2020 Democratic presidential primary

there will be 12 debates

i hate myself for the little thrill i just experienced upon reading that

12 debates with 24 candidates, everybody gets 2 seconds to speak

Democrats will hold at least a dozen presidential primary debates starting in June 2019 and running through April 2020, with party Chairman Tom Perez promising rules that will give everyone in a potentially large field a fair shot at voters’ attention.

Making public his first in a series of decisions over the 2020 debate calendar, Perez said Thursday that the national party will sponsor six debates in 2019 and six more in 2020. That could be extended if the nomination process drags deep into the spring.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-20/urgent-democrats-to-start-presidential-primary-debates-in-june-2019

oh,joy

the real question is what is the threshold for participation

breathing, unsatisfied with Yam

supports medicare for all is increasingly looking like the threshold tbh

Except Bernie Fucking Sanders, the only old white male who will primarily alienate old white males.

Speaking of, https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/yes-bernie-should-run-771260/

He should run and lose imo lol

And aren't all of the candidates faux progressives? Harris, Gillibrand ...they've definitely been drawn left, which means they used to vote more ... centrist.

So they're learning that they have to be responsive to the majority of the party that is well to the left of Congressional Democrats and donors? I don't see that as a negative, if they're pushed left and held there.

They'll be held there right until the end of the primary.

Perhaps, unless the realpolitik of the situation favors them staying left - which includes maybe getting primaried in 2024 if they don't (as unlikely as that is). Unless you're going full Bernie-or-bust, you have to start thinking about which possible candidates can be made better with the right pressure.

beto being a bland can-win-in-texas centrist was fine when he was running to replace ted fucking cruz. it would also be tolerable if he wins the primaries and is then running to replace donald fucking trump. but until then he'd be running to secure the nomination against other people who might be much more progressive than he is, so his track record (and anything else abt him really) wd be fair game. and anyway if "how not-trump they are" is important, then surely "they voted for trump's initiatives a lot" is relevant.

yeah he'll get pilloried for it. voting in the House is p different than it is in the Senate, and compounds the difficulty of leap-frogging from the House to the Presidency (which is exceedingly rare)

They should do that with literally everyone potentially running for president, and then the left will be left with nobody.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:00 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Except Bernie Fucking Sanders, the only old white male who will primarily alienate old white males.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:01 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

iirc "the left" has never "had" basically anyone, and has held their noses in voting booths since time immemorial, no idea why this cycle should be any different. doesn't make the way candidates actually vote irrelevant

― resident hack (Simon H.), Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:05 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Nitpicking about past voting records in an upcoming race where the number one bona fide will be how much not like Trump you can be seems to be self-defeating, which for sure is something "the left" knows all about.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:12 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

another way of looking at this is we should look at everyone’s past votes and actually see whose record is most in line with progressive priorities!

also, lol at the idea of all those GOP-killing candidates the left have torpedoed over the years, which would be....who, exactly?

this is true of both, but I don't care what the motivation is tbh, and it bothers me when leftists bring up the motivation as something critical to determining whether they can "trust" the candidate or not. Trust no one, is what I say! What you want is someone who responds to pressure, the results are what matters.

― Οὖτις, Thursday, December 20, 2018 4:59 PM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Agreed totally, and maybe I spoke poorly if I gave you the wrong idea -- the point of parsing cynical ploy vs submission to pressure is not "are they sufficiently pure" but "are they moving because *responding to pressure is something they do* or because *they want to win this specific contest and won't respond in this way again*.

Hillary Rodham of course

Bernie mortally wounded her

xp

Morbz.... otm?

From a practical standpoint, it is much easier to move a politician to a position they already occupy or are only a step or two away from.

i was parodying idiot Clintonites, Shakey

you don't think his candidacy damaged her? seems like a fairly non-controversial take to me

Less than Hillary's run damaged Obama, if the numbers are to be believed.

or remember PUMA

yer right, she should've been anointed

let's have this argument again, I'm sure everyone's dying to see how it turns out this time

the question is who is the frontrunner who should be chosen unanimously for '20

hopefully the debate 6 months from now will settle this

and who is in which lane

I hate when drivers go 20 mph in the left lane!

old guys like Bernie

or ppl from Florida

This is revisionist. One of the notable things about the race was that Beto was running as unapologetically progressive in a Texas Senate race.

“beto being a bland can-win-in-texas centrist was fine when he was running to replace ted fucking cruz.“

this is true of both, but I don't care what the motivation is tbh, and it bothers me when leftists bring up the motivation as something critical to determining whether they can "trust" the candidate or not. Trust no one, is what I say! What you want is someone who responds to pressure, the results are what matters.

― Οὖτις, Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:59 AM (five hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the more pessimistic way to look at this would be to say that people whose votes or priorities can be so easily swayed could also respond to pressure from those hostile to our interests. whereas someone with genuine progressive beliefs (for which voting record seems to be the best proxy, unless someone can suggest something better) would not be as vulnerable to this

weird to assume that a voting record is a reflection of beliefs (and not, say, a reflection of kowtowing to constituent priorities and following orders from party leaders)

It's not weird, it's so normal that political scientists writing on the subject generally have to devote a significant portion of their publications to countering this view because it's such a norm

huh, I’d love to read a review article by a political scientist explaining why past voting record is not predictive of future voting record, and what a better alternative is, if such a thing exists

I mean I also don’t care about “beliefs” — they are unknowable. I care about what someone is likely to support

goalposts moved

like I could very easily explain to you why a House voting record is not predictive of a Senate voting record or actions in the White House without reference to "beliefs". And not to harp on my favorite example for the millionth time but exhibit A: LBJ.

data, please

every vote taken is the result of very specific contexts - who is pressuring the elected official, what leverage or political capital is being exercised or expended, when is it taking place (just prior to an election? just after?), the constituency involved (national vs. state vs. district), etc etc. Publicly professed "beliefs" become very malleable in these contexts.

LBJ voted against *every single* civil rights bill that ever came up in the House while he was there. Every one. Then he became Majority Leader of the Senate and managed to pass, for the first time ever, a compromise civil rights bill over the objections of his southern colleagues. Then he became VP and didn't give a shit/was powerless re: civil rights. Then JFK died, he took the measure of his power and the political winds in the party, and did what JFK - an avowed pro-civil rights liberal - could not, and passed the Civil Rights Act.

There are tons of less dramatic and historically significant examples of this, but it happens all the time on various scales.

for another, perhaps more recent example, you can take all the incoming House Dems that said they would vote against Pelosi as leader and are now keeping their heads down and putting their hands up.

Joe Manchin loves coal miners and the coal industry and has voted in their interests more times than I can count, but on the other hand he does things like this: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-05/manchin-changes-mind-on-trump-s-pro-coal-nominee-amid-pressure Is this because he no longer loves coal? Or never actually loved coal? Or is it because Trump pissed him off? Or because his party is swinging left? Or because he suddenly believes climate science?

or is it because he wanted that committee chair and this vote (which affected nothing, really) was the price for that?

ok, and that context and the forces upon a politician in a primary are different than those in a general election or when they actually have to govern

again, as I said in my original post, I care about a person’s voting record insofar as, taken over a large sample, it seems likely to me to predict their progressive resoluteness when those forces pull from either side. you seem confident that that is not the case, so I assume there are data...

xp

I mean is the argument seriously that, given a choice between two democrats, the one with the more progressive voting record would be no more likely to be more progressive in the future? that is a fascinating, counter-intuitive claim that I would need to see substantiated by something other than cherry-picked anecdotes to believe

I don't think you can reliably predict "progressive resoluteness" at all tbh, esp when you're talking about a President, who is subject to a unique set of political pressures unlike any other office

You should base it on the policy promises they make for the office they are currently running for. The “politicians always break promises when in office” cliche is historically the opposite of true.