Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-08-2018, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
6,061 posts, read 2,009,458 times
Reputation: 2167

Advertisements

I count 15-20 who have hinted about running in the 2020 Democratic Party field. Names range from Hillary to Michael Bloomberg to Eric Holder, to Julian Castro. Wikipedia lists 31 who have expressed interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_D...tial_primaries

What are the implications of such a crowded field? We saw what happened in 2016 with 17 GOP entrants. An unlikely upstart named Trump won. If the field had been just (say) Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich, I doubt that Trump would have won. The crowded field allowed him to win despite having stratospheric negatives.

Looking at elections going back to 1960, I see four rough categories of candidates: 1)incumbents (including VPs (e.g. Al Gore in 2000)); 2)'my turn' candidates, (e.g. Bob Dole in 1996); 3)purist ideologues (Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders); 4)upstarts (Trump, Bill Clinton, JFK).

The categories are not perfect, of course. Reagan could arguably be put into all categories other than 'incumbent.' At any rate, I add up the winners of races from 1960-2016, and my tally of winners is:

incumbents (again, prez OR vp): 7
upstarts.................................: 5
my turn.................................: 2
purist ideologue......................: 0

Some might count Reagan in 1980 as a purist. I counted him as an upstart. Certainly the GOP establishment never wanted him. They fiercely finagled in 1976 to keep him out. Also, Reagan always made it clear that he was not averse to compromise. To wit: his famous line about half-loaf being better than no-loaf. Obama in 2008 might be considered as a purist. I counted him as 'upstart,' as a less than 1 term Senator. Obama, IMO, didn't really campaign nor govern as a purist.

There were two 'purist' losers on my list--McGovern and Barry Goldwater. This does not bode well for a Bernie or Warren. But it's not hard to imagine either winning the nomination, by a path similar to Trump's. I had a hard time categorizing W. Bush in 2000, but decided on 'my turn.'

Please comment on the crowded D field, and what you see as the ramifications thereof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top