Warning: Any Candidate Considering Running for President as a Democrat in 2020

[MineralMan]

should stop and think seriously before criticizing Barack Obama. In this country, huge blocs of voters actively supported President Obama in both of his presidential election and during his terms as President. In fact, without those voters, it will be virtually impossible for any Democrat to win office in 2020.

We should all remember that we lost the 2016 election, in part due to those voters not turning out in adequate numbers to defeat even a Republican moron who opposed Hillary Clinton. We made the mistake of dividing the Democratic Party and alienating a large group of voters who strongly supported Barack Obama as President.

Now, and in 2020, Obama is no longer the POTUS, but instead of his popularity dropping, it is increasing. Any candidate who does not take advantage of that will surely lose, hopefully in the primaries. Any candidate who does not understand what motivates a number of demographic groups who strongly supported President Obama cannot possibly recapture the energy and enthusiasm that swept Barack Obama into office, despite his being the very first President of color.

Criticism of our most successful Democratic President in recent history is NOT the way to win back the White House. Any potential candidate who does not fully understand that should reconsider even running. Such criticism will lead to another defeat and further damage progressivism.

Let's not make the same mistakes we made in 2016, please!

That's my opinion. Your opinion might be different.

[HopeAgain]

1. Is deviating from any of Obama's positions "criticism?"

It sure look like it is on here...

[MineralMan]

2. Criticism is Criticism.

I'm not sure why my wording is so difficult to understand. Holding different views is not criticism. Criticism is criticism.

I choose my words carefully, and understand exactly what I mean to say. I said nothing about "deviating from Obama's positions" at all. You inserted that.

[HopeAgain]

9. I've seen a lot of mis-characterizing of what Warren and Sanders have said as direct criticism.

If people have specific quotes that they are concerned with, they should post them word for word.

Case in point from today: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9008638

Let us all decide rather than just posting a headline that screams for attention.

[MineralMan]

12. I did not mention either Warren or Sanders.

My post is general advice for potential candidates. It's about winning the next presidential election. I'm not going to attack any individual possible candidate, but I will freely offer advice to any such potential candidate.

[HopeAgain]

13. So this is just abstract discussion?

In that case, thank you, but I have to wonder why this comes up now...

[MineralMan]

17. My original post is not abstract in any way.

It is a concrete suggestion for anyone thinking of running for President as a Democrat in 2020. What other people write in this discussion is their view on the subject I raised. As far as I am aware, nobody has yet announced intentions to run for that office.

[HopeAgain]

27. Exactly, nobody has announced...

which is why I found your timing of this post curious. My mistake, I guess.

[druidity33]

89. well as you know

a lot of Presidential contenders troll this board for ideas and such...

[zipplewrath]

50. Because so many potential Candidates consult you before running?

You thought the place to come to give your sage advice to people who are considering running for POTUS was DU? What makes me think that wasn't actually your intended audience?

[MineralMan]

51. What's your point?

This is a political discussion forum. I'm a member here and have the privilege of starting threads if I wish.

No, nobody consults me about running for President. Why would they?

My intended audience is DU, obviously. That's where I posted my opening thread. It's being discussed, which was what I intended to happen.

Why does that trouble you in any way?

[zipplewrath]

55. That's not what you said

"It is a concrete suggestion for anyone thinking of running for President as a Democrat in 2020."

Someone asked about your intended audience and you deflected the question with the referenced statement. I don't believe you are being genuine at all, but are attempting to skirt the rules around here. Prior you said it was for potential candidates, now it is DU. Which members of DU are you addressing?

[MineralMan]

58. Many people on DU offer advice to candidates and potential

candidates. They don't do that in hopes of a candidate reading their posts on DU, and neither do I. DU is my audience. Discussion on this forum is my goal.

Whether you believe I am being genuine or not is not really of much concern to me. Starting a discussion is my concern. That discussion is under way. You're trying to discuss me, and I'm not the subject of the thread. So, I'll not be responding further if I'm the topic.

Sorry.

[zipplewrath]

61. Yes, but they have a "real" audience

And now two people have asked you who that is. You seem to be aiming criticism at people here without being explicit. Of course, if you were, you'd probably be in violation of the terms. It is notable though that you can even be consistent, much less honest, about what your intentions were.

Sorry.

[frazzled]

29. Is deviating from any of Sanders' and Warren's positions "criticism"?

It would seem that there's a double standard going on here. It's okay to "deviate from the positions" of Obama without them being criticisms; it's seen as completely valid and justified. But it's not okay to "deviate from the positions" of Warren and Sanders. Think about it. Goose, gander and all that (i.e., can dish it out but can't take it).

[JustAnotherGen]

31. Thank you

It's definitely a double standard.

[HopeAgain]

35. Deviate away, it doesn't bother me...

I am bothered by worship of any politician, past Presidents, independents and sitting Senators included. What bothers me is when people don't think there is room for discussion because it is perceived as an attack on their hero.

[frazzled]

39. Your post indicates otherwise

[HopeAgain]

45. How so?

[frazzled]

47. Read them again

Criticisms of Obama are "deviations in opinion."
Criticisms of Sanders and Warren are "mischaracterizations."

I'm sure you think that's true, and that you don't see the hypocrisy there, but only because you are justifying your own preconceived notions.

[HopeAgain]

57. Umm no, you re-ead

I did not say that all criticisms of Sanders and Warren are mischaracterizations, I said I am seeing a instances where it is and gave a specific exampleof where it happened. I invited the posting of word for word examples, so people could decide for themselves if people are criticizing Obama or just deviating from his policies...

So if you want to play "gotcha", go ahead, but I stand by my original responses...

[workinclasszero]

44. Funny how that works

right?

[Cheviteau]

80. Long Time DU Member Here

And about to leave. You've expressed some common sense in your post. Now you've found yourself defending what you've written. Stop it. You can't argue with nit-picking assholes. This site has gone to hell in a hand basket where no one can post ANYTHING without being taken to task. Nit-pickers always twist words, apply false meaning, question motives,...but ALWAYS have a better idea. I give up.

[MineralMan]

81. Thanks. I never mind defending my own statements.

I'm very, very used to doing so, believe me.

[pnwmom]

85. When did you ever hear Republicans criticizing Ronald Reagan?

They didn't because they knew it would be the kiss of death.

[Phoenix61]

3. I don't think they should be talking about Obama at all

Maybe in passing, in a positive manner, but overall talking about the past is not productive. Focus on the future and in what direction the candidate would like the country to go.

[MineralMan]

5. Exactly. Attacking a popular former President

is just plain stupid for a Democratic candidate. Candidates should explain what they plan to do, not reflect on the past. And criticism of an extremely popular former President is the worst form of folly for a politician.

Any candidate who does that is campaigning to lose.

[Boomer]

74. This is just bizarre

I'm sorry, but it's difficult to parse out what you're doing here. It reads off-kilter because it's so unnecessary.

No one has announced a candidacy yet, no one has criticized Obama as a tactic for their campaign, and quite frankly, no one is likely to do that. Yet you make this somber post warning "no one in particular" about the dangers of a tactic that no one is actually using and may never use.

[pnwmom]

86. You must have a pretty short memory. n/t

[druidity33]

90. Yup, that's some 'true true' right there. nt.

[rpannier]

97. Agreed. But...

successes should be embraced and highlighted
Areas where people in the city, county, district, state, etc where people are dissatisfied should be acknowledged (even briefly) and addressed in a positive way moving forward. "Yes, it wasn't great, bu8t the positives were... and we can build on those by..."

[Kirkwood]

4. My opinion is different. nt

[MineralMan]

7. Well, thanks for letting me know.

If you wish, you can add words to explain how you disagree, but that's optional, of course.

[brush]

6. Spot on! Hope all the potential candidate pay heed.

[MineralMan]

8. I hope so, too.

We desperately need to send a Democrat to the White House in 2020, along with sizable majorities in both houses of Congress. That's going to require smart campaigns that help people understand why Democrats are the best choice.

Criticizing past office-holders is not how to do that.

[athena]

10. Good post.

We live in a strange world where Republicans avoid criticizing a deeply unpopular president because they don't want to annoy the 30-35% of the voting population who support him -- and where Democrats go out of their way to criticize one of the most popular presidents in recent history to have come out of their own party.

I've always believed that Gore would have won the presidency if he had not tried so hard to distance himself from Bill Clinton. It's never a good idea to criticize members of one's own party -- especially when one's own party is out of power.

[MineralMan]

11. Thank you!

We cannot win by attacking our own elected leaders. I would have thought we had learned that last year. Apparently, though, that is not the case.

[charlyvi]

25. Cough (Lieberman) cough.

[world wide wally]

14. I remember 2014 when so many Dems thought it was a good strategy to run against

Obama and they all lost their asses.
Turn off cable news, idiots.

[MineralMan]

19. Yes, that did happen.

It's always a mistake to criticize a President of your own party, especially when that President enjoys strong popularity with voters. I'd think that would be very obvious, but apparently it is not. So, I offered some advice to people thinking about running.

[yardwork]

43. I remember this in 2000 too, when Gore ran away from Clinton.

This has proven to be a failing strategy.

[progressoid]

15. Who alienated that large group of voters who strongly supported Barack Obama as President?

Seems like Elizabeth Warren is trying to win back those voters that felt alienated in 2016.

[brush]

16. Not smart to do it though by alienating rock solid Dem voters in our base

Attack Obama at your own folly candidates.

[progressoid]

22. Rock solid Dem voters in our base are going to vote for the Democrat regardless.

It's the moderates, independents, etc. that we're talking about. The ones that will vote third party, switch party vote, or not vote at all that will make the difference.

[brush]

38. In the general election yes. But candidates who attack Obama have to run the primary gauntlet.

That's why it's not smart to attack Obama.

Not smart at all.

[MineralMan]

20. I'm not sure whether Warren is running at all.

My post is not about Elizabeth Warren. It is a general warning to anyone considering a run in 2020.

[progressoid]

28. Ah, so its a coincidence you posted this at the same time DU has the vapors about Warren's comment

Well, I'm sure all the potential candidates that read DU will heed your warning.

[MineralMan]

30. There are no coincidences.

I chose to create an opening post for a new thread that was about the general worthlessness of criticizing popular former Presidents. It's a non-specific thread that applies to anyone who might run for President in 2020.

I chose to do that, because there are no announced candidates for that office at this time, but many who may be considering becoming a candidate for 2020.

As for potential candidates reading DU, that would be a very unlikely thing, really.

I started this thread. It is receiving replies, including yours. It began a discussion, as I intended it to do. I hope you'll continue to participate in that discussion.

[progressoid]

40. Thank you for confirming my statement.

[MineralMan]

42. Why does that matter?

Threads come and go on DU. This is my thread. I started it because I wanted to start this discussion. What others write is not relevant, really, to me.

[progressoid]

60. You say you wanted to start a discussion but "What others write is not relevant, really, to me."

So....not a discussion then. Got it.

[LakeArenal]

53. Some DUers have the vapors a lot. We're supposed to post only on non-vapor days?

Good luck with that. Also, some DUers like to argue for argument's sake and like to minimize the posts by others.

[JHan]

18. It's also a way of shifting blame for the partisan gridlock over the past 8 years..

away from the ones responsible - Republicans. Their obstructionism stymied progress for americans- from increasing the minimum wage to fixing the ACA. This isn't fiction or deflecting blame from anyone, it's just fact.

If you're criticizing Democrats in the era of Trump I have to wonder what your real game is. It's really that simple. I can already see republicans using these same attacks to gain vantage on Democrats. It's an insane strategy that only enables our detractors. I am tired of it, energy is being seeped away from what should be our focus - Trump and the GOP.

[MineralMan]

21. Indeed. We all saw the results of people campaigning against Obama

in 2016 by criticizing his presidency. Instead of uniting the Democratic Party to elect another Democrat as President, it divided the party to a large enough degree to lose against a person who was the worst possible Republican candidate in history.

Other factors were in play, of course, but we lost in three states by tiny margins. We should have easily won in all three of those states. We did not, and we now have Donald Trump threatening the health of this nation.

We need to stop defeating ourselves, and criticisms of one of the most popular Democratic Presidents in history is not how we will do that. It should be a no-brainer, but apparently that is not the case. I'm dumbfounded by such ignorance.

[JHan]

67. Agreed. And i'll add that sometimes the criticism is sincere..

..discontented democrats know they cannot change the GOP, so they reserve their ire for Democrats, believing it to be the one thing they can change. The problem with that is the ire is misplaced, because it doesn't change the fact that GOP philosophy remains the biggest hurdle to progress that we face, so all they end up doing is hurting the party brand.

[MineralMan]

68. Sadly, we seem to forget who the real enemy is.

In doing that, unfortunately, we sometimes help the enemy win.

Sometimes, I can hardly bear the consequences of our last election. It's hard to believe that we managed to defeat ourselves once again.

Feh!

[denbot]

23. K&R

[Hekate]

24. KnR

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. Who in their right mind criticizes President Obama

As progressives (and Americans in general), we had things damn good from 2009-2017 aside from Republican obstructionism, which, of course, had nothing to do with President Obama himself. Yeah, you can pick apart a few things here and there about his Presidency, but for crissakes, would anybody complaining about President Obama (of all people) rather have ANOTHER 4 years of Trump instead of returning to sane and competent Presidential leadership under somebody like President Obama? I still don't get what the people whom pulled the lever for Trump over Clinton last year (or went with Jill Stein or Gary Johnson) were really thinking? Any Democratic candidate whom feels like they have to criticize President Obama to win won't get my vote in 2020. Too many Democrats shot themselves in the foot foolishly running from (instead of embracing) President Obama from 2010 onward. Let's not keep making that mistake. I was happy to see that Hillary certainly didn't criticize President Obama. There should be no shame in supporting Barack Obama's Presidency.

[MineralMan]

32. Exactly. Thanks.

I appreciate your response.

[Exilednight]

33. Bullshit!

No president is perfect and each had flaws during their presidency. Every president makes mistakes, and they need to be acknowledged.

The depth of these flaws and mistakes vary from president to president. Obama made so.e very tactical errors in the beginning g of his presidency, but by his second term he figured out how to govern.

[MineralMan]

36. Well, that's concise.

Here's the deal, though: Former Presidents are just that. They are no longer in office. Criticism of them as part of a campaign by someone who is of the same party is useless. All it can possibly do is alienate those voters who were strong supporters of that former President. Such criticism never helps a candidate. Never. All it can do is to reduce the chances that supporters of that President will cast their vote in your favor.

Criticizing popular past officeholders is a losing strategy. I would prefer that 2020 presidential candidates refrain from alienating the very voters they need. Running for President is about the future, not the past. It is about what a candidate brings to the table, not about the failings of a former President. Candidates should instill optimism, not pessimism. Candidates should promise a better nation, not blame former Presidents of their own party for past perceptions of mistakes. Praising former Presidents of one's own party for their successes is a far better strategy for candidates.

That is Politics 101.

[Exilednight]

79. Bullshit again. Obama criticised Bill Clinton during the 2008 primary on a regular basis.

Former presidents, even from our own party, are responsible for many issues that still affect us today. There are plenty of issues I wish Obama had acted upon or had gone further on.

Every president, regardless of which party they belong to, deserve the criticism or praise they have earned.

To say that criticising your own party doesn't win elections, then Obama should have loss considering how much he criticized Bill.

[JHan]

82. 2008 is not 2017

In the short space of just under a decade, conservatives have mobilized in ways they didn't before, funded by dark money. They're pushing regressive climate change denialism, and want to turn back the clock on every right we fought for with blood, sweat and tears, and if they could have their way, they would strip the social safety net.

The terrain has changed. The obstructionism under Obama should have taught us one lesson - VOTE the GOP OUT.

And every day we make choices that either make or break that from ever happening. So if you ask yourself who really pisses you off, and who you should devote your energies to and who will feel the brunt of your disgust and discontent and if Republicans and Trump aren't the answer to those questions, then you might as well be a Republican. Republicans are showing us their intent, they've dropped the mask of "compassionate conservatism" and if Democrats are still the ones who upset you, then your priorities are misplaced and you're sabotaging the party. It's that clear.

And to criticize Obama when he, and Eric Holder, have made gerrymandering and voter suppression a focal point of their advocacy over the next couple years is a pretty piss poor strategy.

[Exilednight]

83. There's a lot that is factually wrong.

The biggest being that you state that the GOP is unified. They couldn't even get a repeal of the ACA through the House, much less the Senate.

When you start on a false premise, the rest just falls apart.

[JHan]

87. No my premise is absolutely on point:

No one would seriously argue that every political party is perfectly unified. But there is mobilization based on common goals and aims.

The astro turfing by the tea party, funded by the Koch brothers, contributed to dem losses ( I am not dismissing our own culpability). We have a climate change denier as President, a roll back of EPA protections, Mulvaney is now budget director and the President has outsourced policy to the heritage foundation - On top of that, SCOTUS decisions that value the absurd idea of "Corporate personhood" made possible my Republican Appointees to the court. In light of all that, if your main beef remains with Democrats, your outrage is misplaced.

[Exilednight]

88. You're not even close to being on point.

Republicans have always been climate deniers. You speak as if this is some new phenomenon among them.

Republican policy has always come from conservative think tanks, this too is nothing new.

Our SC has held the view of corporate personhood since Bush II.

Obama still won in '08 and again '12.

[JHan]

91. And you're avoiding my salient point..

because you have a problem with the OP asking democrats to understand that now is not the time to pile on Democratic politicians.

I repeat - this is not 2008. The parties are sharply divided more than they ever have been. There are few moderates, the center is falling apart. We have extremists in the WH, as awful as Bush was, his administration wasn't *this*awful.

And major decisions from the SCOTUS are affecting our politics today in ways they haven't before - decisions having to do with corporate personhood, and it will be worse now with Gorsuch and his originalism. Even if you believe that conservatism today is the same as conservatism under Bush ( and moderate anti Trumpers would vehemently disagree with you) there is a lot at stake right now given the individuals in the W.H.

I repeat, if your beef is with the Democrats STILL, given all that I've said, your priorities are misplaced or you have bought into the false argument that republicans and democrats are the same.

[Exilednight]

93. There's nothing to avoid. you're not staying anything that hasn't been

True for the past 3 1/2 decades.

My "beef", as you put it, is against bad policy, no matter who it comes from.

[JHan]

95. and bad policy is nothing new..

It's a feature of politics, not everyone will be happy. Sometimes policies are objectively bad, sometimes they just don't sit well for ideologues. Sometimes it's the result of horse trading, or compromise. Governance is not pretty or clean, or perfect. A compromise a Democrat may make is not the same as a betrayal by a Republican. What Jerry Brown has accomplished in California is a good example - he's done lots of horse trading, yeah, but his guiding principles are priorities based on democratic philosophy - infrastructure investment and addressing climate change to name just two. What guides policy implementation reflects the approach to problem-solving by both parties and therein lies the difference. I disagreed with Obama on some issues but not once would I make the mistake of equivocating him with a Republican. The current administration is determined to undo the whatever good he did, so it's a piss poor strategy to criticize Obama mindlessly at this time when the ACA is under threat.

[Blue_Tires]

34. +1

[MojoWrkn]

37. I hope this post is directed toward

Warren and Sanders (although Sanders is NOT a DEM, never has been)!

[MineralMan]

41. It is directed at neither. There are no declared candidates for 2020.

My post is directed toward those who are considering a run for that office, whoever they might be.

I have no idea who will run in 2020. In many ways, I hope it is someone we aren't talking about right now. I hope it is someone who will energize the entire party and present a positive, fresh plan for progressive changes. I hope it is someone who will attack Republicans, rather than fellow Democrats. I hope it is someone with a vision for the future that offers hope to voters.

I don't know if I'll even be around in 2020, frankly. Since I'm over 70 years old, I no longer plan that far ahead. But, the politics of Presidential elections begins immediately after the previous election, so I'm going to be involved in that process.

Watch for new names to be considered. That, in fact, may be our best hope. We need to sweep the 2020 elections and establish a new majority in both houses of Congress, along with taking back the White House. We need a new vision and new candidates to present that vision. We're on the cusp of a generational change in leadership. I embrace that.

It's time for a fresh look at potential leadership. We had that in 1960 and in 1992. In 2020, I hope to see a generational shift in our Democratic candidate. We need to do that every 25-30 years. We should be looking at Congress and our Governors for potential candidates who are in their 40s and who have proven their leadership abilities, not at people in their late 60s and older.

So, I don't really think that Warren is a great choice for 2020, and doubt very much that Sanders will even consider another run. Let's start looking for real change. There are plenty of potential candidates out there. Let's find one and make that person our champion. That's what I'd like to see.

[mwooldri]

46. In 2020, there will be so much to criticize #45 about...

.... that not including Barack Obama in the Trump pile on would be criminal IMO. Any 2020 Democratic Party Presidential candidate would be nuts not to use the Obamas and the Clintons in any campaign once they have secured the nomination. There will be so much to hit Trump with that frankly any misdeeds by any past Dem president will pale into insignificance.

[Mountain Mule]

48. Of course - that's just simple common sense

Especially once the primaries are over. This is a two party system and both voters and candidates really need to understand that the Democratic Party is the best option for the American people. Devisiveness will get us nowhere come election day. I supported Sanders, and it distressed me no end when Hillary won the nomination and some Sanders supporters said they were just going to go Green or not vote at all. Such stupidity is appalling.

However I must add that given the nature of some of the discussion on DU as of late, I feel that constructive criticism among fellow democrats is vital for our party to continue to grow and win back the vote. Without open discussion and the free exchange of ideas, our party will only become diminished.

[zipplewrath]

49. Who are you blaming?

You're right, large numbers of voters that showed up for Obama, didn't show up this time. Who do you blame for this? Because the reality is that they never showed up before either. They were a "one candidate" voter. Obama himself implored them to "don't boo, VOTE!". I'm not sure there is any real way to get them to show up again. I DO know that there are alot of voters that voted for him, and not for Clinton, but voted for Trump instead. There are some lessons there that I don't think many folks have learned yet.

[MineralMan]

54. Must I blame someone to suggest campaign strategies?

I started a general thread, because I don't want to blame anyone for anything. I'm looking forward, not backward.

I just started another thread in GD. I'm sure you'll see it. I look forward to your comments on that one.

[zipplewrath]

56. But you did

You made a reference to people who didn't vote and suggested that some group of people were responsible for that. I was asking what group of people you held responsible?

[2naSalit]

52. K&R

Thanks for the read! That includes many of the comments!

[ehrnst]

59. They should think seriously about if their tax returns are ready for prime time as well. (nt)

[zipplewrath]

62. And their nannys, and their email servers...

I am actually amazed in this day and age how many folks with cabinet level and other national office ambitions, seem to believe that they don't have to pay the nanny's social security, or that twitter and social media are a great place to play around.

[MineralMan]

63. Absolutely.

[treestar]

64. I agree with your opinion on this

circular firing squad is proven not to work.

[Grins]

65. Gawd, yes. I remember 2014 and candidate, Allison Grimes....

Last edited Sat May 6, 2017, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

(Edited for a reasonable and minor request.)

Oh, Gawd, yes. I'm with you!

I remember back in 2014 when KY Dem candidate, Allison Grimes was asked a simple question by Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board: "Did you vote for President Obama in 2008 and 2012?"

And she didn't answer. Repeatedly. The answer should have been: "Hell, yes I voted for him!" And then she could have laid into McConnell for whom he voted for!

I didn't vote for the guy who believes "corporations are people".
I didn't vote for the guy who wanted to kill Social Security and Medicare.
I didn't vote for a guy who thinks almost half of all Americans are lazy moochers.
I didn't vote for the guy who parked his mega-millions in offshore bank accounts.
I didn't vote for the first American presidential candidate to have a foreign bank account.
I didn't vote for the guy who made millions, paid zero in taxes, and refused to release his tax records while demanding and getting them from his potential running mates.
I didn't vote for the guy who supported his generation's war, but spent his war years in France bicycling through Provence.
I didn't vote for a two-time failed presidential candidate and one-term governor of Massachusetts whose only real achievement was - Health-Care-for-all that he now repudiates because - Obama!
But I'll bet McConnell did! I'll bet you any amount of money right now that he did! Why don't you go ask him that question?" "You cocksuckers", she could have added.

Why can't we have Democratic candidates who will fight back and leave Republicans on the floor bloody, and cowering, and blinking in a corner of their own making? Grimes had a real shot and blew it. Because she didn't fight. She forgot her roots.

[MineralMan]

66. Very good example, indeed!

[Gore1FL]

69. There really is nothing wrong than taking a principled stand on issues that differ with other Dems

We haven't had a Democratic nominee since Dukakis (arguably Mondale) who didn't fundamentally roll over for Reaganomics. Acknowledging something like that and that in the hopes of changing the trend isn't a bad thing.

We have had a lot of leaders in the Party. None were perfect. If we can't talk about both, the good and the bad, we won't have the values to govern.

[MineralMan]

70. Here's the thing: Candidates for President should be about

putting their ideas forward. They shouldn't be about criticizing former Presidents of their own party. Elections are about the future, not the past, quite frankly.

Notably, though, Reaganomics didn't exist during either the Dukakis or Mondale campaigns. Sorry, but there's a bit of an anachronism in your reply. I remember both campaigns. Very unfortunate they were, too.

[Gore1FL]

71. There is nothing wrong with contrasting oneself with former presidents when running for the office.

Reagonomics existed in 1981. Mondale specifically ran against it. Dukakis ran the election after Mondale. Your assertion that 1981 Reaganomics didn't exist in 1984 and in 1988 is errant.

[JCanete]

72. appropriate and respectful criticism should never be shied away from because of pandering. People

should be careful about how they criticize Obama, and they should be mindful of the particular challenges of being the first black President in this racist ass country when they do so. But I am certainly not in favor of saying our next candidate can speak no ill, or draw no contrasts. Why would you want that?

[LiberalLovinLug]

73. Isn't there a fine line to be drawn here though?

Obviously we all should agree that Obama should not be criticized for anything to do with his race, or experience, or his birth certificate etc...all the deplorable angles.

But what about issues, for instance his support for the TPP as is. There were other issues but lets use this as an example. Now he was not a king, we can't put it all on him. It was the top leadership of the Democratic party, with close ties to the larger corporations that would benefit from that deal, that also were pushing for the TPP. But he was the visible leader and where the buck stopped. Warren was against the TPP and criticized his support of it while he was in office. But now that he is out of office, we wipe his name and any responsibility for the TPP being pushed along by leaders within his administration? And of course we know how Trump was able to use Obama's endorsement of the TPP, to make it a Democratic idea, to appeal to rust belt workers, equating it with NAFTA and jobs. It was not Obama personally that was responsible for the TPP, in fact he may have had little to do with the actual deal making, but it was still under the "Obama administration" where the TPP sprang up and was given the "gold standard" endorsement from his SoS.

I understand WHY you would give this advice from a political point of view. Of course the GOP has a history of simply ignoring their past failing Presidents and pretending they never existed. Democrats have always prided themselves in celebrating our previous Presidents and including them in conventions etc.

But there is also a case for not only being open to criticizing previous D administrations (not the individuals) actions, or non-actions, but showing those that do feel the Ds are out of touch, that we are not above self criticism. That we are open to finding ways to listen and improve.

I believe Obama was one of the best Presidents in modern history, but that doesn't mean he was perfect. And there surely must be a way to reflectively consider there may have been mistakes made by his administration. And surely we can't be dictated to by a block of very defensive voters that circle his wagon as a private popular celebrity. That we cannot ever share our disagreements with, or opinions about, for instance, a perceived direction shift towards the right and the corporate friendly Third Way started by Bill Clinton and continued by and large with Barack Obama. That shift , that administrative direction from the DLC, at the time, is what Warren has a problem with, not Obama the person. That should be obvious. And it is willful ignorance or personality cultism for anyone to react in such a defensive manner that they would not vote Democratic if any other Democrat dared to have one criticism of the policy direction that Obama oversaw.

[ehrnst]

75. I think the criticism of his speaking fees was beyond that line. (nt)

[LiberalLovinLug]

76. I agree

[PoliticAverse]

77. If you take a position on an issue opposite to that of Obama, does that count as "criticism"? n/t

[MineralMan]

78. Not necessarily. As long as you stick to that issue, but don't trash Obama

over it, it's not criticism of Obama. Even so, individual issues are just part of the entire equation of a presidential campaign. I don't know about you, but I've never yet seen a candidate with whom I agree on every issue. Not once in my almost 60 years of political involvement.

I believe that candidates should state their positions as their positions and leave it at that. For me, single issues do not determine whether or not I support a candidate, especially a candidate for President. If they did, I'd probably never find anyone I could vote for. At that level, is is more trends of issues that affect me. I also compare positions between the two parties' candidates and vote for and support the candidate with whom I agree the most. That has always been the Democrat, somehow.

No presidential candidate can be for every position everyone holds on every issue. That's simply impossible. What we get is a binary choice between two imperfect candidates in every presidential election. Every time.

For me, the key is overall political philosophy when it comes to presidential politics. I can't imagine any other way to approach it. Frankly, the same is true right down the line of races for all offices. It ends up being a set of binary choices on general election day, really. During the primaries, we have more choices, but when the general election comes along, we really only have two choices in almost all cases. Very rarely, a third party fields a candidate who could possibly win, but that's really rare at any level.

[NightWatcher]

84. Also it'd be a great idea to not start by splitting the Party in half.

Criticize trump not Hillary or Obama

[Sparkly]

94. Exactly.

Does the OP mean Hillary criticized Obama?!? I guess I missed that.

[rpannier]

96. While I think you're right in many cases, I would disagree in some

In Arkansas, I would disagree. Bill Clinton, arguably the most popular Democrat in the state couldn't save his friend in the 2014 Senate race I doubt Obama would have helped any more than Clinton did.

The place to watch for that analysis will be the West Virginia Senate race
If Manchin wins, your analysis doesn't hold water in WV -- though in West Virginia Obama lost the Democratic primary to some anonymous individual
If Manchin loses then analyzing why he lost will be interesting -- especially since WV has been trending Republican for the last two decades

Your analysis is probably true in most areas. Not sure you can apply it everywhere.
Though I would also argue it's too early to tell. Six months in politics can show everything turned on its head and back again and then something entirely new happening

[orangecrush]

98. My opinion

Is not different.

[NoMoreRepugs]

99. Read every post over a late breakfast...

Our Party and its supporters have miles to go b4 we are a unified force to stop ANYTHING Republican IMO.