texas and at Harvard. And only Trump lies, so she must have been speaking honestly. I guess voters will mot be allowed to make their choices if it leads to a result not approved by media.
4
As an Afro American, I am disgusted with Mr Booker's self-serving lament. Our country's government is falling apart, each agency profoundly damaged by this administration. Another sinful shutdown looms, threatening federal employees and beneficiaries of programs. The climate is in peril. I wish Mr Booker would do his job as a senator and stop invoking a narrative that drives away needed voters.
25
Cory Booker disappoints me. His opportunistic behavior is damaging to Democratic prospects in 2020 and oblivious to the realities informing his complaint. Neither he nor Kamala Harris drew decisive support from the Black electorate, which is a primary reason for her withdrawal and his not being on the debate stage. Booker's self-serving racializing of the Democratic primary is divisive and irresponsible.
21
There is no quota system in politics. Just be better than everyone else.
6
I've seen so many headlines like this but the fact of the matter is black voters have decided largely on Biden or others and not those who have dropped out. This is not the Democratic party or elites picking, it was the electorate who said 'no thanks'.
12
Harris got no support because she was an empty suit who flapped with the wind and had no principles. The fact that she was (half) black had nothing to do with it. If Booker wants to do well maybe he should find some principles himself and stop defending wall street and big pharma. Unless those are his principles, in which case maybe he should join the republican party.
7
Mr. Booker, please don't sink to this level. You had me with your strong stance on climate change, but this isn't about race. This is about restrengthening the United States against one of the largest crises since the Civil War.
3
Republicans strive for victory at all costs while Dems strive for a moral victory. Guess which will win. ugh!
7
Booker may pick up some support form former Harris backers. In any case it seems way too early to drop this highly qualified candidate from the field. I predict he will rise in upcoming polls.
I understand why Booker is upset. He's probably the most likeable and competent centrist in this race. The fact that he's a life long vegan tells a great deal about his character. Biden's supporters would do well to switch their allegiance.
And the same time I think voters -- especially young voters -- know from the Obama experience that likeable, diverse centrism is a recipe for disappointment and outrage.
Obama bailed out the banks, he let the torturers off the hook, he expanded Bush's drone wars . . .
And, crucially, Obama gave us beer summits and bromides at a time when people were outraged by racist pattern of police killings. Booker's likeable centrism reminds us a bit too much of Obama.
Sanders is the candidate who has embraced the movement for black lives, he has brought black intellectuals and activists into his campaign and that is why he, and not Booker is candidate preferred by young voters of all backgrounds.
66
@DanInTheDesert If he really were the most likable and competent centrist in the race, he might have enough support in the polls to make the debate stage...
18
@DanInTheDesert
Obama was the best President in my lifetime and a pragmatist. Sure, some things could have been better but his Presidency was a resounding success.
The new left is stepping on itself trying to out-liberal each other but we need to take a lesson from Barack Obama and lead from the center to win the election and succeed.
29
@DanInTheDesert
Your problem is that Obama is not running. Oh - and he did keep 10's of thousands of jobs by bailing out GM and Chrysler. Money we got back, BTW. He did navigate out of the Great Recession, despite the GOP.
You conflate being a centrist with all that you find bad about government. You do realize of course that had all the young voters, including the Bernie or Bust5 people, the sit out to protest people, the throw away your vote on 3rd party people, we would not have had 3 years and quite possibly 5 more of DJT.
20
This is ridiculous it’s not the race of the politician, but his platform and his character. He can’t be upset he’s falling behind or his campaign hasn’t caught on. That’s not the base voters fault. It’s his. Get Good or get out of the way.
253
@Javier "The Democratic primary is facing a reckoning over diversity, fairness, & representation in the primary process..." What??? This is ridiculous. Booker & Castro are polling at 2% & 1% respectively. Sanders has raised 4 times the amount of money as Booker. Biden has raised five times as much as Castro. A recent poll shows Biden at 44 percent among black voters in South Carolina. The same poll had Senator Sanders at 30 percent. Booker & Castro are polling in the very low single digits among black voters. It's over. End of story. There is no path to the nomination for either candidate. The voters have spoken. They don't want them to be the next President. To have them on the stage in December is just blatant tokenism & at a certain level absurd. Because you're a POC doesn't give you a divine right to be at the Democratic debates when you haven't earned that right. Biden, Sanders, Warren, & Buttigieg have earned the right. Booker and Castro haven't. It's time to leave the field of battle with a sense of grace & decency. This whole debacle is being driven by progressive zealots who are determined to push the Democrats into a circular firing squad. At this point, I have to say who cares what these fanatics think. The question should NEVER be do Democrats want an all-white slate of top-tier candidates to be the face of their party in 2020? The only relevant question: who is the best candidate, who can win in 2020? Questions about ethnicity are irrelevant & should be ignored.
26
@Javier
'He can’t be upset he’s falling behind or his campaign hasn’t caught on. That’s not the base voters fault. '
The voters have been clamoring for diversity while they back up white old rich Washington people (see the polls)
It's not the candidates, it's the Democrat voters who claim to want one thing while supporting another. I would be frustrated too.
6
@AutumnLeaf "Democrat voters who claim to want one thing while supporting another" makes it sound like if we want diverse elected officials we should vote for whichever diverse candidate gets set before us. I don't vote with a quota in mind, I vote for the best candidate - and that's why Booker has never been on my list. Polls suggest others agree with me.
12
I do sympathize with many of these candidates such as Cory Booker, who are great people but just can’t seem to break through the huge field we have this year.
Yet I’m getting kind of tired hearing complaints from candidates who didn’t make the debate stage criteria. It doesn’t inspire me to support them; rather, they just come off as sore losers. What do they expect - that we should clutter the stage with 20 candidates until June? That’s not a debate, it’s a series of sound bites. There has to be some way to whittle down the field, and it seems pretty fair to me to slowly raise the bar based on donors and polling. If a candidate can’t attract more than a couple percentage points of voters by now, then I’m sorry but it’s time to bow out.
Also, the top four group is still diverse in ways besides race: one is a woman, another is gay. And none of them are “billionaires”. Race is not the only type of diversity.
160
If you expect to be the Democratic candidate going up against Trump in 2020, you're going to need a a more resonating argument than this Senator.
108
I started having "McGovern moments" back in June and nothing has eased my fears. There are too many people running and some of them are far too old, and I say that as someone in their 70s. The Democratic loss of governorships in recent years has greatly reduced the bench of possibly successful presidential candidates. We are left with those that often have little name recognition.
Booker has been hurt by Obama, who as a decent, likable man, but a largely ineffective president. Much will be made of the condition of Newark even though no one can be reasonably expected to cure all its problems. A major Black turnout is critical for the Democrats.
The impeachment will prove a disaster for the Democrats. Upon acquittal by the Senate, Trump will declare all charges false. His supporters have shown no interest in these and will likely be energized by them.
33
Trump has already declared all charges against him false and his base eats it up like ice cream. That won’t make any difference going forward because Trump supporters are unmovable - they are not possible Democratic voters. Move on from there.
11
@David "Booker has been hurt by Obama, who as a decent, likable man, but a largely ineffective president."
Sorry David, but I won't let you get away with that one. Obama inherited an economy losing 800K jobs /month and left Trump with an economy making 121K jobs/month. The annual debt was a $1 trillion dollars and Obama left it at $587 billion and Trump and the Republicans have it back to $1 trillion in 3yrs and added 2 trillion to the debt/increase it by 10% overnight--with a booming economy. Unemployment was 10% and Obama got it down 63% from 10- 4.7% and Trump has gone down from 4.7-3.5 % only 12% more. Osama bin Laden was caught and punished for attacking us, under Obama. 23 million uninsured(out of 47 million) got some form of healthcare in spite of unified republican obstruction. Stop hating on Obama, he accomplished a lot in the face of Republican efforts to sabotage his every move and he did it with style and grace.
25
@EPMD
And let's not forget that the CFPB was established during his administration. And don't forget the opposition he faced from Republicans his entire term in office ("let's make him a 1 term President", etc.)
13
This is a systemic problem with liberals. (I identify as a liberal, but I'm not real happy with the direction the left is taking.) Democrats so want to do "the right thing", or their idea of it, that they are blinded to political realities. Cory Booker, as fine a man and public servant as he is, is badly missing the point. It's not for the party apparatus to pick the candidate, but the voters. If they want an all-white ticket, that's what the party should field. Kamala Harris was not owed a candidacy. It's tough road and very few people make it to the end. It's not her time, or she's not the most suited candidate. The actual question is "Kamala couldn't do it. Who can win?" There is only one party that can answer that question - the voters. Being oblivious of that is political suicide.
102
@Stevenz We had an all white ticket in 2016. How did that work out?
2
@Potlemac In 1984 and in 1988, we had a "diverse" field. How did that work out for Jesse?
3
@Potlemac Actually, the Democratic candidate won the votes cast by actual voters. The problem is that she did not win enough voters in places that have the electoral votes she needed to be elected president. Many of those voters voted for the African-American candidate in 2012. Perhaps she lost those votes by focusing more on her gender and her entitlement and less on the needs of those voters as Bernie Sanders did.
1
I am a white male senior citizen who voted for Barack Obama twice and, if I could, would vote for him again. After a strong start Senator Harris never developed a coherent message and lost control of her campaign organization. I don't know why Senator Booker's candidacy hasn't caught fire. To me he is appealing, but he is not Barack Obama. I understand to some degree why some African-Americans, especially among the young, may feel that they have not been sufficiently rewarded for the support they have given the Democratic Party, but that does not necessarily mean that they are correct. No candidate merits support merely on the basis of gender, ethnicity, race, or religion alone.
103
Absolutely. At the same time, realistically there are candidates that will never be able to garner enough votes in the rural precincts that count in the Electoral College to win an election - and it has nothing to do with their policies: Sanders and Bloomberg are unelectable in the hinterlands and both for the same reason. Sad but true.
7
@Pottree
Still seems astonishing that Obama won twice.
2
@Daniel Hudson Thank you. I may not find Booker appealing, but I did like Obama. I'm tired of the race card. Candidacy is reliant on the best person for the job. Not the variety of adjectives we use to establish how we are different from one another.
3
Silly. May the best candidate win.
13
While there may be some merit in arguing that the Democratic field in 2020 is "so white" -- I'm hesitant to vote for any candidate based solely on their skin color.
And I'm biracial.
Yes, it's a shame that Kamala Harris is no longer there, but her ship was slowly sinking before it finally went down.
The problem now is that Cory Booker and Julian Castro are the only alternatives in an otherwise all-white lineup, but for the most part that's the only thing that makes them stand out.
Still, Democrats can pride themselves in having a far more diverse group in the running than the Republicans.
Not only that, but not one of them is currently facing impeachment.
9
I have been fearful of this story for the past couple of years because I knew it was coming. I knew it was coming because the NY Times is entirely consumed by identity, making identity and diversity paramount. This is wrong-headed, especially with regards to the Presidential race because the Presidency is a single-incumbent position, meaning it can only be held by one person at any given time. It cannot be diverse. The field may start out diverse. But it will necessarily become less so as candidates drop out until there is one candidate remaining, at which point it will not be diverse at all.
The NY Times and its reporters need to change their view of the world or they will help re-elect Trump. You can start by fixing these ideas:
1) Cory Booker is not "angry" that Kamala Harris is out of the race. The opposite is true. I know he said he's angry. We all know better.
2) The debate rules are not biased against people of color. Harris and Booker have been in all the debates and Harris had raised a ton of money.
3) There are multiple points in this article where the implication is that people are expected to vote for candidates of their own race. This is insulting and dangerous.
4) Other candidates have dropped out in recent weeks. I don't recall reading articles about their race.
47
Keep in mind that both Cory Booker and Julian Castro have more experience in the Congress than the billionaire candidates that are running. They have both been mayors of larger cities than South Bend, IN. Julian was in Obama's cabinet and Cory is on the Forgien Over Site Committee. They are both centrist.
I agree color doesn't matter but experience does.
1
@KW Bloomberg has more experience then anyone.
2024 is the year we can push hard on issues such as having diverse candidates for President as a top priority.
Right now, this country is too conservative in a handful of states that will determine the election. If a candidate does not have the money or broad support, then they shouldn’t stand. It will take everything to beat Trump.
2
Booker and Castro knew well what the DNC rules were from the beginning. They have both polled badly for an awfully long time. So being fair means changing the rules now to favor one or both of them?
3
Me too. But if there is no candidate there is no candidate.
Considering the fact that Biden has the support of the black electorate(which as a person of color disturbs me)pretty much renders Mr Booker’s argument moot. Having said that, I not only want Trump out of office, but find myself almost equally apprehensive when envisioning a president that can’t keep both feet out of their mouth while being slothful in synthesizing any given situation. Unfortunately Mr Bloomberg’s entry into the race has the smell of Nader in 2000, which may render all of this moot.
2
I like candidates Harris, Booker, Castro, etc and would enthusiastically vote for them if they received the nomination. But they were/are trailing in support among black and hispanic voters. Yet somehow, it’s the fault of white voters? The same group of voters who gave Candidate Obama his Iowa victory and trajectory to victory over a - oh my goodness - white candidate. This sounds less like logic and more like sour grapes. Playing the race card makes them look small.
I do agree with Booker’s point about the outsized influence of Iowa and New Hampshire in the primaries. That need to change. It does not, however, impact current national polls.
Booker, in particular, has been in the national spotlight for years and has never failed to find a willing camera. His campaign just didn’t take off.
9
Someone please help me out.
I can't find the places in the Constitution and Amendments thereto where it says that the President and Vice President must meet certain requirements such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, etc.
Anybody?
12
@Mon Ray While women were granted the right to vote, there is nothing specific to their holding office. Women were not considered "persons" when the Constitution was adopted. The equal rights amendment failed if you remember.
@David
So what is the governing authority that allows them to run for President?
Booker's comments are baseless given the urgency for a Democratic to emerge the front-runner who is the most electable candidate to defeat Mr. Trump in 2020.
5
Bottom line: If Michelle Obama announced tomorrow that she was running for President, she would shoot to the top of the heap.
This is not about race, and it is not about gender. It is about finding the right candidate to beat Trump and to bring this country back from the Brink.
8
Booker has always come across as disingenuous so it is hard to take these comments as anything more than self-serving nonsense. By his logic, we don't have enough fiddle players, bbq pitmasters, or graphic designers on the stage either. Give us a break. We need the most viable candidate to lead the party, period.
12
It isn't perfect but donors are the clearest sign that the people are buying what you are selling. However in order to stay competitive in the Primaries, you still have to earn the trust of the voters by being responsive to the issues they care about Sen Booker has apparently have failed to do. Now he argues diversity is what should keep him on that stage. Diversity should guarantee that you have the same shot as anyone else, not that you should win.
2
Booker, Harris and Korbuchar etc have had ample time to make gains in the polls and have not reached the 5% level. All the candidates, can argue that they should be in the race and debates at least until Iowa and NH caucuses. But is there precedent for candidates polling less than 3% at this point to go on and win or place in the top 3 in the Iowa and NH? If Booker is correct and polling can be inaccurate then he should be able to present data to affirm this position and we should not push he and the other under polling candidates to leave the race like Harris now. I think they have had a fair chance and have failed to win over the democratic base. I would rather see Duval Patrick and Bloomberg get one shot at the debates outside of the rules and see if the can gain traction where these others have failed. After this debate the threshold should be 5% independent of fundraising, to get on the next debate stage.
7
I want the best qualified ticket that can beat the incumbent. Does that mean an all white ticket? I don’t know. But unlike Booker, I want to win.
75
‘“This is not about one candidate,” Mr. Booker said in his speech Thursday. “It is about the diverse coalition that is necessary to beat Donald Trump.”’
I don’t like Cory Booker. His political ideas are plain boring. Don’t misconstrue his argument, though; he definitely wants to win against trump.
1
@MB I want to win too accordingly the best candidate should be the one to be selected for 2020 to normalize this country which is so badly needed.
Seriously? We are now at the point where we have affirmative action [read quotas] for presidential candidates.
Booker and Castro can drop out now or limp on and drop out in February.
161
@SteveRR Democrats want affirmative action for everything, so why not the President's office? Why should my university go out of its way to choose diverse deans, Provost, and VPS... but not the DNC?
Those who live by identity politics shall die too by identity politics!
Now if u really support diversity go contribute $3 to Corey's campaign so he can qualify. But I guess Identity politics is just an expedient sham... otherwise, show me the money!
1
He sounds like he wants himself at the top tier. Whatever Spartacus.
23
@Robin The stunt he pulled at the Kavanaugh hearing, talking about his Spartacus moment and walking out of the hearing, showed just how infantile he is and how unqualified he is to be president. We already have a 6 year old in the White House. We don’t need another.
1
I'm sorry you feel that way Cory. There's probably no way I could convince you, but it's not about race at all. Candidates either inspire people or they don't. That's it. We must win this election. Too much is at stake. The cancer in the White House must be excised. Biden is our best choice.
54
@Richard I agreed until the very last part. I respect your opinion, though.
5
Whatever happened to the idea of being judged by the content of your character rather than the color of your skin?
Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Peter Buttigieg. et al are plentiful colorful and have good character. Please don't (mis)judge them for the paleness of their skin.
158
@Fatima Blunt
No offense. But you're really missing the point if you think having a "plenty colorful character" is the same thing.
However I do agree it is best for one not to be judged by the color of one's skin.
Too bad our country has yet to reflect that.
1
@N. Smith I think the diversity in NBA and the NFL might be reflective. I for one would love to see more Hispanics in both leagues, but that might require quotas or affirmative action, right?
We need the best people for the job.
42
...Really? We've had a black man and an elderly white woman as the last two nominees. Is the fact that the top 4 are white with two elderly men, an elderly woman, and a young gay man the end of the democratic party to him? I have no idea why the democrats are still playing identity politics. Even further if you wanted to play identity politics to win - go with the identity of those with the most voting power. Rural white people.
112
!ost of our presidents would qualify as ”elderly.” It takes a misogynist to note that the ONLY female presidential nominee from a major party was also of a certain age.
4
@Laura
While I wouldn't have used that term, by conventional definition 'elderly' is appropriate to use from age 65 on. So the original poster used it correctly and for both male and female candidates. And for that he's called out as a misogynist.
14
I find Booker's comments very self-serving.
Everyone knew the rules from the beginning.
Harris was a one-trick pony from the start with her premeditated attack on Biden the first debate.
If Biden and Sanders are polling tops amongst minorities, how can that in any way be unfair?!
99
The Democratic nominee for president has not been a white man since all the way back in 2004.
I assure you that whoever is not on that stage on debate night it’s not because of race or gender
122
How about this - I honestly could care less what race any candidate is. Maybe if the candidates focused a little less on being racist and pushing their racial divisions and a little more on actual policy, they would be viable candidates. Until then, it’s not the white peoples who sound racist. It’s Booker.
53
@Chris W
Perfectly stated, and your comment applies to Harris as well.
The Democrats have a gay man, Asian man a native Ametican running. It still is diverse. Kamala Harris was not very likable to gain support.
30
In the end there will only be one nominee. If this nominee is white, is that problem? Is Corey Booker (among others) actually saying that it’s not ok to have a white nominee?
57
@Jon
He won't say that; he wants you to come to that conclusion.
5
Cory Booker is likely toast barring some amazing turnaround which I don't see happening. The last thing he should do is attempt to take voters of color with him. He's in the early stages of ginning up resentment and feeding the narrative that Democrats aren't concerned with issues important to the Black community. This will be fodder for Trump and the Republicans and will only help in getting him reelected. He's polling low for the same reason other candidates are polling low.
When the time comes I hope he exit the race with a little dignity not kicking and screaming about unfairness.
64
You can’t elect someone based solely on the color of his/her skin. However, I would support Corey Booker. He has, I believe, all the qualifications to be president.
@Banjokatt he’s a corporatist. Let him run as a Republican.
2
MLK said a man so should be judged by the content of his character, not the color of his skin. It should be the same for the field of presidential candidates.
26
This is a ludicrous contention.
They should stay in the race, and continue to take money from Americans, even though they don't have a chance, so we can hear a diverse perspective?
Neither Booker or Castro (who is unemployed) has a chance.
Listen to the people. If they were on board, they would donate.
They are only staying in the race bucking to get on someone's ticket or get Cabinet positions.
While the Dems are focused on infighting, Trump has built a massive financial arsenal and has solicited collaborators, like Facebook and Russia, to help him rig another election.
Dems need to reign it in and get focused.
Both of these candidates are young enough to run again in the future. If they are that passionate, they can campaign for the nominee.
23
I was initially very interested in Harris because she's an attractive, charismatic, brilliant woman. But without a coherent message, the gender and race narrative becomes a cliche, especially from a formerly ruthless power-seeking prosecutor. Booker's talent is even more impressive than Kamala, but he is shooting himself in the foot. Rather than "diversity" we need "university"-- the universal appeal is what Obama brought, and that's what we need to win next year. Who is going to offer that?
17
Contrary to Senator Booker's assertion, voters did determine who is still in the election primary. They did so in polls and by contributing money to candidates.As a lifelong Democrat , I see his assertion as opportunistic and no fault of the Democratic party. Neither he nor Kamala Harris nor Julian Castro are particularly appealing people. It has nothing to do with race except to the extent that playing the race card makes them less appealing. Identity politics has hurt the party badly with centrist white voters. If we are to win the election it is time to put aside such contrived racial grievances (and even genuine ones) to gain the necessary electoral votes in swing States like Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania
20
Are we going to have affirmative action for candidates now? I supported that for schools but this is ridiculous. I gave money to Harris but she apparently needs more time to learn how to campaign. Booker is not well liked in NJ and seen as hypocritical. We need public financing for elections, but I don't think that would've helped those two. I'm hoping for Stacey Abrams for vp. Wouldn't that be progress? There are several women running and it's about time we had a female president but I can't support any woman just because I'm female. That said, I'll support anyone over the incumbent criminal.
As another commenter said, suggest a more objective measure than polling and unique donors. Nobody can.
36
I think the process is flawed - everyone wants money from small donors - small donors do not have the resources to support 20 candidates - and this is just about selecting a nominee. Bernie is riding last years coattails and Warren his. Biden probably has the best organized campaign. It’s not likability - it’s message about policy. Warren has her “plan”, Bernie his dislike of money (despite his millionaire status), and Biden his macho man persona. And it’s a CB three way tie - so no - it’s not race.
2
“What message is that sending that we heralded the most diverse field in our history and now we’re seeing people like her dropping out of this campaign?”
I greatly respect Senator Harris and strongly considered supporting her but was disappointed by her performance in the debates, her lackluster campaign and wavering on the issues. I look forward to seeing her eviscerate President Trump when impeachment reaches the Senate and hope she continues to play a prominent role in our nation's public life.
Senator Booker - do you have a problem with that?
12
Yeah, and I hope to have a nominee who isn't an advocate for charter schools and pharmaceutical companies.
There's a role for Booker, but not as president.
21
Surely everyone wants to best-candidates-to-beat-Trump field, and not one mired in identity politics for the sake of identity politics?
15
@PeteH
I don't know, you might want to ask "Mayor Pete" supporters that question . . .
Cory, – and I ask this as a Black man – if a majority of people of your own "skin color" prefer someone else, might it just come down to the fact that a candidates ethnicity simply isn't as important to voters as is how a candidate views the issues that affect ethnicities in plural? If voters actively sought all white candidate fields; or would would only accept such - obviously that'd be an issue. Voters simply choosing the candidate whose political philosophy hews most closely to their own, regardless of race? Not so much.
75
I'm simply assuming the Democratic presidential candidate will be Michael Bloomberg. But Senator Booker has a point, even if it's a bit self-serving. With where the Democratic Party is at today, a Bloomberg-Warren ticket would be a problem—too white. Yet a Bloomberg-Booker ticket also has problem—too male. It's too bad we can't have two vice presidents. We'd get the three of them together, and we'd be in great shape.
Me, and probably most Democrats, don’t particularly care about the race of the candidate. We want someone who is competent and principled and who will lead our country responsibly. For me that person is unequivocally Mayor Pete. That he doesn’t check off boxes for being born the right color or gender doesn’t seem like it should affect his chances in any way.
12
I don't care what color the nominee is. I care whether he or she will be a true leader and fight for all Americans. That person is Bernie Sanders. Regardless of color, the rest are fence-sitters, panderers, and flip-floppers who I don't trust as much as Bernie who has been consistent for almost 40 years. And it's only now that the Democratic Party is coming around to his ideas, pretending like they came up with them.
Stop with the empty identity politics and strategizing the latest memes. No matter what group you are in, except for the extremely rich, Bernie will fight for you.
The rest will all perpetuate big money politics and let rich people continue to take from us while pretending they are the victims. Stop the madness. Stop demonizing one of the greatest American politicians we've ever known who has proven his patriotism and compassion for people, not money or fame.
2
Democratic voters didn't do a single thing to create this field, it was done by negotiations between the media and the DNC. It was done with criteria that favor name recognition and internet fundraising at the expense of experience, skills, policies, and values. It was done to make sure the candidates could fit on a debate stage, not to introduce candidates to the voters. It was done on questions that the media thought were pertinent, not those integral to the job for which these candidates are applying.
So if you don't like the Democratic field, talk to the media outlets and talk to Tom Perez. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what Democrats really want.
24
If asked by a pollster, I'd definitely say Booker was my preferred candidate just to help him get the polling results he needs to qualify for the next debate. Is my $25 contribution really going to help me that much achieve that goal? How much $ have Yang or Gabbard, who are on the cusp of qualifying for the next debate doing to better poll numbers, received in donations compared to Booker?
@Mark
Exactly! It is self-serving to stay in and take people's money so they can pay for hotels, food, gas, flights, staff and the occasional ad.
4
Edit to my final sentence: How much $ have Yang or Gabbard, who are on the cusp of qualifying for the next debate due to better poll numbers, received in donations compared to Booker?
Edits to my post: How much is my $25 contribution really going to help Booker qualify for the next debate? How much $ have Yang or Gabbard, who are on the cusp of qualifying for the next debate due to better poll numbers, received in donations compared to Booker?
I am looking for the most qualified candidate with policies I can support. I sent Cory Booker a small donation early on because I liked his position on guns and wanted to give him another state to add to his list of contributors so he could stay in the race.
But I am way more liberal than he is, so he is not my first or second choice in the primaries. It has nothing to do with his race or his gender.
That said, I resent that individuals like Bloomberg and Steyer can buy their way into the primary, and that even Biden has resorted to the big money donors to stay in the race. Bloomberg has said he isn't even interested in the donations of us little people (i.e., the voters). He'll take care of it himself.
I think the voters themselves should have a greater say in who the nominee will be rather than the money men (and they are mostly men).
28
The message should be that we need the best qualified candidate regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, race or any other distinguishing characteristic. When will we keep talking about these differences only when it is to our own advantage or out of bias?
49
As Always in our US political arena, it is all about the money. This system will always remain unfair and slanted to one side as long as corporations and the wealthy elite run our politics. Really, does anyone believe that our elected officials in Washington really have the interests of the voters in mind? Just look at the polls of how well Congress is appreciated! Nothing will change until election rules are changed regarding how they are financed. This is true for Democrats and Republicans alike .
4
Booker is saying its a system weighted against race. Not about the money.
2
The notion that its bad if the field is non-diverse is a little peculiar. The field doesn't exist for any other purpose other than to be whittled down to one.
207
@Dan B
We all knew this article (and others like it) was coming because the NY Times has made identity paramount in its view of the world. And because it has applied that view to the Democratic Presidential field without any recognition that only one person can be President. The field can start out diverse but it will become less so until it is not diverse at all.
40
I hope Booker isn't suggesting that he should be elevated in this race simply due to the color of his skin.
His ideas, his plans, his maturity, legislative experience and proven wisdom, those are all things worthy of consideration when choosing a candidate.
The color of his skin? Not so much.
168
@Mark Smith Booker has committed himself to a diverse ticket were he to get the nomination (which he won't). That means his VP choice would be female, that is, chosen due to their gender. So yes, for Booker and many other people, diversity in the eventual ticket is important. It's important because elections are won in the US by improving voter turnout and voters tend to come to the polls for people they identify with.
4
@Jonathan
so we only vote for people who look like us ? Not a good formula for the future
30
@GT If I am not mistaken, 44 of the 45 Presidents have been white men. I guess that you find that acceptable. ONE woman has made it through the primaries lost a general election. If I hear one more man say that's why he won't vote for a woman this time . . .
1
If I know anything about politics, at the end of the day, unfortunately, it will be an all-white field. It may be all diverse now, but it likely will not remain that way. It saddens me, but that is how politics work. When the battle for Democratic nominee is over and the smoke clears, we will see that there is only one. They will most likely be white, as usual.
@MysteryTopHat "They will most likely be white, as usual."
You do realize that basic math is at play here, don't you? The majority of people are white, so it kind of makes sense that most candidates are, you know, from the majority.
9
Most qualified is not about race, gender, nor wealth. It's about most qualified.
216
@Shirley - And qualification #1 is being able to beat President Trump. In a scary way, most of the Democratic candidates lack this basic. I hope Michael Bloomberg is the candidate, because I'm fairly certain he would send Trump packing.
6
@Shirley “most qualified” does not apply to the job application of President. As evidenced by our current President — the least qualified applicant imaginable.
Democrats need a person of color and/or a female on the ticket. If it's all white or all male, many Democrats will feel left out or downright betrayed. Cory Booker would be an excellent choice as VP running mate. Kamala Harris is a bit down and out right now, but so would she.
13
@Mark McIntyre I'd go even further, and say that to put up an all-white ticket in 2020 would be positively suicidal. Leaving ideology aside, among the current leading candidates my ideal ticket would be either Warren/Booker or Biden/Harris.
3
@Mark McIntyre
It is the job of this paper to teach people how to select a candidate based on something other than the color of their skin. We don't need a fancy newspaper and well-educated reporters to teach us that.
12
@Mark McIntyre This is the truth, like it or not, Caucasian democrats. Don't forget, the US will be 49% Caucasian by 2050.
Please, please stop! I want a candidate who will win. If Barack Obama could run, then him, but he can't. Cory Booker can't even poll over 3% in South Carolina. If he shows he can get votes and I will look again at him— his policies and record (Newark was and still is a mess— not letting it get worse is nothing to brag about) have failed to impress me (although he is better than Trump, a low bar). I am not voting based on skin color.
245
@Stuart More people voted for Obama than they did for Hillary. 69.5 million in 2008 versus 66 million in 2016. That's enough to tell you that Americans care more about courage and commitment than race. Not as many show up to vote when they see a nominee that won't dare offend the rich and powerful for the sake of actually helping the majority of Americans.
9
@Stuart Which policies of Booker's tenure as mayor do not impress you? The Newark school system has demonstratively improved in a series of measures, largely due to actions taken by Cory Booker. That, to me, is impressive.
3
@Alex
He improved a city school system-- he should be President!
1