Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, 'Is There Anybody Else?'

With progressives on the rise, and moderates on the decline, the corporate establishment begins to panic. Do you think the corporate donors will throw a spoiler candidate into the mix?

Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’ - The New York Times

Party leaders who are fatalistic about Democrats’ chances in 2020 are musing about possible late entrants to the race. Sherrod Brown? Michelle Obama?

Click to expand...

...

With doubts rising about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s ability to finance a multistate primary campaign, persistent questions about Senator Elizabeth Warren’s viability in the general election and skepticism that Mayor Pete Buttigieg, of South Bend, Ind., can broaden his appeal beyond white voters, Democratic leaders are engaging in a familiar rite: fretting about who is in the race and longing for a white knight to enter the contest at the last minute.

Click to expand...

...

At this time four years ago, it was Mr. Biden who some Democrats were hoping would join the race to offer the party another option besides Mrs. Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Mr. Biden, of course, decided not to run. But now it’s his own candidacy that’s prompting a familiar call for the cavalry, or at least one horse-bound white knight.“If Biden were surging, I doubt you would be hearing this,” said Harold Ickes, a longtime Democratic consultant. “This shows a restlessness among a lot of people.”

Click to expand...

Dans La Lune said:

With progressives on the rise, and moderates on the decline, the corporate establishment begins to panic. Do you think the corporate donors will throw a spoiler candidate into the mix?

Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’ - The New York Times



...



...

Click to expand...

They may try, but it's hard to envision anyone who might champion the establishment and succeed against Sanders and Warren in lieu of a fading Biden and an unlikely Buttigieg; Michelle Obama is a big maybe, but that's about it.

My gut feeling is this:

1. Moderate donors will forfeit this upcoming election and wait it out another 4 years.
2. They form a new party (highly unlikely).
3. They end up supporting Trump.

Thankfully we can count on the New York Times to spend the next year cutting down Democrats and propping up Trump, only to feign introspection again if he sneaks by and wins reelection.

Both siders are going to both sides.

It looks as though the democrats are going to have a hard war to fight this year. Not one of their candidates looks to be doing much better than the other, save for mostly Warren and Biden.
However the two of them together haven't even raised what, a full fourth of what Trump has for his run?

There's even talk that if Trump could hire on Gabbard and Yang, two of the most moderate democrats that exist on the stage. He could receive a massive influx of support, because it's pretty obvious that the DNC isn't going to give either of them a chance.

This is going to be one interesting show to watch.

There seems to be several things going on, and in no particular order...

It is not the first time party supporters, Democrat or Republican, asked themselves "is this the best we have?" Moreover, it is not the first time those who are Independent ask the same question of both parties. "Establishment Democrats" though suggests another problem that the party found itself in back in 2016 when Sanders moved the party one direction with the liberal youth vote and it took well planned out insider party shenanigans to ensure Hillary moved past him. So much that the rules changed slightly that in many regards handcuffed those same insiders from being able to do the same thing this time around.

This time around you do have an awkward condition. Between the age of some of the front runners and the condition of the party trying to one up each other in appealing to the same furthest left there is a condition that amplified why Independents are the majority these days. The right did go further right, and ended up with Trump of all people. The left is no doubt going further left and appealing to those who look at a flavor of authoritarianism as a means to throttle those those politically disagree with.

The issue with these "half-dozen Democratic donors" is looking to Hillary, or Michael, or Michelle suggests a lack of true identity for the party. But what it really suggests is no one running today has that 'it factor,' that charismatic leadership and well spoken means to go out there and capture votes outside of those already leaning left who are looking for a laundry list of issues to be check-boxed before supporting someone.

This is going to sound awful but Biden and Sanders both are approaching that age where generally speaking the family is plotting means to take their car keys away yet as of this post they are locked in a three way "tier 1" tie for the Democratic nod with Warren. Biden is having not so great debate performances (as the article suggests) and there is no reason to assume that will get easier when going up against Trump in the general. Sanders has already had a heart attack and while securing a fair bit of good support from the base I am having troubles seeing him appeal to enough Independents in key districts that frankly Obama did well twice in that Hillary epically lost in 2016. Warren, with some hiccups here and there, seems to have been baited into the same mechanism which makes her appeal outside of the base just as much of a question mark.

While I get these donors concerned about this lot of hopefuls what I do not get is adding in Hillary or Michael to the mix. I do somewhat understand the idea of looking to perhaps Michelle but that in a way repeats the mistake Hillary tried even though Michelle is not doing all the things Hillary did after being the 1st lady. Perhaps not as much political baggage as Hillary has amassed but certainly the aristocracy is there with any of these three. Arguably Michael perhaps not near as much as Hillary and Michelle but you still have the wealth factor to deal with.

As the article points out we cannot forget that 4 years ago this same thinking is what encouraged Biden to enter in for 2016, and ultimately that did not happen. Now we have the group looking to others because of this lot that Biden is apart of.

I am back to the same conclusion, the party has no solid identity and questionable direction. More importantly for this election, those furthest left think they can advance their ideology of marginalization of the right wing by making this about Trump and that means Independents might be inclined to stay home in 2020.

Democrats learned very little from 2016, and that arrogant certainty that Hillary could not lose to Trump in 2016 might be repeated by the mistakes being made in 2020 that this lot of hopefuls appealing to the furthest left will beat Trump in 2020.

These donors should be concerned, even if we do not exactly agree on why.

Remind me how many candidates we had at the height of the primary? Over 20? Apparently that still wasn't enough? :roll:

Just as it has been the last few cycles, it's all going to come down to whether the Democratic base will unite around one candidate. And Russia and the Republicans know it.

I really don't feel it's fair to lump Warren in with Biden/Sanders/Trump when it comes to the age/health concern. She has kept up a very intense schedule and has shown no signs of slowing down. She is 6 years younger then Biden, 8 years younger than Sanders, and a full 3 younger than Trump. She isn't keeling over or routinely mumbling nonsense in front of cameras.

Should the party look for a new generation of leadership? Definitely. I am sure it's disheartening for much of the younger base when they look to Washington and see much of the leadership is in their late 70s to mid 80s and simply don't share the same priorities or sense of urgency on a whole host of issues.

The Dem's savior.

Excast said:

I really don't feel it's fair to lump Warren in with Biden/Sanders/Trump when it comes to the age/health concern. She has kept up a very intense schedule and has shown no signs of slowing down. She is 6 years younger then Biden, 8 years younger than Sanders, and a full 3 younger than Trump. She isn't keeling over or routinely mumbling nonsense in front of cameras.

Should the party look for a new generation of leadership? Definitely. I am sure it's disheartening for much of the younger base when they look to Washington and see much of the leadership is in their late 70s to mid 80s and simply don't share the same priorities or sense of urgency on a whole host of issues.

Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders does have a crink in his neck for carrying the progressive movement on his shoulders for ~30 years, along with Warren's campaign.

Dans La Lune said:

Bernie Sanders does have a crink in his neck for carrying the progressive movement on his shoulders for ~30 years, along with Warren's campaign.

Click to expand...

He's been out there speaking truth to power for decades and it's a shame he only reached national prominence so much later in life. I definitely supported him during the 2016 primary and believe he could have beaten Trump. I'm just not sure if a nearly 80 year old man who was just stricken with a heart attack is who we need now though.

Phys251 said:

Remind me how many candidates we had at the height of the primary? Over 20? Apparently that still wasn't enough? :roll:

Just as it has been the last few cycles, it's all going to come down to whether the Democratic base will unite around one candidate. And Russia and the Republicans know it.

Click to expand...

The problem is not what the demorat base voters want (the farther left the better?), it is how different that is from what independent voters want which poses the problem.

Excast said:

He's been out there speaking truth to power for decades and it's a shame he only reached national prominence so much later in life. I definitely supported him during the 2016 primary and believe he could have beaten Trump. I'm just not sure if a nearly 80 year old man who was just stricken with a heart attack is who we need now though.

Click to expand...

FDR had polio or a condition that paralleled polio. He was in terrible health, and was generally confined to a wheel chair. Since the presidency is not an athletic sport, I don't think competence is a measure of physical health. If Bernie showed signs of mental decline, that would be an issue.

ttwtt78640 said:

The problem is not what the demorat base voters want (the farther left the better?), it is how different that is from what independent voters want which poses the problem.

Click to expand...

What do independent voters want? The Dems are a centrist party, the Republicans are a far-right party.

The ideas the Dems are putting forth now were mainstream Republican ideas in the 1970s.

...all it tells some on the left, is that the right wing doesn't really care about the law and are merely being hypocritical toward the less fortunate.

WCH said:

The Dem's savior.

Click to expand...

That was like so 3 years ago, now its like, the future is here and stuff, so, you know, we need like somebody who is like older but also kind of like newer, you know what I mean - right?

Dans La Lune said:

What do independent voters want? The Dems are a centrist party, the Republicans are a far-right party.

The ideas the Dems are putting forth now were mainstream Republican ideas in the 1970s.

Click to expand...

The demorats are at best now a center left party but their top tier 2020 POTUS candidates are farther left than most of the demorat base is. All of their hands went up when asked if illegal immigrants should be given government subsidized medical care - that alone was scary to most independents. The idea that we should spend nearly as much subsidizing the medical care of illegal immigrants as we do for our veterans is troubling to many voters.

ttwtt78640 said:

The demorats are at best now a center left party but their top tier 2020 POTUS candidates are farther left than most of the demorat base is. All of their hands went up when asked if illegal immigrants should be given government subsidized medical care - that alone was scary to most independents. The idea that we should spend nearly as much subsidizing the medical care of illegal immigrants as we do for our veterans is troubling to many voters.

Click to expand...

I would agree with that being a bit much. I am all for universal health care ... but for citizens or other people of legal status.

Dans La Lune said:

With progressives on the rise, and moderates on the decline, the corporate establishment begins to panic. Do you think the corporate donors will throw a spoiler candidate into the mix?

Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’ - The New York Times



...



...

Click to expand...

I remember the GOP going through this last time.

Dans La Lune said:

The ideas the Dems are putting forth now were mainstream Republican ideas in the 1970s.

Click to expand...

Really? The GOP in the 1970's were for Medicare for all, $15 minimum wage, free college tuition, and slavery reparations?

One of the things that kind of stupid, and of course the media wants to play this up because it gets attention, is that no matter how left the eventual candidate is, he or she is not going to get their leftist policies implemented, so focusing on it is kind of a waste of time.

The most important thing, the eventual candidate will not sell-out his or her country for personal political gain. But we already know that - so its kind of hard to "sell papers' from now to election day on that old story.

PoS said:

Really? The GOP in the 1970's were for Medicare for all, $15 minimum wage, free college tuition, and slavery reparations?

Click to expand...

Nixon advocated for a universal healthcare plan, guaranteed income, strong environmental protections, and presided over a 70% tax rate. In the 1970s, the cost of going to Harvard was $4,070.

YES, there is someone else: Ms. Hillary Clinton.

She would definitely win the electoral votes this time, for not a single voter who "dislikes" President Trump would stay home on election day, come hell or high water!

Dans La Lune said:

FDR had polio or a condition that paralleled polio. He was in terrible health, and was generally confined to a wheel chair. Since the presidency is not an athletic sport, I don't think competence is a measure of physical health. If Bernie showed signs of mental decline, that would be an issue.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be super opposed to Bernie, but it's undeniable that the stress of the job takes a physical toll. FDR did manage the job with his condition, but he also ended up stroking out in his early 60s and dying. I would like to see Bernie around and fighting for years to come. I just worry all of the stress that comes from a serious White House bid, not to mention the job itself, might me too much to ask for from a guy who would be 80 and just had a heart attack.

Democrat establishment should put up Pierre Delecto as a candidate. Romney wants the job almost as much as Hillary.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk