Are Democrats better off with an African-American candidate?

[Mister Mets]

Nick Spencer, a comic book writer who has been involved in politics, had some interesting speculation on the Democratic primary for 2020. He believes that Democrats would be best off nominating an African American candidate for General Election turnout, but that Elizabeth Warren is very well-positioned, and that Kamala Harris and Cory Booker might end up splitting the primary vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Should Democrats favor African-American candidates? Would there be increased turnout for someone who wants to be the second black President?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If they ran candidates just because they're black, they deserve to lose.

[Figueira]

In general I'd say yes, although the options are unfortunately limited, with Harris and Booker being the only really obvious ones.

[bagelman]

If Clinton spend more time targeting ANYONE beside suburban R women she would've been president.

I am principally opposed to nominating a candidate purely based on race, period. If the Democrats nominate Cory Booker for the specific reason that he is black, I will vote to reelect Trump.

Also Kamala Harris is not black.

[Lachi]

If Clinton spend more time targeting ANYONE beside suburban R women she would've been president.

I am principally opposed to nominating a candidate purely based on race, period. If the Democrats nominate Cory Booker for the specific reason that he is black, I will vote to reelect Trump.

Also Kamala Harris is not black.

She's half black, half Indian-American
Her mother is Indian, her father is Jamaican

[publicunofficial]

I don't know about NEEDING a black candidate, but I have said since 2012 that going forward, Dems need to have at least one non-white person on the ticket.

It's not just "Muh identity politics"; the Democratic Party is built on minority support and the ticket should reflect that. Otherwise it's very easy for African-American/Latino voters to look at the ballot and say "None of these people represent me".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't know about NEEDING a black candidate, but I have said since 2012 that going forward, Dems need to have at least one non-white person on the ticket.

It's not just "Muh identity politics"; the Democratic Party is built on minority support and the ticket should reflect that. Otherwise it's very easy for African-American/Latino voters to look at the ballot and say "None of these people represent me".

People vote on more than their gender and race. Working class white women voted Trump because Hillary wasn't doing sh**t for them.

[Adam Griffin]

Obama was a very special candidate. It wasn't inherently because he was black, though that certainly helped with black turnout and support. It was that he was able to glue together so many pieces to the broader Democratic coalition, including elements that wouldn't have otherwise been there (that should be obvious now). Nobody would have thought Obama to be a transformative political figure or exceptional candidate if he had merely generated 08/12 numbers among black voters but generated 04 numbers among every other group. Hell, he might not have even won. Democrats have a much bigger puzzle to solve than nominal turnout/support among a minority group.

There isn't a single black Democrat - or arguably any Democrat, for that matter - who could command the kind of coalition he did as of right now. Thinking that "we need to run a black candidate!" is a viable solution to turnout/support woes is akin to how the AJC talks about every generic black candidate for statewide office "exciting the state's black electorate", as if it's just that simple.

Let's also remember that - while we shouldn't be making blanket generalizations with regard to a candidate's race and chances for success - it cuts both ways. Obama was able to get himself elected, as well as many of the same people who were on the ballot with him, but the Democratic Party is effectively a smoldering heap of dung in part because of the reaction to him, and it was largely like this before 2016. We've lost a dozen Governors, a dozen Senators, dozens of House members and almost 1,000 state legislative seats under his tenure. Who cares if you win the battle but lose the war?

[Mister Mets]

If they ran candidates just because they're black, they deserve to lose.

That's not the argument.

One way to think about it is that there are several individuals who are plausible presidential nominees (Elizabeth Warren, Kristen Gilibrand, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Tim Kaine, etc.) Two happen to be African-American. The question is whether there are significant advantages to nominating one of those two individuals rather than someone else.

[Person Man]

I am sure we can find someone who is black, or anyone else, who can resolidify poor urban areas.

[bagelman]

If Clinton spend more time targeting ANYONE beside suburban R women she would've been president.

I am principally opposed to nominating a candidate purely based on race, period. If the Democrats nominate Cory Booker for the specific reason that he is black, I will vote to reelect Trump.

Also Kamala Harris is not black.

She's half black, half Indian-American
Her mother is Indian, her father is Jamaican

I'm referring to skin color not ancestry. She looks more tan than black.

[Xing]

We need candidates who are inspiring, regardless of race.

[Cashew]

If Clinton spend more time targeting ANYONE beside suburban R women she would've been president.

This was the biggest flaw with her campaign.

It's not just "Muh identity politics"; the Democratic Party is built on minority support and the ticket should reflect that. Otherwise it's very easy for African-American/Latino voters to look at the ballot and say "None of these people represent me".

No. During the new deal, when Democrats were the more racist party, blacks(the ones that could vote) went for FDR anyway.

[pbrower2a]

NO!

Barack Obama won despite being black. He has much the same political skills as Ronald Reagan and the temperament of Eisenhower, the last two Republicans who won two landslide elections. Barack Obama got elected because he is one of the shrewdest, slickest politicians ever.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I don't know about NEEDING a black candidate, but I have said since 2012 that going forward, Dems need to have at least one non-white person on the ticket.

It's not just "Muh identity politics"; the Democratic Party is built on minority support and the ticket should reflect that. Otherwise it's very easy for African-American/Latino voters to look at the ballot and say "None of these people represent me".

People vote on more than their gender and race. Working class white women voted Trump because Hillary wasn't doing sh**t for them.

Black people did turn out more for Obama then Clinton. Among whites, gender/race isn't the decider of identity politics as much as urban vs. rural or liberal vs. conservative. Harris seems to have the ability to speak to minorities, unlike Warren or bernie, and she is a competent woman. She might be better if she waits until 2024/2028, though...

Ruben Gallego's district is pretty Hispanic(which implies that he appeals to people of Hispanic heritage). He clearly has some appeal there, and he seems to be heading the "don't trust trump" camp of democrats. Perhaps he could run.

[Shadows]

Obama won because he had huge support among young voters, hispanic voters (despite immigration) & working class whites in key states like OH, WI, etc.

Obama won because was also a great orator who could connect with people after a Bush presidency, financial collapse, Iraq war, etc. For all his black turnout, he couldn't flip 1 single Southern state with big black population like GA or others. You don't need a black candidate to win PA or WI or MI.

If Dems continue to run candidates based on identity politics, then this party deserves to be run to this ground.

This is in many ways reverse racism, selection of candidates based on pure identity. What do you actually stand for? People who are supporting them should be ashamed of these racist ideas!