Dems' 2020 dilemma: Familiar 70-somethings vs. neophyte no-names

[DonViejo]

The party's presidential prospects generally fall into two, less-than-optimal categories.

By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE 08/31/2017 04:57 AM EDT

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Old but well-known vs. fresh but anonymous: That’s how the 2020 Democratic presidential field is shaping up so far — and it’s causing anxiety within a party starting to acknowledge that President Donald Trump could be harder to beat for reelection than the base would like to admit.

The older generation — Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders — would be tested and experienced on the national stage, with high name recognition and built-in support. They’d also all be in their 70s, people who’ve been around forever for Trump to use as perfect foils for exactly what he stands against.

Then there’s everyone else looking at a White House run who could embody a new start, separate from the Washington and political establishment that repel voters. But they’re virtually unknown, and they’d be running against the most famous man in the world who’s proved he can dominate every news cycle.

If only, Democrats say, there was some person under 55 who had any profile.

more
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/31/democrats-2020-sanders-warren-biden-242189

[Me.]

1. Is BS Running As A Dem Again?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. I doubt he'll be running at all, as anything.

[Skittles]

9. GOOD

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Nobody had ever heard of Barack Obama, either.

He came out of nowhere, noted only for giving a great speech at the 2004 convention. Bill Clinton also wasn't very well-known before he began his campaign. I agree that we shouldn't run another older, established candidate - not because of their age but because they are more of the same-old-same-old retread politics. This article also assumes Trump will be the GOP candidate in 2020. While it's possible, the way things are going for him lately, the opponent could very well be Pence, who's a wet noodle of a candidate.

[zipplewrath]

4. Interesting last two paragraphs

But one clear lesson he took from 2016 is that the next presidential campaign is going to be a dogfight, and anyone who gets in will have to consider the real possibility they’d lose to an upstart. No one is getting a cleared field the way Clinton — with the exception of a bid by Sanders that few took seriously at first — did.

“Not only will candidates not stand for it, I think the American people won’t stand for it again,” Garcetti said. “They want options. They don’t want to be told who to vote for."

I think an "upstart" will have a good chance BECAUSE of the above. With no one able to "clear the field", we can probably count on alot of early debating/campaigning which will help in creating the awareness and name recognition that they'll need to succeed.

[StevieM]

6. They won't have the opportunity to "stand for it again" or "not stand for it again" because they

never experienced it in the first place.

Nobody cleared the field for Hillary. People who wanted to run chose to run. O'Malley had been talked about as a future president for 15 years. Biden didn't want to risk being humiliated by losing badly while he was a sitting VP and HRC was swamping him by 50 points in the polls. Nobody could have known the damage that the fake email scandal would do. Nobody could have known how out of control the FBI would become. And Waren received lots of pressure to run--none to not run.

[zipplewrath]

10. Not exactly

I understand what you're saying. But there were a number of people that chose not to enter the race because she was perceived to be too dominate. And among the moneyed establishment, there was a definite discussion about consolidating early. It's also why the DNC limited the number of debates, because it was seen as benefiting HRC.

I think it influenced Biden's decision as well. Many things did but I suspect he had little desire to split the party.

[StevieM]

11. The polls kept people out of the race. In other words, the American people--not the establishment.

The fewer number of debates did not seem to benefit HRC in the primaries. And the total number was increased. Bernie got more one-on-one debates with her than she had with Obama. And he got them during the year of the election, when he needed them most. He would never have traded the schedule he had for the one Hillary had with Obama in 2008.

In any event, the goal of the DNC was to prevent overexposure. It was a mistake, I admit. But it didn't represent a giant conspiracy to nominate HRC, let alone a "rigged system."

[zipplewrath]

12. No one is talking rigged

And yes, a big part was the people reacting to the news they saw.

But none the less, the reality of national politics is that the early money tends to drive who ultimately runs. One of the first tests of a candidate, even before they announce, is trying to line up funding. It usually involves finding that small collection of people who can pony up the "seed" money to get a candidate started. It's the whole concept behind EMILY'S list. (Early Money Is Like Yeast). For one thing, it also establishes who can get what consultants under contract early. Clinton was able to get large numbers of people contracted to the campaign very early. It's actually getting to be one of the harder parts about running these campaigns. The later one waits, the smaller the pool of consultants and experienced staffers there are to hire from. Running has become an industry of sorts and one has to line up "venture capitalists" early.

[bearsfootball516]

5. I have my fingers crossed for Julian Castro

Young, would get the minority vote, mayor of a major city, had experience in Obama's cabinet, and scandal-free.

[StevieM]

8. Yeah, but the GOP is really good at making up phony scandals out of thin air and getting

the American people to believe in them.

[StevieM]

7. I like Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington. (eom)