I'm not a fan of playing the defense, i.e. picking a "safe" candidate.

[redgreenandblue]

If that is what we end up with so be it, but from my own, admittedly narrow, perspective, "safe" candidates have performed extremely poorly all throughout my life.

Here is a list of safe candidates:

Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, John McCain

Here is a list of long-shot candidates:

Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Donald Trump

In 2008 my red state relatives (Democrats) were telling me that Obama had no chance to beat McCain. I told them that I wasn't so sure about it. Why? Just a hunch: When walking around downtown I was seeing random people chant "yes we can" to bypassers.

I don't think we need a "safe" candidate. What we need is one that draws enthusiastic support.

[stonecutter357]

1. What we need is one that draws enthusiastic support. We have one his name is Joe Biden ....

[Sherman A1]

2. I agree

I believe that you have to get away from the safe candidate concept.

[Demsrule86]

17. So do that ...me I am all about getting rid of Trump.

[Sherman A1]

35. As am I

I don’t see a reset to a previous time as a winning gambit, but whom ever is the nominee I will certainly support.

Hell, I would support a cardboard box over Trump or any Republican.

[brooklynite]

3. There is a distinction between "long shot" and "fringe"

Without being disparaging, I think voters (and many Democratic Office Holders) would still consider Sanders as "fringe".

[still_one]

51. I would have generalized it a little more than you, but agree with the point you are making

[pnwmom]

4. Hillary only drew 70K fewer votes than Obama 4 years earlier DESPITE the SCOTUS dismantling

the Voting Rights Act in 2013 (after Obama was elected) which allowed for the suppression of millions of votes. ALSO Russia interfered in the election. ALSO, Comey announced he was reopening his investigation 10 days before the election; and then made another announcement just a few days before.

Hillary did NOT perform "extremely poorly." Despite everything that had happened she managed to win by 2.9 million votes. Never in history had a candidate won by so many millions and lost in the electoral college.

If we don't do something about the electoral college, we'll have a candidate win by 5 million or 10 million and still lose in the Electoral College. Will we still say that candidate "performed extremely poorly"? When do we stop blaming the candidate and start blaming an incredibly messed up system?

[BlueMTexpat]

9. Thanks for reminding

people that Hillary was an excellent candidate. Some seem to have VERY short memories.

And yes, the system is f*cked up so long as an EC can override a popular winning margin, especially one as huge as Hillary's.

[AlexSFCA]

5. I agree, only I see Biden is drawing more enthusiasm

on day one than any other candidate since 2008. And this enthusiasm comes not just from dems but from independents and at least 10% of gop voters (non trumpers). Obama had zero enthusiasm from any gop voters.
The enthusiasm for Biden comes from a likelihood that he’ll beat trump AND trumpism. You could smell it for the first time since trump got elected.

You have to keep in mind that 2020 election is NOT about policies, they are for all intents and purposes will be irrelevant in this election cycle. 2020 has only ONE goal - unseating trump. Full stop.

[Kurt V.]

6. a big turn out is key. Foreign players are certain to interfere. the candidate

that generates real excitement is the way to go.

[Amimnoch]

7. Correlation does not equal causation.

Breaking each example down:

1. Al Gore: Basically lost as a result of a Supreme court decision. But more than that, we'd just had 8 years of Bill Clinton. Most forget that after 8 years of any party being in control, it's EXTREMELY rare that the same party wins a 3rd term for change of guard. Not since FDR has the Democratic Party held the office for more than 2 consecutive terms, and on the Republican side, only George HW Bush (a "safe" candidate I'll note) has broken that same trend.

2. John Kerry - Just as it's very rare for a party to retain the presidency after 2 consecutive terms, it's almost as rare for an opposing party to oust an incumbent candidate running for their second term. George HW Bush was one example of a single term, losing to one of the "long-shot" candidates you'd mentioned. Considering other factors though, such as 12 years of Republicans holding the office, and the Ross Perot factor (he likely would have retained, and gone on to a second term without the 3rd party running of Ross Perot).

3. Hillary Clinton: Much like Gore above, 2016 wasn't really our year to win, as much as Republicans year to lose. We'd had 8 years of President Obama, and in #1 above I pointed out just how rare it is for either party to hold the Presidency more than 2 consecutive terms. I won't even begin to go into all the other factors such as her popular vote victory, or the contentious primary season in a year where, frankly, having a contentious primary was a stupid way to go.

4. Mitt Romney: Another candidate running against an incumbent. He was also running against a highly popular sitting president who had turned one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression around. See #2 above.

5. John McCain - Same as #1 and #3 above. 8 years of Republicans holding the office + downturned economy.

The Safe candidates mentioned also played into the longshots you mentioned, so I won't recap.

[BlueMTexpat]

8. Based on the reception at the "She the People" forum,

those candidates that generate the most enthusiasm and excitement among THE most active and loyal bloc of Dems are Harris, Warren and O'Rourke.

I like all three. Harris and Warren are in my top three! O'Rourke is in my top six. Of my top three, Warren so far seems to have the most well thought-out proposals, although Harris is also up there.

There are some who are not (and likely will never be) among my top tier candidates that I like very much for their stands on climate change, but they appear to be more single-issue, generally speaking. They would likely be excellent Cabinet picks, however, and we need good Cabinet members to undo at least some of the harm the Orange Criminal-in-Chief has wrought.

What I regret most about ALL of the Dem Senators who are running is that each is already a good US Senator - and we need every one of those that we can get.

In that sense, neither O'Rourke nor Biden would deplete/diminish the Senate of good Dem presence there. So, I am torn. Biden, however, is not currently among my top six.

The problem for me is that there are so many excellent choices, "safe" or otherwise.

There is literally only one candidate whom I will NEVER support in the primaries ... unless every other possible candidate drops out.

But I WILL support whoever is the Dem nominee! That is a solemn vow.

[Cha]

10. Exactly, BlueMT! Elizabeth, Kamala, and

Beto were the most well received at #SheThePeople.. and as we all know.. WOC are our most reliable voting block!

I bet Biden would have given an excellent answer to the WOC about "White Nationalists".

Some have this meme going that they don't want a "safe candidate" which I think is ridiculous.. because nothing is for sure. We just have to work through our primary and see who the majority of our voters want.. like Biden said yesterday to the reporters in Deleware.

It does matter who would be our most excellent choice to beat trump because of above all that's what we need to do.

May the best woman or man be our win.

And oh yeah.. I thought about that, too.. that there are Senators running whose states have repub Govs. So we'll see what happens.

[BlueMTexpat]

41. Keeping my fingers VERY crossed!

I don't want to lose ANY Senate seats!

We have got to get rid of McConnell. Personally, I'd like to see him in prison along with the Trump Crime Family.

[Cha]

43. Oh wow.. mcconnell is

the one, right along with trump, who needs to be Gone to save our Democracy! If only!

We need our Senate, too!

[JI7]

12. Harris and Warren are from Blue States so i'm not that worried there. Sherrod Brown was the only one

who may have been a loss for us . but he decided not to run .

[BlueMTexpat]

42. I was glad that he decided to

stay out! He's a good Senator.

[ehrnst]

27. +1000. (nt)

[cannabis_flower]

29. Regarding the good Senators

None of them are in states that are likely to elect a Republican for Senator, I don't think. Certainly not Warren or Sanders states. I think Booker's state, he's from Maryland, right? Gillibrand won't be elected. Is Klobuchar a sitting Senator or former?

[brer cat]

32. Answering your questions

Warren is from MA where Scott Brown (R) won election after Ted Kennedy. Booker is from NJ and Klobuchar is a sitting Senator.

[BlueMTexpat]

40. Thanks, brer cat!

I was late in answering.

[BlueMTexpat]

39. While it is true that they are from blue

states, I never take anything for granted. After all, Scott Brown (R) was elected in MA for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat!

Cory Booker is the Senator from New Jersey. Maryland's Senators are Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen. Amy Klobuchar is currently a US Senator from Minnesota.

You're likely correct about Gillibrand. She is certainly not one of my preferences.

[JI7]

11. the democrats won because they ran better campaigns. Romney and McCain won because the crazies split

the vote while the rest voted for McCain and Romney. Gingrich and Santorum were talking about one of them dropping out and endorsing the other with the one that dropped out being picked for VP. but they could not agree to which one will be the Pres candidate and which one vp candidate.

everyone will say why they feel their candidate will have the best chance of winning. but people still end up voting based on who they like . the democrats who won had enthusiastic support. Bradley was no competition to Gore. for all the criticism of Gore as being stiff, boring etc, that's far more true of Bradley. Kerry's crowds were getting larger as we got closer to voting and he did a lot of door to door type campaigning. Hillary was just a far better candidate than SAnders and had earned support among the democratic base over the years. she got huge crowds even after the election during things like the book signings.

[colsohlibgal]

13. Agreed

I like Joe Biden but I surely can see the criticism about picking another old white man, really old in this case. Again, Reagan was fine upstairs until his last year and a half when he clearly was in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. The idiot in office now is likely in early mental decline though he didn’t have a lot to decline from.

If it is him I will support him no doubt but I think we have other exciting candidates including several women.

[Demsrule86]

15. Do you guys hear how cruel this snark against older (and) younger white men has become?

It is a form of bigotry and has no place in any progressive party. I find it disgusting, i don't say this because I support Biden only. There are white men in my life ...Father, Husband, son and friends whom I adore and are wonderful human beings. I wonder if those who speak this way realize how terrible it sounds and how off putting it is to others. How about we judge people by the content of their character.

[3Hotdogs]

18. + 1

[Demsrule86]

24. Thanks!

[Demit]

28. Age is a pragmatic concern. It is legitimate to take it into account.

[Demsrule86]

14. Here is a list of states we must have to stop Trump...

MI,WI and PA...Joe Biden can take these states and wrest the presidency from the most dangerous president in my lifetime and save the world. Biden is the best choice .

Oh and Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were stabbed in the back by voters supposedly on our side as was Kerry...sure they have our backs so they can put a knife in them...voting for the
Russian backed , slimy Green Party makes you a really bad person and this act led to 911,Katrina, economic debacle, war,famine babies in cages, white supremacist mass murders and Donald Trump...a traitor in the White House. Safe choice? I would fucking kill for safe at this moment .

[delisen]

46. How do you propose countering Putin in those states, and others?

What do you do if Trump is not the candidate?

The fault line in the Republic part are becoming more visible in regard to Trump and as investigations continue these may become deeper.
Putin may decide to jettison Trump-especially if Trump is blocked from carrying out Putin's foreign policy.

The election is still far away and conditions are likely to change.

Prejudice against white male candidates is wrong but I believe that pre-judgements for white male candidates is also wrong, and unwise especially so many strongly backing Sanders and Biden seem to have framed the 2016 loss as solely a failure of not sufficiently reaching white male voters in certain states and are unwilling to change that framing even when the role of Russia has been documented and new damning information is still coming out.

I personally am more interested in increasing the number of women in the house and in the senate. As investigations continue it is possible that some Republican senators may have to resign. I don't know that any Democratic groups are game planning for this possibility.

I have given Biden the benefit of the doubt in several areas but there are problems I see. One is the coattails-Biden's praise in his public, paid speech in Fall, 2018 in which he praised a Republican representative shortly before the critical 20i8 elections and his ignoring the Democratic opponents request for just a positive mention from Biden is extremely troubling.

If Biden positions himself as an the work closely with Republicans candidate, we could lose seats in state houses and and Congress in critical re-apportionment year of 2020-just as we did in in 2010-which gave Republicans the opportunity to gerrymander and dilute Democratic voting power. We need a candidate who understands and actively build the coattail effect as a strategy.

That is just one of my concerns vis a vis Joseph Biden. If Biden enthusiast would address these and other issues it could be productive but so far they seem to be sticking with an inadequate and false framing combined with the "guy I want to have a beer with" meme.

[Nanjeanne]

16. I can't think of a policy that will elicit more enthusiasm than this gem from Biden's

website:

making sure the peace of mind of health insurance is a right — not a privilege

Yeah I lay awake at night thinking it’s my right to give my money to Aetna or UHC so the CEO can make 400+% of their workers.

[Demsrule86]

22. We have no way to pass Medicare for all...not sure I like it. There will

Be issues with implementing it. And it shows how successful the much maligned ACA has been in winning people over to the notion that healthcare is a right. Sanders says Medicare for all but won't stop the filibuster...thus it will not happen even if he wins the presidency which I consider unlikely. The ACA is what we have.we can improve it and provide universal affordable healthcare.

[Demit]

30. Yes. Talking about health INSURANCE rather than health CARE is a tell, to me.

There's a world of difference between the two concepts.

[Agschmid]

19. Hillary Clinton as potentially the first female president was not "safe"

Honestly that’s laughable.

[Demsrule86]

26. No she wasn't. It is terrible how she was treated and how she is still

a target. It would a different world...much better if she was in the white house.

[Agschmid]

47. Yup.

[thesquanderer]

20. Your list isn't safe vs. long-shot, it's less charismatic vs. more charismatic.

And you can add to your list...

Clinton over Dole
Clinton over HW Bush
Reagan over Mondale
Reagan over Carter
Carter over Ford

GWB was more charismatic than Gore or Kerry, admittedly a low bar.

HW Bush over Dukakis is a tough one because they were about tied for lack of charisma.

I agree with you that we want someone who draws enthusiastic support, but I think that largely comes from charisma.

Bill Clinton and Mitt Romney were politically equally safe, they were both governors. I"m not sure on what basis you put Romney in the safe category and Clinton in the long-shot category? But Clinton was the more charismatic figure in his races, and Romney was the less charismatic in his.

I also don't know about calling Hillary a "safe" choice. She was a woman, after all.

[progressoid]

33. +1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

34. I've said the same thing... great minds think alike!!

Charisma goes a LONG way... way further than experience.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[IronLionZion]

21. Long shot candidates can inspire more turnout and get more attention

without losing any safe voters. It's insane to think any real Democrats would vote Trump or sit out the 2020 election. Anyone who doesn't vote for our Dem nominee was never one of us to begin with.

[Demsrule86]

23. This election isn't about Longshot and safe. It is about taking three

States...MI,PA and Wi in order to prevent an electoral college win for Trump. It is very simple. Biden and maybe Ryan can achieve this. The other candidates won't for various reasons

[IronLionZion]

36. How does he inspire turnout in those states?

because it comes down to who can get more people to show up and vote

[watoos]

25. Democrats need to worry about something else besides Trump,

The couch.

Trump, compared with other elections, didn't get that many votes. What happened in 2016 is that Democrats stayed home and sat on the couch. Democrats who ignore the millennials and younger than millennial voters, do so at our peril. Democrats who also take the black vote and women's vote for granted make a big mistake. The idea that we need to get back the white middle aged male vote is laughable to me. Stick with our base.

JMO, but we won a tsunami in 2018 because the younger voters voted because they wanted oversight of Trump and because they embraced FDR Democratic issues. I call bs on anyone who says we won big in 2018 because we moved to the center. If Democrats take the position that our candidate needs to move to the right, the couch is going to get a lot of votes.

[namahage]

38. As evidenced by the overwhelming victories

of Justice Democrats.

78 candidates were endorsed by JD. Only 7 won, with three of them being incumbents (Grijalva, Khanna, Jayapal) and the other four winning extremely safe D districts (Omar D+26, Tlaib D+32, Ocasio-Cortez D+29, Pressley D+34 (where she also ran unopposed in the general)).

[Jarqui]

31. Folks are fed up

Obama won as the candidate who represented change vs Washington establishment.
Trump won as the candidate who represented change vs Washington establishment.

Trump is a threat to be a Trojan Horse. He's vulnerable. The GOP power brokers don't like him any more than we do.

Let's say the Dems pick Joe Biden (currently the favorite and someone I really like and would be very comfortable with as President).

The House is thrashing trying to impeach him and the GOP finally says "his polling numbers are terrible - let's gas him and run with a new, younger candidate"

GOP can then win while providing the candidate who represents change vs Joe Biden representing the Washington establishment.

Something like that worries me.

[Gothmog]

37. Electability is a key factor in this primary

We have to defeat trump. There is a very good chance that trump will win if we pick a weak or unsafe choice. There are posters who believe that we can nominate the most liberal/socialist nominee as possible and that candidate will easily win because everyone hates trump. It is their position that this is a historic opportunity to nominate someone would otherwise not be electable.

From Larry Sabato https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-economy-got-nixon-reagan-and-bush-reelected-it-could-do-it-for-trump-too/2019/04/23/b8920d34-65e6-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html?utm_term=.a35b315730d2

Ultimately, Trump may turn out to be at the mercy of conventional factors. In 2016, academic predictive models based on fundamentals such as the state of the economy suggested that Trump, or any other Republican candidate, was in position to win the election or come very close. This time, such models (once they become operative next year) could make Trump the early favorite despite his poor approval ratings.

Credit the powers of incumbency and a strong economy, the state of which may matter more to Trump’s odds than nearly anything else. Incumbency and the economy, among other matters, ended up being more than enough for Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Despite Trump’s unprecedented outlandishness, that same combination might work for him, too.

Most POTUS are re-elected if the economy is good. Here is a scary study that shows this

Link to tweet

There are good reasons to doubt this study

Link to tweet

I do not believe that trump is assured of winning. If we want to win, Democrats need to nominate a strong nominee who is NOT too far out of the mainstream

[rgbecker]

44. This is what I've been trying to say!

The Democrats need to put out a candidate that will wake up those who have given up on the system. Those who are tired of waiting for the trickle down. Those who work everyday but watch the money go to the corner office. Those looking for a fair shake. Key Word: Enthusiasm.

Throw out the same old same old.

I'm supporting Sanders until I see someone else show they can get people up and out and working to move this country back to the people. Call me a populist, cause that's what I am.

[bobbieinok]

45. NO dem candidate is 'safe' from GOP attack dogs, M$M

Starting at least as early as FDR, the GOP has considered ALL DEM presidents to be illegitimate.
They will do everything imaginable (and then some!!) to make sure there is never again a dem president.

They will focus on anything to destroy any dem canddate.

Once you realize this, you know there is NO 'safe' dem candidate.

[LongtimeAZDem]

48. Agreed. Go Joe!

[jimlup]

49. Yes! /nt

[honest.abe]

50. I think Joe will have tons of enthusiastic support.

Anyone who can stand up to Trump and beat him will be a super hero in voters minds and Joe can do that.

[doompatrol39]

52. Agreed, 100%.

Safe is going to get us close but no cigar. The candidates you mentioned, for better or worse (only Trump was for worse) were game changer candidates who signaled massive changes and mobilized voters.

Safe is not going to cut it this time around, if it ever did at all (spoiler alert: it didn't).