2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
If it wasn't for REDMAP and the weird rules of the Electoral College, Republicans wouldn't be able to control any part of the Federal Government.
Once Democrats get their act together and manage to fix the map after the next census, the GOP will have to radically re-invent itself or be replaced by something new.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
If it wasn't for REDMAP and the weird rules of the Electoral College, Republicans wouldn't be able to control any part of the Federal Government.
Once Democrats get their act together and manage to fix the map after the next census, the GOP will have to radically re-invent itself or be replaced by something new.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I find outgageous gerrymandering by Democrats to be just as bad as by Republicans.
I am in favor of what we did in California....take redistricting out of the hands of the State Legislatures altogether since they have shown repeatedly, and with both parties in control, they are not to be trusted with it.
Instead we have a independent, bi partisan commission to do it. It is not a perfect system, but we have a lot of moer competitive districts then we did before.
 
Making "contested" a stated goal of re-districting might be the best solution for everyone, even though both parties would hate it.0
 
dudalb said:
Sorry, but I find outgageous gerrymandering by Democrats to be just as bad as by Republicans.
Click to expand...

Of course - but REDMAP did it on a far larger scale than anything the Dems ever did, and they did it very effectively. The vote margin needed for the Dems to get control of the house is as high as 11%. The Dems never came remotely close to that level of gerrymandering. 55% of people voting for Dems vs 45% voting for GOP could still result in GOP control of the House.
 
Last edited:
That's sort of the whole purpose of the thread. Anyway, something of a surprise announcement: Include Andrew Cuomo out.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) on Tuesday ruled out a potential bid for the presidency in 2020, saying that he has a "full plate" in his current role.

"I am ruling it out. I ran for governor. I have a full plate. I have many projects. I’m going to be here doing the job of governor. … I’m governor of New York and I have a lot to do," he said in an interview on WNYC's "The Brian Lehrer Show."
Click to expand...

Granted, the New York contingent still not definitively out of it yet is quite substantial; Kirsten Gillibrand is generally considered to be running and Bill De Blasio has not been shy about his longer-term aspirations. Hillary could still throw her pantsuit into the ring.

Gillibrand is getting some pushback from big donors over shoving Al Franken under the bus.

Gillibrand has defended her approach by insisting she placed deeply held personal values over party loyalty. But the still-burning resentment among the donor class now confronts Gillibrand as she explores a presidential bid, cutting her off from influential and deep-pocketed contributors and their networks at a time when an expansive 2020 field will compete for their dollars.

Among those donors is Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Democratic fundraiser and co-founder of Esprit and the North Face clothing brands, who said the matter remains fresh in her mind and among those in her circles. The episode, she said, “stained [Gillibrand’s] reputation as a fair player.”
Click to expand...

Because of course a fair player would have put party over principle.

Anyway, I would expect to see a few more "not-running" announcements before the holidays, and the first big "Yes, I am" announcements in early January. Many of the unannounced have already started wooing potential staff in Iowa.
 
Brainster said:
That's sort of the whole purpose of the thread. Anyway, something of a surprise announcement: Include Andrew Cuomo out.



Granted, the New York contingent still not definitively out of it yet is quite substantial; Kirsten Gillibrand is generally considered to be running and Bill De Blasio has not been shy about his longer-term aspirations. Hillary could still throw her pantsuit into the ring.

Gillibrand is getting some pushback from big donors over shoving Al Franken under the bus.



Because of course a fair player would have put party over principle.

Anyway, I would expect to see a few more "not-running" announcements before the holidays, and the first big "Yes, I am" announcements in early January. Many of the unannounced have already started wooing potential staff in Iowa.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That helps explain why Gillibrand seemed concerned with campaign finance reform when she was on the Daily Show. But, as your commentary implies, I hope the future of the party is more progressive than protectionist.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Thanks. That helps explain why Gillibrand seemed concerned with campaign finance reform when she was on the Daily Show. But, as your commentary implies, I hope the future of the party is more progressive than protectionist.
Click to expand...

I'll take Gillibrand or any NYS Dem seriously on campaign finance reform when I can take them seriously on campaign reform. NYS is an abyss. All the posturing of Cuomo, DeBlasio, Gillibrand, Schumer, Bloomberg.... Think they might have enough clout to fairify the primary process? They talk the talk but have no interest in so doing, as they all know that if they are "the one" come primary time, they lock out the others. Maybe with five people (would've been six with Cuomo) vying for the party nod, they'll actually do something? I doubt it. The upstate fixers and the Tammany Hall modeled backroom boys like it the way it is.

If all of them run, they'll make mincemeat of each other in the early primaries. Five NY dems? Two of whom used to be Republicans? Mia Love could run as a write-in candidate and take various states with 18% and a plurality if they have that many NY targets available to pick on.
 
Beto O'Rourke seen as a top contender according to the headline. Reading the article reveals what the Hill considers a top contender:

O’Rourke, who earned a groundswell of national attention in 2018, was ranked third with 7 percent of Democratic and independent voters backing him, garnering more support than other frequently touted potential challengers.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the guys in front of him could keel over at any moment: Joe Biden (76) and Bernie Sanders (77). Although the poll notes that Warren, Harris and Booker are polling in the low single digits, the fact is that they will have plenty of visibility over the next year, while it is hard to imagine Beto getting a lot of airtime.
 
Brainster said:
Beto O'Rourke seen as a top contender according to the headline. Reading the article reveals what the Hill considers a top contender:



On the other hand, the guys in front of him could keel over at any moment: Joe Biden (76) and Bernie Sanders (77). Although the poll notes that Warren, Harris and Booker are polling in the low single digits, the fact is that they will have plenty of visibility over the next year, while it is hard to imagine Beto getting a lot of airtime.
Click to expand...

I agree with his lack of exposure hurting him over the buildup to the primary fight. I think the play for Beto and the DNC is Texas. He'd make a great VP candidate. A whole lot of Cruz people will not vote for Trump. Republicans still hold the state, if they turn out. If they don't turn out for Trump (let's see how they like his new best buddies lowering oil prices so Donnie can win in North Carolina while putting ND and TX companies into receivership.... just as a hypothetical.

But it's early... we're going to go through several iterations of "who's the anointed one" in 2019. People tire of some candidates very quickly. Lookit Jeb Bush with his vaunted war chest and the Bush machine...
 
Foolmewunz said:
I agree with his lack of exposure hurting him over the buildup to the primary fight. I think the play for Beto and the DNC is Texas. He'd make a great VP candidate. A whole lot of Cruz people will not vote for Trump. Republicans still hold the state, if they turn out. If they don't turn out for Trump (let's see how they like his new best buddies lowering oil prices so Donnie can win in North Carolina while putting ND and TX companies into receivership.... just as a hypothetical.
Click to expand...

Lots of unknowns there. IIRC I did an analysis of the impact of a veep candidate on the ticket a number of years back and concluded that he or she was responsible for about a 2.75 percentage point boost in his or her home state. I doubt if that's going to be enough to turn Texas blue in a presidential election year unless it's a complete wave election.

But it's early... we're going to go through several iterations of "who's the anointed one" in 2019. People tire of some candidates very quickly. Lookit Jeb Bush with his vaunted war chest and the Bush machine...
Click to expand...

Well, 2016 certainly broke all the molds. There's an old saying that the Democrats fall in love and the Republicans fall in line, and it's pretty much been true for my entire life. The Republicans had always nominated whoever's turn it was, while the Democrats were more likely to swoon over some new guy (it had always been guys), from JFK to Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton to Barack Obama. And yet both parties went against type in 2016.
 
My dream ticket, based almost entirely on perceived winnability. Policy specifics are so far down my priority list that I don't care and won't care, not until this existential threat to American democracy is in the rear view mirror.

Gillibrand - O'Rourke

The geezers need to step aside.
 
Okay so a dream candidate for 2020.

1. A white guy. Yeah I know, I know it's playing the absolute worse game for the absolute worse reasons to placate the absolute worse people but the Democrats need to ask themselves do they want to win or feel good about losing.

2. Younger, but don't go crazy. Mid-40s to Mid-50s.

3. And this is by far the most important... somebody unknown. Somebody that isn't on anyone's radar right now. And not on anybody's radar 6 months from now. His name shouldn't be publicly, commonly recognized until... 2 months out from the primary, absolute tops. No old guards, no party regulars, nobody who's "earned it for being in the game so long." NOBODY WITH A HISTORY.
 
Brainster said:
Beto O'Rourke seen as a top contender according to the headline. Reading the article reveals what the Hill considers a top contender:



On the other hand, the guys in front of him could keel over at any moment: Joe Biden (76) and Bernie Sanders (77). Although the poll notes that Warren, Harris and Booker are polling in the low single digits, the fact is that they will have plenty of visibility over the next year, while it is hard to imagine Beto getting a lot of airtime.
Click to expand...

I like Beto. I voted for Beto to be my senator. I think his campaign was good for the Democratic party in Texas. I wish he had won. That being said, I have reservations about him as a presidential candidate. I would put either of the Castro twins above Beto if the intent is to bring Texas into play in a presidential election. I think they would be more likely to get the vote out and would do better in national debates.
 
JoeMorgue said:
3. And this is by far the most important... somebody unknown. Somebody that isn't on anyone's radar right now. And not on anybody's radar 6 months from now. His name shouldn't be publicly, commonly recognized until... 2 months out from the primary, absolute tops. No old guards, no party regulars, nobody who's "earned it for being in the game so long." NOBODY WITH A HISTORY.
Click to expand...

Someone that has no idea how DC works? Isn't that what is in there right now?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay so a dream candidate for 2020.

1. A white guy. Yeah I know, I know it's playing the absolute worse game for the absolute worse reasons to placate the absolute worse people but the Democrats need to ask themselves do they want to win or feel good about losing.
Click to expand...

I don't see why the white part is so necessary anymore. I do think that a man is probably required, preferably someone reasonably handsome.

2. Younger, but don't go crazy. Mid-40s to Mid-50s.
Click to expand...

I agree.

3. And this is by far the most important... somebody unknown. Somebody that isn't on anyone's radar right now. And not on anybody's radar 6 months from now. His name shouldn't be publicly, commonly recognized until... 2 months out from the primary, absolute tops. No old guards, no party regulars, nobody who's "earned it for being in the game so long." NOBODY WITH A HISTORY.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by somebody unknown. Booker is relatively unknown outside of politics junkies; ditto with Harris. Hell, Beto is a relative unkonwn. That said, I don't see how an unknown breaks through unless he's got charm out the wazoo like Obama and Clinton had.
 
Brainster said:
Break through the clouds for me: what exactly do you disagree with that I said, and why do you disagree?
Click to expand...

You are repeating the lie that Hillary was elected as the Dem Candidate only because "It was her turn". The reality is that she was, and still is, very much loved as a candidate by a large section of Democrats. All you need to do is look at the 2008 primaries to see that, she was pretty much neck and neck with Obama with the popular vote (depending on a few different assumptions with Caucuses and issues with Michigan, it's possible to show that Obama may have has a slight lead in the popular vote, but most counts have it as that Clinton actually won it) and the Pledged Delegates (+63 to Obama), the real difference was in the Super Delegates (+231.5 to Obama) who put their support in behind Obama (including all of the Democrat Senators and Representatives from both New York and Arkansas, and both Past Presidents.)

She actually won the nomination in 2016 with nearly a million less votes than she received in 2008!

The figures simply don't bear out the claims, which generally come from Bernie Supporters who are desperately seeking out reasons that they lost. Thus they jump to the whole, system was biased against us, she got it because she was "picked to win" etc, and when asked to back up the claims with some actual evidence either go dead silent, or point at the DNC emails while failing to note the dates of them being, in one circumstance, prior to Bernie's (or anyone but Clinton's) announcement to run, and on the rest, at the point that it was clear to everyone, but the most stubborn Bernie supporters, that he had lost and his continuing on was just damaging the Democrats chances against Trump.
 
Brainster said:
Okay so a dream candidate for 2020.

1. A white guy. Yeah I know, I know it's playing the absolute worse game for the absolute worse reasons to placate the absolute worse people but the Democrats need to ask themselves do they want to win or feel good about losing.
Click to expand...
I don't see why the white part is so necessary anymore. I do think that a man is probably required, preferably someone reasonably handsome.
Click to expand...
Because the election of Trump (and his continued support) shows that a huge portion of the electorate is A-OK with racism.

Yes, Obama managed to get elected, despite not being white, and some of his voters did eventually switch to Trump. If I were a Democrat, I might have the concern that all those potential Obama->Trump voters may realize they like the racism that Trump was spewing just a little bit too much.

It doesn't mean a minority couldn't win, but the Democrats do need to take back the whitehouse, and getting a white candidate makes that just a little bit more likely.
3. And this is by far the most important... somebody unknown. Somebody that isn't on anyone's radar right now. And not on anybody's radar 6 months from now. His name shouldn't be publicly, commonly recognized until... 2 months out from the primary, absolute tops. No old guards, no party regulars, nobody who's "earned it for being in the game so long." NOBODY WITH A HISTORY.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by somebody unknown. Booker is relatively unknown outside of politics junkies; ditto with Harris. Hell, Beto is a relative unkonwn. That said, I don't see how an unknown breaks through unless he's got charm out the wazoo like Obama and Clinton had.
Click to expand...
Well, the other post was about the "dream candidate" (i.e. the type they would want to win), not necessarily who thy THINK will win.

The problem is, the longer a person is in the spotlight, the more chance that the republicans can dig up dirt from their background (or, more notably, make up fake stories about them). Hillary would have been a good president, but things like Bengazi and emails ate into her support.
 
PhantomWolf said:
You are repeating the lie that Hillary was elected as the Dem Candidate only because "It was her turn". The reality is that she was, and still is, very much loved as a candidate by a large section of Democrats. All you need to do is look at the 2008 primaries to see that, she was pretty much neck and neck with Obama with the popular vote (depending on a few different assumptions with Caucuses and issues with Michigan, it's possible to show that Obama may have has a slight lead in the popular vote, but most counts have it as that Clinton actually won it) and the Pledged Delegates (+63 to Obama), the real difference was in the Super Delegates (+231.5 to Obama) who put their support in behind Obama (including all of the Democrat Senators and Representatives from both New York and Arkansas, and both Past Presidents.)

She actually won the nomination in 2016 with nearly a million less votes than she received in 2008!

The figures simply don't bear out the claims, which generally come from Bernie Supporters who are desperately seeking out reasons that they lost. Thus they jump to the whole, system was biased against us, she got it because she was "picked to win" etc, and when asked to back up the claims with some actual evidence either go dead silent, or point at the DNC emails while failing to note the dates of them being, in one circumstance, prior to Bernie's (or anyone but Clinton's) announcement to run, and on the rest, at the point that it was clear to everyone, but the most stubborn Bernie supporters, that he had lost and his continuing on was just damaging the Democrats chances against Trump.
Click to expand...

Agreed! I voted for HRC in the 2008 primaries and in the 2016 primaries and election. I voted for her because I think she is highly qualified, experienced, and would have been a superior president. All the "corrupt" crap Trump and the GOP have been throwing at her for decades (all unproved, try as they might) mattered not a whit. She made Trump look like the fool he is in all the debates showing her superior intellect and knowledge.
 
PhantomWolf said:
You are repeating the lie that Hillary was elected as the Dem Candidate only because "It was her turn". The reality is that she was, and still is, very much loved as a candidate by a large section of Democrats. All you need to do is look at the 2008 primaries to see that, she was pretty much neck and neck with Obama with the popular vote (depending on a few different assumptions with Caucuses and issues with Michigan, it's possible to show that Obama may have has a slight lead in the popular vote, but most counts have it as that Clinton actually won it) and the Pledged Delegates (+63 to Obama), the real difference was in the Super Delegates (+231.5 to Obama) who put their support in behind Obama (including all of the Democrat Senators and Representatives from both New York and Arkansas, and both Past Presidents.)

She actually won the nomination in 2016 with nearly a million less votes than she received in 2008!

The figures simply don't bear out the claims, which generally come from Bernie Supporters who are desperately seeking out reasons that they lost. Thus they jump to the whole, system was biased against us, she got it because she was "picked to win" etc, and when asked to back up the claims with some actual evidence either go dead silent, or point at the DNC emails while failing to note the dates of them being, in one circumstance, prior to Bernie's (or anyone but Clinton's) announcement to run, and on the rest, at the point that it was clear to everyone, but the most stubborn Bernie supporters, that he had lost and his continuing on was just damaging the Democrats chances against Trump.
Click to expand...
None of your statistics show she was loved. Not that they show the voters felt it was her turn either, although both are possibilities with the given data.
 
PhantomWolf said:
You are repeating the lie that Hillary was elected as the Dem Candidate only because "It was her turn". The reality is that she was, and still is, very much loved as a candidate by a large section of Democrats. All you need to do is look at the 2008 primaries to see that, she was pretty much neck and neck with Obama with the popular vote (depending on a few different assumptions with Caucuses and issues with Michigan, it's possible to show that Obama may have has a slight lead in the popular vote, but most counts have it as that Clinton actually won it) and the Pledged Delegates (+63 to Obama), the real difference was in the Super Delegates (+231.5 to Obama) who put their support in behind Obama (including all of the Democrat Senators and Representatives from both New York and Arkansas, and both Past Presidents.)

She actually won the nomination in 2016 with nearly a million less votes than she received in 2008!

The figures simply don't bear out the claims, which generally come from Bernie Supporters who are desperately seeking out reasons that they lost. Thus they jump to the whole, system was biased against us, she got it because she was "picked to win" etc, and when asked to back up the claims with some actual evidence either go dead silent, or point at the DNC emails while failing to note the dates of them being, in one circumstance, prior to Bernie's (or anyone but Clinton's) announcement to run, and on the rest, at the point that it was clear to everyone, but the most stubborn Bernie supporters, that he had lost and his continuing on was just damaging the Democrats chances against Trump.
Click to expand...

And to finish off Brainster's assumptions, it's kind of a stretch to look at the nominees but more heavily weight the winners of the nomination to say the Republicans usually fall in line.

Just a short list of "outsiders" who ran for the GOP:
Dewey - a "young turk" to the establishment, he copped the nomination in 1944 at only 41 years old.
Ike - didn't even know if he was Republican - they just wanted to win.
Goldwater - hijacked the nominating process by an earlier version of 2016 - large field of liberal-moderate candidates split their vote.
Reagan - now considered the backbone of the party, his rise was a damned revolution to the old guard.
Trump - 1964 redux... they didn't love Trump. They still don't. He lost the popular vote and didn't have a clear majority in any primary until the field was whittled down. The Not Trump primary votes finally totaled 55.5% to Trump's 44.4%. A performance he'd repeat in the GE.

And if you don't think "falling in line" is a description of the creepy floor show at the RNC, and the rush to buy knee pads and chapstick, then what is?


In short, the Dems have had more charismatic upstarts but the GOP has had as many.
 
LSSBB said:
None of your statistics show she was loved. Not that they show the voters felt it was her turn either, although both are possibilities with the given data.
Click to expand...

Well, Hillary certainly has her robust and avid supporters.

A lot of the "because it's her/his turn" legend is based on pure realpolitik. Bernie was an upstart and got a lot of Paulista-type support (flashy, noisy, insignificant in the end) and Hillary had been prepping for the run since 2008. She had the organization, the war chest, the backers. Much of It's Her Turn was because she prepared for it and worked for it. Same as John Kerry did. Same as Al Gore did. Same as running Humphrey. In short there are as many "it's his turn" candidates on the Dem side as the GOP side and as I mentioned in my previous post, as many Change Candidates on the GOP side as Dem.
 
PhantomWolf said:
You are repeating the lie that Hillary was elected as the Dem Candidate only because "It was her turn". The reality is that she was, and still is, very much loved as a candidate by a large section of Democrats. All you need to do is look at the 2008 primaries to see that, she was pretty much neck and neck with Obama with the popular vote (depending on a few different assumptions with Caucuses and issues with Michigan, it's possible to show that Obama may have has a slight lead in the popular vote, but most counts have it as that Clinton actually won it) and the Pledged Delegates (+63 to Obama), the real difference was in the Super Delegates (+231.5 to Obama) who put their support in behind Obama (including all of the Democrat Senators and Representatives from both New York and Arkansas, and both Past Presidents.)
Click to expand...
Nice Wikipedia answer but it's misleading. Super delegates can switch their votes. The super delegates initially favored Clinton but after Axelrod harvested all the pledged delegates for Obama, Clinton had no path to victory. The super delegates then switched their votes from Clinton to Obama to punch out the Democratic card.
 
LSSBB said:
...or may not recognize racism due to their own blinders, or may not sufficiently weight racism over perceived economic benefits (however misguided they may be on that point).
Click to expand...

Or they just don't think like you do.
 
Baylor said:
Nice Wikipedia answer but it's misleading. Super delegates can switch their votes. The super delegates initially favored Clinton but after Axelrod harvested all the pledged delegates for Obama, Clinton had no path to victory. The super delegates then switched their votes from Clinton to Obama to punch out the Democratic card.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you consider as misleading, all I was doing was giving the numbers, and yes I am well aware of the ability that supers had to flip, I pointed out that most of the NY and AR ones did just that, despite being for Hillary initially. In fact even Hillary and Bill's votes went to Obama (c.f. 2016 where Bernie's went to himself.) That she had no path to victory isn't really true, it would have been tough, but she could have been only 16 delegates from taking a win if she'd believed in flipping the result. If she'd really pushed things, that might have been close enough to have won a number of those that went to Obama to her by playing the popular vote card. But she did (IMO) the right thing and went with the winner of the pledged delegates, even getting many of those that had supported her to go with Obama instead.

However, this is all beside the point. The actual point was that in 2008 the race was knife edge close, Obama only just won the race, and had the DNC really wanted Hillary then, they could have used Supers to install her. The second point was that in 2016 she held most of her votes from 2008, getting just shy of 1 million less votes, so there are a lot of Democrats that really wanted her, it wasn't just a case of it being "her turn." The numbers in both 2008 and 2016 show that.
 
PhantomWolf said:
You are repeating the lie that Hillary was elected as the Dem Candidate only because "It was her turn". The reality is that she was, and still is, very much loved as a candidate by a large section of Democrats. All you need to do is look at the 2008 primaries to see that, she was pretty much neck and neck with Obama with the popular vote (depending on a few different assumptions with Caucuses and issues with Michigan, it's possible to show that Obama may have has a slight lead in the popular vote, but most counts have it as that Clinton actually won it) and the Pledged Delegates (+63 to Obama), the real difference was in the Super Delegates (+231.5 to Obama) who put their support in behind Obama (including all of the Democrat Senators and Representatives from both New York and Arkansas, and both Past Presidents.)

She actually won the nomination in 2016 with nearly a million less votes than she received in 2008!

The figures simply don't bear out the claims, which generally come from Bernie Supporters who are desperately seeking out reasons that they lost. Thus they jump to the whole, system was biased against us, she got it because she was "picked to win" etc, and when asked to back up the claims with some actual evidence either go dead silent, or point at the DNC emails while failing to note the dates of them being, in one circumstance, prior to Bernie's (or anyone but Clinton's) announcement to run, and on the rest, at the point that it was clear to everyone, but the most stubborn Bernie supporters, that he had lost and his continuing on was just damaging the Democrats chances against Trump.
Click to expand...

I don't think she got the nomination because it was her turn. I think that she got the nomination despite the fact that it was her turn. Certainly very few political observers thought going into the 2016 Democratic primaries that Hillary was going to have a difficult time of it against a 75-year-old democratic socialist.

But she did get the nomination, and she was clearly the candidate whose turn it was. The Democrats just really seem to have something against going with the obvious candidate, and indeed if you look at their history, you can see why.

1956: Nominated Adlai Stevenson, candidate whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1960: Nominated JFK, while Stevenson (who had been a sacrificial lamb in 1952 and 1956 against the overwhelmingly popular Eisenhower) was the man whose turn it was. Democrats won
1964: Sitting president nominated.
1968: Nominated Hubert Humphrey, candidate whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1972: Nominated George McGovern, while Ed Muskie was arguably the candidate whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1976: Nominated Jimmy Carter. I don't know if there really was a candidate whose turn it was; you could argue Sarge Shriver (who had been McGovern's running mate in 1972). Democrats won.
1980: Sitting president nominated.
1984: Nominated Walter Mondale, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1988: Nominated Michael Dukakis, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1992: Nominated Bill Clinton. You could make an argument for Sam Nunn or Mario Cuomo as being whose turn it was, but neither of them ran. Democrats won.
1996: Sitting president nominated.
2000: Nominated Al Gore, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
2004: Nominated John Kerry, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
2008: Nominated Barack Obama, while Hillary Clinton was clearly the candidate whose turn it was. Democrats won.
2012: Sitting president nominated.
2016: Nominated Hillary Clinton, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.

It's a small sample, but it sure looks like when the Democrats go for the candidate whose turn it is (other than sitting presidents) they lose.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom