• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Oct 25, 2017
6,927
Via Slate's Chief Political Correspondent.

Democrats desire for diversity is increasingly apparent. Democratic voters nominated an unprecedented 180 female candidates in House primaries, as well as 133 people of color, including Native American and Muslim American candidates. Democrats also nominated 21 openly LGBT candidates for Congress. For the first time in the party's history, white men were a minority in the House Democratic candidate pool. And while election officials are still tallying votes in several states, the Democrats' incoming class of House members reflects the diversity of their candidate pool.

All of this brings obvious takeaways for the 2020 presidential race. Calls for Democrats to nominate Beto O'Rourke, former Vice President Joe Biden, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, or Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown make sense—these are talented, charismatic politicians who might improve the party's appeal with downscale whites. But they ignore or don't take seriously the clear preference for diverse candidates among Democratic primary voters. Assuming they run, their odds of winning aren't low—Sanders was the runner-up in 2016 and Biden is a popular figure in the party—but they aren't as high as they might appear either.

The opposite is true for the cohort of white women and people of color who are clearly in the race for president. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren may have stumbled with her attempt to settle questions about her heritage, but she's still in the running. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota may be unknown on the national stage, but they are skilled politicians with demonstrated appeal to rural and working-class whites. The same is true for Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who hasn't made the same moves toward running as her peers but who might appeal to Democratic primary voters for her progressive politics, clear appeal to working-class whites (she won 60 percent of white union households in her re-election bid this year), and history-making potential: She would be the first openly LGBTQ president.

If there's anyone who sits at the intersection of what Democratic voters seem to want in a candidate, it's Sen. Kamala Harris of California. A nonwhite woman, she looks like the most active and loyal parts of the Democratic base. A black woman with South Asian heritage, she would make history as president. She's close to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party (but not so progressive that she doesn't have real opposition on the left, tied to her controversial record as state attorney general) and has built herself up as a tough, unapologetic opponent of the administration (although she has voted for some of Trump's nominees). Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, likewise, would satisfy an apparently strong desire from Democratic voters to elevate a candidate of color to the White House. (This desire is why you also shouldn't dismiss former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who is also considering a bid for the nomination and has support from top Obama allies.)

Indeed, there's no way to answer the only question that really matters for the 2020 race—who can beat Trump?

With midterms over, 2020 begins.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
Good.

We made historic gains in the House because of college-educated white women.

Black women are the most loyal Democratic voters, period.

Millennial women favor Democrats by an obscene margin.

We'd be fools not to appeal to some of our most loyal supporters, put their issues at the forefront, and run a candidate who represents them.
 

ILikeFeet

DF Deet Master
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
61,987
User Warned: Inappropriate Content
MOD EDIT: NSFW SITE inside spoiler tags

BLACKED.COM
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 2426

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,988
giphy.gif
 

Deleted member 5666

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,753
"Indeed, there's no way to answer the only question that really matters for the 2020 race—who can beat Trump?"

This is what the entire primary will be about. Who will be the best bet to beat Trump. They will all agree on the main issues like Medicare for All.


It will be only about: Who is best able to beat Trump. Is it Kamala? Is it Beto? Is it Warren (lol)?...etc
 

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,670
"Indeed, there's no way to answer the only question that really matters for the 2020 race—who can beat Trump?"

This is what the entire primary will be about. Who will be the best bet to beat Trump. They will all agree on the main issues like Medicare for All.


It will be only about: Who is best able to beat Trump. Is it Kamala? Is it Beto? Is it Warren (lol)?...etc

Will they? I wouldn't be surprised if many only want small improvements to the ACA.
 

captive

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,991
Houston
Correlation does not equal casuation. The reason a record number of women and people of color were nominated is because a record number of women and people of color actually ran for office, largely in response to the shit heel we have for president.

Please don't read this wrong, it's great at how diverse the Democrat side of the house is.
 

Vilix

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,055
Texas
I'm all for diversity. But I like Beto and Biden based on where they stand on the issues.

On the other hand I can't stand Hillary or Sanders. I'm such a mess. :(
 

Jon Carter

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,746
Not too sure about that. I'm not convinced Beto would have lower chances than Harris. It would be cool though to have a non-white and/or non-male and/or non-straight president.
 

Deleted member 5666

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,753
I hope the over 70 trio of Biden, Bernie, & Warren stay far away. No more 70+ year old presidents for a long time please.
 

Deleted member 5666

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,753
Not too sure about that. I'm not convinced Beto would have lower chances than Harris. It would be cool though.
I agree but we will find out. Whoever energizes the base the most will win the primary. Whoever energizes the primary the most has the best chance of winning. So whoever wins will be the one who has the best chance. Be it Kamala or Beto (or anyone else).

2020 isn't a primary where Dems are going to be reading through resumes and weighing policy options. They want to win. Bad. It will play out how it needs to play out.
 

Dennis8K

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,161
Bookmarked thread for when it ends up being a old white male Democrat that will go up against Trump.
 

medinaria

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,536
This seems awfully like another entry in the storied political writing genre of "Things I Want Are The Things It Sure Seems Like America Wants".

Weird how this article can say this, Third Way can say that the voters want a moderate and uncontroversial figure, Mark Penn can say that we're all secretly clamoring for Hillary again... it's almost like everyone's just projecting their own desires onto the American electorate and working backwards from there!

Democrats have made it clear that they're more willing to elect diverse candidates. They have not, in any way, made it clear that a white dude won't win the primary. They have not, in any way, made it clear that they're not willing to vote for the right white dude. White dudes aren't canceled, they're just no longer the default.
 

Titik

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,490
A black woman needs to be on the top of the ticket for 2020, either as VP or President.
 

Titik

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,490
This seems awfully like another entry in the storied political writing genre of "Things I Want Are The Things It Sure Seems Like America Wants".

Weird how this article can say this, Third Way can say that the voters want a moderate and uncontroversial figure, Mark Penn can say that we're all secretly clamoring for Hillary again... it's almost like everyone's just projecting their own desires onto the American electorate and working backwards from there!

Democrats have made it clear that they're more willing to elect diverse candidates. They have not, in any way, made it clear that a white dude won't win the primary. They have not, in any way, made it clear that they're not willing to vote for the right white dude. White dudes aren't canceled, they're just no longer the default.

This is a great take, actually. We're not going after white dudes here.
 

medinaria

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,536
Luckily no one wants one of the oldies this go round it seems.

While polling at this stage is 100% name recognition, the top two polled candidates at this point are Biden (75) and Sanders (ageless, has roamed New England since the dawn of time).

Even Warren would be 70 by the time the election happens, and she's another strong possibility - there's a lot of old candidates that are very high up in the early running.
 

Deleted member 5666

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,753
While polling at this stage is 100% name recognition, the top two polled candidates at this point are Biden (75) and Sanders (ageless, has roamed New England since the dawn of time).

Even Warren would be 70 by the time the election happens, and she's another strong possibility - there's a lot of old candidates that are very high up in the early running.
Polls this early are meaningless name recognition only. None of those 3 will win a single primary state. That is the only thing I am 100% confident in for 2020.
 

ebs

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
443
Tbh this article makes no sense

1) it's true that Democrats are voting in a more diverse set of people to represent them than ever before, and that's amazing

2) This does not mean that dems are "over white men". Gimme a poll for that, or alternatively you have to normalise the rate white men won the house races by the increase in non-white male candidates

3) Regardless none of this informs what makes a good presidential candidate if the measure is ability to win. What the dem core loves does not correspond to the best probability to win. That's mainly about someone who can win those swing states, that's how you win a presidency.
 

Omegasquash

Member
Oct 31, 2017
6,163
Democrats have made it clear that they're more willing to elect diverse candidates. They have not, in any way, made it clear that a white dude won't win the primary. They have not, in any way, made it clear that they're not willing to vote for the right white dude. White dudes aren't canceled, they're just no longer the default.

Truth. Headlines like the one in the article are just crafted attention getters. Clicks make money.
 

Bronx-Man

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,351
3) Regardless none of this informs what makes a good presidential candidate if the measure is ability to win. What the dem core loves does not correspond to the best probability to win. That's mainly about someone who can win those swing states, that's how you win a presidency.
But we already won back PA, WI, and MI in the midterms.

Literally all we have to do is play defense with those three and the Presidency is a lock.
 

tsampikos

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,613
The alt-right's go to joke for this situation :/

As for the situation at hand I'm all for it... but I fear it will push fence sitters out. I fear that by taking up this mantle we will lose votes because there are enough fragile people out there who will see this as an attack and not as an attempt prop up authority figures that represent the country more accurately.

I have no question about the where this will go with democrats. It's the people in the middle I don't have any faith in.
 
Last edited by a moderator: