How can progressives enthusiastically support Booker in a Dem primary?

[Beet]

The primary is not for another two and a half to three years. People won't necessarily prioritize his vote on prescription drug importation by then. Maybe the ferociousness of this backlash will penetrate his tin-eared head and he will realize that special interest politics won't do even in the slightest if he wants to have any kind of national future at all. It's just too early to tell.

[Chief Justice Keef]

He can't. He's all the problems with Clinton (too close to corporatism/Wall Street, too centrist to win over left-wingers) maximized. He's not going to be able to appeal to progressives in the primary, and if he wins the nomination he'll lose to Trump in the general election and help the GOP retain their majorities in the House and Senate.

Democrats need to realize that Clinton's popularity with white suburbanites and college grads was a one-off thing, and even then it cost the Democrats a lot of down ballot races. You shouldn't be trying to appeal to disenfranchised Republicans who vote. You should be trying to appeal to working-class voters and Millennials who typically DON'T vote and maximize turnout.

If Hillary Clinton of all people can win a Democratic primary, why shouldn't Booker be able to win? And the Sanders wing is clearly a minority of the Democratic primary electorate.

Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary in 2016 because pretty much every other major Dem in the invisible primary decided not to run in 2016. Sanders ended up becoming the only real opposition to her nomination, because everybody else in the establishment didn't want to challenge her. Now that Clinton's out of the picture, things are more divisive when it comes to establishment-friendly candidates (Booker, Cuomo, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar, etc.), so it's harder for the entire base to coalesce around one candidate when there's several other credible choices. That also makes it easier for one or two progressive "insurgent" candidates to take over the primaries when the establishment vote splits. That's pretty much what happened in the Republican primaries this year with Trump.

Just a hunch here, but probably because the only realistic chance Democrats have of retaking the House is through the suburban seats that Clinton won + the marginal Trump seats. D's have virtually zero chance of gaining back the House by running a bunch of Bernie Bro purists and by cranking up the college vote. That's not enough to win these seats. And I lol at the idea that educated whites are a one-off thing. For the past decade, that group has been trending Democratic, largely as a result of Millennial college grads being predominantly liberal and displacing old-school educated whites. Trump only exacerbated that. So no, I strongly disagree about this being a one-time fluke. Maybe for some of those voters, but I bet the group as a whole is going to be pretty close to evenly split for abwhile due to the trend I mentioned above, which was there before Trump even became a thing.

I'll concede to you that if you run moderate Democrats in those suburban seats Clinton won you can win them, especially in a Democratic wave year. But I don't agree with the premise you can't "crank up the college vote" and win the House. When you look at the excitement of these young voters for progressive policies, you could easily trigger some wins in the Midwest and Northeast if you appeal directly to their concerns and maximize turnout.

The way I see it, Democrats are now pretty much split into two factions; the moderate, center-left "Clinton" wing and the progressive, left-wing "Bernie" wing. Of course taking the Bernie strategy and applying that to a wealthy suburban district isn't foolproof, but the best course of actions is to take both avenues, basically unify the two groups into one giant coalition, and run candidates whose concerns and policies appeal to the voters in the district they're running in.

[RINO Tom]

He can't. He's all the problems with Clinton (too close to corporatism/Wall Street, too centrist to win over left-wingers) maximized. He's not going to be able to appeal to progressives in the primary, and if he wins the nomination he'll lose to Trump in the general election and help the GOP retain their majorities in the House and Senate.

Democrats need to realize that Clinton's popularity with white suburbanites and college grads was a one-off thing, and even then it cost the Democrats a lot of down ballot races. You shouldn't be trying to appeal to disenfranchised Republicans who vote. You should be trying to appeal to working-class voters and Millennials who typically DON'T vote and maximize turnout.

If Hillary Clinton of all people can win a Democratic primary, why shouldn't Booker be able to win? And the Sanders wing is clearly a minority of the Democratic primary electorate.

They are objectively bigger than the "Trump wing" of the GOP, dude, but that wouldn't allow you to phrase our politics as an elitist Democratic Party vs. a Heartland Republican Party, would it?   They faced ridiculously centralized/organized support for his rival that is HIGHLY unlikely to be duplicated in 2020.  IMO, it is far more likely that the "Sanders wing" gathers around one candidate than it is that the "Clinton wing" (not sure such a thing exists, TBH, they just loved Hillary) does the same.

[MT Treasurer]

Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary in 2016 because pretty much every other major Dem in the invisible primary decided not to run in 2016. Sanders ended up becoming the only real opposition to her nomination, because everybody else in the establishment didn't want to challenge her.

Yes, but isn't that the point? Sanders was her only opposition and it still wasn't enough to beat her. As for those saying Clinton's ''ground game'' was the reason she won the D primary, well, enthusiasm should trump (ha!) ground game, like it did in the general election. That didn't happen in the Democratic primary because the Sanders wing of the Democratic party is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Also, people here forget that Sanders, Warren, and other "progressives" enthusiastically endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. The influence of the "Sanders wing" (to the extent it even exists) is vastly exaggerated.

[uti2]

Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary in 2016 because pretty much every other major Dem in the invisible primary decided not to run in 2016. Sanders ended up becoming the only real opposition to her nomination, because everybody else in the establishment didn't want to challenge her.

Yes, but isn't that the point? Sanders was her only opposition and it still wasn't enough to beat her. As for those saying Clinton's ''ground game'' was the reason she won the D primary, well, enthusiasm should trump (ha!) ground game, like it did in the general election. That didn't happen in the Democratic primary because the Sanders wing of the Democratic party is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The Sanders wing is an extremely influential wing of the party, they're the reason why Gore lost, and why Obama won the 2008 primary. The Anti-war/anti-trade/anti-wall street, etc. crowd (remember obama's main street rhetoric?) coalesced around obama due to his triangulation on those issues.

[uti2]

They are objectively bigger than the "Trump wing" of the GOP, dude, but that wouldn't allow you to phrase our politics as an elitist Democratic Party vs. a Heartland Republican Party, would it?  They faced ridiculously centralized/organized support for his rival that is HIGHLY unlikely to be duplicated in 2020.  IMO, it is far more likely that the "Sanders wing" gathers around one candidate than it is that the "Clinton wing" (not sure such a thing exists, TBH, they just loved Hillary) does the same.

Nice try, but the only one who cares about that is you, since you desperately want the GOP to be an "Orange County style" party of rich White suburbanites. And no, the Sanders wing of the Democratic party is not "objectively bigger" than the Trump wing of the GOP, haha. Just look how badly Kasich (who I supported) did in the Republican primaries.

If the Sanders wing of the party is that strong, well.. why didn't he win the nomination? The fact that they loved Hillary tells you all you need to know about where the party is headed in the future. And while Booker could very well turn out to be a bad candidate, he would still be a lot better than Clinton or maybe even Warren.

The future of the Democratic party lies in states like Georgia, Virginia and Arizona and not in the Midwest, whether one likes it or not.

What's needed is a Green Tea Party, where the moderate dems and forced move close enough to the Sanders wing on the issues so that the Sanders voters are comfortable enough to reliably turn out for them.

This is what Obama tried to do in his rhetoric in 2008. Instead, Obama being a disappointment did 2 things, he burned all bridges with the blue dogs, and simultaneously alienated progressives, causing the downballot disaster for the dems. Hillary, at least, would've kept more blue dogs had she been elected in 2008, she would've been much better for the downballot.

[RINO Tom]

They are objectively bigger than the "Trump wing" of the GOP, dude, but that wouldn't allow you to phrase our politics as an elitist Democratic Party vs. a Heartland Republican Party, would it?  They faced ridiculously centralized/organized support for his rival that is HIGHLY unlikely to be duplicated in 2020.  IMO, it is far more likely that the "Sanders wing" gathers around one candidate than it is that the "Clinton wing" (not sure such a thing exists, TBH, they just loved Hillary) does the same.

Nice try, but the only one who cares about that is you, since you desperately want the GOP to be an "Orange County style" party of rich White suburbanites. And no, the Sanders wing of the Democratic party is not "objectively bigger" than the Trump wing of the GOP, haha. Just look how badly Kasich (who I supported) did in the Republican primaries.

If the Sanders wing of the party is that strong, well.. why didn't he win the nomination? The fact that they loved Hillary tells you all you need to know about where the party is headed in the future. And while Booker could very well turn out to be a bad candidate, he would still be a lot better than Clinton or maybe even Warren.

The future of the Democratic party lies in states like Georgia, Virginia and Arizona and not in the Midwest, whether one likes it or not.

LOL, no, I don't.  However, you take any opportunity possible to slyly and implicitly insinuate that Democrats are coastal elites, minorities and not much else; that's just ridiculous.  Then, if I ever call you out on it, you (technically correctly) act like you never (explicitly) said anything of the sort and pivot the accusation.  Bernie Sanders won a higher percentage of Democrats than Trump won of Republicans, did he not?  As for your question, we have all given you several reasons why Hillary defeated Bernie, none of which you're interested in hearing besides, "The Dem Party is represented by Hillary-type voters, not populists," because it's blatantly obvious you think that's true.  It's not.

As for your last statement, that is ridiculously debatable.  The Democratic Party of 2016 offers "rich, White suburbanites" absolutely nothing, and - as 2016 proved if you look at the exit polls - they offer them even less than TRUMP, who's the worse fit ever for them.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Probably because they're unfamiliar with his record. I myself haven't paid attention until recently.

The thought of a young and dynamic African American candidate must be appealing, especially now that Obama is about to be replaced by Trump. Same with Hillary appealing to many as a first serious female candidate, specific policies nothwhistanding.

[Chief Justice Keef]

They are objectively bigger than the "Trump wing" of the GOP, dude, but that wouldn't allow you to phrase our politics as an elitist Democratic Party vs. a Heartland Republican Party, would it?  They faced ridiculously centralized/organized support for his rival that is HIGHLY unlikely to be duplicated in 2020.  IMO, it is far more likely that the "Sanders wing" gathers around one candidate than it is that the "Clinton wing" (not sure such a thing exists, TBH, they just loved Hillary) does the same.

Nice try, but the only one who cares about that is you, since you desperately want the GOP to be an "Orange County style" party of rich White suburbanites. And no, the Sanders wing of the Democratic party is not "objectively bigger" than the Trump wing of the GOP, haha. Just look how badly Kasich (who I supported) did in the Republican primaries.

If the Sanders wing of the party is that strong, well.. why didn't he win the nomination? The fact that they loved Hillary tells you all you need to know about where the party is headed in the future. And while Booker could very well turn out to be a bad candidate, he would still be a lot better than Clinton or maybe even Warren.

The future of the Democratic party lies in states like Georgia, Virginia and Arizona and not in the Midwest, whether one likes it or not.

LOL, no, I don't.  However, you take any opportunity possible to slyly and implicitly insinuate that Democrats are coastal elites, minorities and not much else; that's just ridiculous.  Then, if I ever call you out on it, you (technically correctly) act like you never (explicitly) said anything of the sort and pivot the accusation.  Bernie Sanders won a higher percentage of Democrats than Trump won of Republicans, did he not?  As for your question, we have all given you several reasons why Hillary defeated Bernie, none of which you're interested in hearing besides, "The Dem Party is represented by Hillary-type voters, not populists," because it's blatantly obvious you think that's true.  It's not.

As for your last statement, that is ridiculously debatable.  The Democratic Party of 2016 offers "rich, White suburbanites" absolutely nothing, and - as 2016 proved if you look at the exit polls - they offer them even less than TRUMP, who's the worse fit ever for them.

Do you realize that they don't really have to? A lot of these people are wealthy, white, latte liberals who place higher premiums (or pretend to care) on social justice issues. Or yuppie Millennials who have been liberal their whole lives who are entering the workforce. The GOP doesn't really offer them much of anything except tax cuts, and that's not as big a voting issue for this group anymore.

But that's basically saying "what else are you gonna do?", and in that case, they don't vote.

[MT Treasurer]

LOL, no, I don't.  However, you take any opportunity possible to slyly and implicitly insinuate that Democrats are coastal elites, minorities and not much else; that's just ridiculous.  Then, if I ever call you out on it, you (technically correctly) act like you never (explicitly) said anything of the sort and pivot the accusation.  Bernie Sanders won a higher percentage of Democrats than Trump won of Republicans, did he not?  As for your question, we have all given you several reasons why Hillary defeated Bernie, none of which you're interested in hearing besides, "The Dem Party is represented by Hillary-type voters, not populists," because it's blatantly obvious you think that's true.  It's not.

As for your last statement, that is ridiculously debatable.  The Democratic Party of 2016 offers "rich, White suburbanites" absolutely nothing, and - as 2016 proved if you look at the exit polls - they offer them even less than TRUMP, who's the worse fit ever for them.

Look, I'm not saying that the Democratic party "is just minorities and coastal elites", that's simply wrong and a straw man. Just look at this forum's favorite state, New Hampshire, and you'll see that this isn't the case (not to mention that CO, NM and TX aren't coastal states). However, I have little doubt that the Democratic party's base (which decides primary elections) doesn't consist of White millennials who care about the downsides of free trade.

And yeah, you gave a few very vague reasons for why Clinton defeating Sanders doesn't tell us much about where the Democrats are headed as a party, but none of them make much sense to me. Like I said in my previous post, enthusiasm should have trumped Clinton's ground game if the Sanders wing of the party was that strong. Sanders was her only serious opponent, and he lost decisively. Sanders himself endorsed Clinton very enthusiastically, so I doubt the "Sanders wing" (whatever that means) is even much of a thing in the party. Clinton, despite all her obvious flaws as a candidate and a person, was and is still very popular among the Democratic primary electorate, and I see no reason why someone like Booker and Gillibrand would be less appealing to the electorate than Clinton.

If Trump is a disaster as president (which he almost certainly will be if he governs like a Bush- or McCain-type Republican), any Democrat, including Cuomo, Booker or West, will be able to defeat him handily, just like any other Democrat would have beaten him this year.

[krazen1211]

It shouldn't be hard. Cory simply has to trick them into voting against their own interest. We are talking about Bernie basement dwellers living in their mommy's basement after all.

[Figueira]

He can't. He's all the problems with Clinton (too close to corporatism/Wall Street, too centrist to win over left-wingers) maximized. He's not going to be able to appeal to progressives in the primary, and if he wins the nomination he'll lose to Trump in the general election and help the GOP retain their majorities in the House and Senate.

Democrats need to realize that Clinton's popularity with white suburbanites and college grads was a one-off thing, and even then it cost the Democrats a lot of down ballot races. You shouldn't be trying to appeal to disenfranchised Republicans who vote. You should be trying to appeal to working-class voters and Millennials who typically DON'T vote and maximize turnout.

If Hillary Clinton of all people can win a Democratic primary, why shouldn't Booker be able to win? And the Sanders wing is clearly a minority of the Democratic primary electorate.

Exactly. Sanders supporters are important but it's not like they ("we" I guess) have veto power over the nominee.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/276852185512411136

Tory

[Mr. Morden]

https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/276852185512411136

Tory

I'm not sure, but it looks like that may have been an accidental retweet.  From this context:

https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/276834377370058753

it looks like he was arguing with the guy, and may have done an accidental retweet of the guy he was arguing with?

But I'm not a Twitter aficionado, so I may have that wrong.

[Confused Democrat]

He can't. He's all the problems with Clinton (too close to corporatism/Wall Street, too centrist to win over left-wingers) maximized. He's not going to be able to appeal to progressives in the primary, and if he wins the nomination he'll lose to Trump in the general election and help the GOP retain their majorities in the House and Senate.

Democrats need to realize that Clinton's popularity with white suburbanites and college grads was a one-off thing, and even then it cost the Democrats a lot of down ballot races. You shouldn't be trying to appeal to disenfranchised Republicans who vote. You should be trying to appeal to working-class voters and Millennials who typically DON'T vote and maximize turnout.

If Hillary Clinton of all people can win a Democratic primary, why shouldn't Booker be able to win? And the Sanders wing is clearly a minority of the Democratic primary electorate.

Exactly. Sanders supporters are important but it's not like they ("we" I guess) have veto power over the nominee.

We might not have veto power during a primary (I think this point is debatable), but we can certainly screw you during a general à la HRC.

[Figueira]

He can't. He's all the problems with Clinton (too close to corporatism/Wall Street, too centrist to win over left-wingers) maximized. He's not going to be able to appeal to progressives in the primary, and if he wins the nomination he'll lose to Trump in the general election and help the GOP retain their majorities in the House and Senate.

Democrats need to realize that Clinton's popularity with white suburbanites and college grads was a one-off thing, and even then it cost the Democrats a lot of down ballot races. You shouldn't be trying to appeal to disenfranchised Republicans who vote. You should be trying to appeal to working-class voters and Millennials who typically DON'T vote and maximize turnout.

If Hillary Clinton of all people can win a Democratic primary, why shouldn't Booker be able to win? And the Sanders wing is clearly a minority of the Democratic primary electorate.

Exactly. Sanders supporters are important but it's not like they ("we" I guess) have veto power over the nominee.

We might not have veto power during a primary (I think this point is debatable), but we can certainly screw you during a general à la HRC.

True (and that's not something to be proud of) but that's irrelevant to whether Booker can get the nomination.

[RINO Tom]

No faction - by definition, but a slice of the electorate - has "veto" power in a party.  Everyone is ignoring the blatantly obvious fact, too, that Bernie's supporters were much more ideologically coherent than were Trump's.  I contend very strongly that Trump's appeal had little to do with a lasting set of views that will be represented in any concrete form in future GOP primaries.

[Famous Mortimer]

He can't. He's all the problems with Clinton (too close to corporatism/Wall Street, too centrist to win over left-wingers) maximized. He's not going to be able to appeal to progressives in the primary, and if he wins the nomination he'll lose to Trump in the general election and help the GOP retain their majorities in the House and Senate.

Democrats need to realize that Clinton's popularity with white suburbanites and college grads was a one-off thing, and even then it cost the Democrats a lot of down ballot races. You shouldn't be trying to appeal to disenfranchised Republicans who vote. You should be trying to appeal to working-class voters and Millennials who typically DON'T vote and maximize turnout.

If Hillary Clinton of all people can win a Democratic primary, why shouldn't Booker be able to? And the Sanders wing is clearly a minority of the Democratic primary electorate.

Clinton had the advantage of inevitability™ on her side, which scared away all potential challengers from the establishment wing and allowed her to run unopposed (or so it seemed) in the primary); Booker, on the other hand, won't have said luxury. I think it's more likely than not that he crashes and burns when he runs in four years time.

This is actually a benefit for Booker though. It's easier to win with 30% in a multicandidate race than it is to win with 50% in a 2 person race. Hillary was dumb to want the field cleared. She's just bad at politics in general, which is why she's not president now.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

He can't. He's all the problems with Clinton (too close to corporatism/Wall Street, too centrist to win over left-wingers) maximized. He's not going to be able to appeal to progressives in the primary, and if he wins the nomination he'll lose to Trump in the general election and help the GOP retain their majorities in the House and Senate.

Democrats need to realize that Clinton's popularity with white suburbanites and college grads was a one-off thing, and even then it cost the Democrats a lot of down ballot races. You shouldn't be trying to appeal to disenfranchised Republicans who vote. You should be trying to appeal to working-class voters and Millennials who typically DON'T vote and maximize turnout.

If Hillary Clinton of all people can win a Democratic primary, why shouldn't Booker be able to? And the Sanders wing is clearly a minority of the Democratic primary electorate.

Clinton had the advantage of inevitability™ on her side, which scared away all potential challengers from the establishment wing and allowed her to run unopposed (or so it seemed) in the primary); Booker, on the other hand, won't have said luxury. I think it's more likely than not that he crashes and burns when he runs in four years time.

This is actually a benefit for Booker though. It's easier to win with 30% in a multicandidate race than it is to win with 50% in a 2 person race. Hillary was dumb to want the field cleared. She's just bad at politics in general, which is why she's not president now.

True, but on the other hand if you design a crowded field it's possible that you divide your own constituency and hurt yourself (cf: Kasich, Lil' Marco, Jeb, Walker etc this primary).

I can easily see Booker starting strong in a crowded field, and then failing to distinguish himself.

Also, as long as I'm in this thread - Booker is a corporate shill and no one should vote for him yada yada etc etc.

[Famous Mortimer]

as long as no other Black guy runs, he'll stand out.

[Lief 🗽]

https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/276852185512411136

Tory

I'm not sure, but it looks like that may have been an accidental retweet.  From this context:

https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/276834377370058753

it looks like he was arguing with the guy, and may have done an accidental retweet of the guy he was arguing with?

But I'm not a Twitter aficionado, so I may have that wrong.

He was literally campaigning for increased food stamp benefits at the time he tweeted that. Whether he made a mistake or retweeted the guy ironically (a common Twitter thing), it's clear that he doesn't believe that.