How can progressives enthusiastically support Booker in a Dem primary?

[Shadows]

I understand if he is GE nominee & people have no options. But Booker in a primary.

The guy is a bigger Wall Street guy than Hillary. He has given speeches for money as a Senator with no resume like Hillary, has raised more money than any other Senator from Wall Street, attacked Obama when Obama criticized PE, defend Bain, doesn't support Glass Steagal etc.

The guy is horrible on civil liberties - Supports the Freedom act, Patriot act & complete intrusion of civil liberties.

He supporters raising the Retirement age for Young people, a Republican position. He cut spending as Mayor & supports it @ the Federal level & then backed off touching entitlements.

He has been anywhere & everywhere in entitlements & foreign policy. He said War is not out of the question vs Iran, supporter Iran deal, then criticized, then went to the Jewish donors & said sorry.

Most of all he is a Radical right, an alt right in Education reforms. He supports privatization of education, increase of charter schools & big increase in voucher programs.

Just because he is liberal in some social issues & opposed the War on Drugs & a couple of other stuff doesn't make him a great candidate.

He switches & flip-flops of anything & everything. How on earth can progressives support Booker in a Dem Primary? Because he is block or young or eloquent?

Is that the qualification? You just have to be young, of a particular race & speak well to get support of progressives?

[Hindsight was 2020]

Im sorry but Booker lives in freaking NJ Wall Street execs and the people they employ live in suburbs in NJ. Being "pro-wall street" just means he does right by his constituents, also "alt-right on education" isn't a thing the "alt-right" is a race movement like neo-nazis

[Shadows]

Im sorry but Booker lives in freaking NJ Wall Street execs and the people they employ live in suburbs in NJ. Being "pro-wall street" just means he does right by his constituents, also "alt-right on education" isn't a thing the "alt-right" is a race movement like neo-nazis

Ultra right on Education if that pleases you!

[Blue3]

Booker is disgusting

[Figueira]

Im sorry but Booker lives in freaking NJ Wall Street execs and the people they employ live in suburbs in NJ. Being "pro-wall street" just means he does right by his constituents, also "alt-right on education" isn't a thing the "alt-right" is a race movement like neo-nazis

That doesn't answer the question posed in the thread title. People who are loudly protesting everyone tied to Wall Street aren't going to give Booker a pass because he happens to represent New Jersey.

[Fusionmunster]

The people on the left need to learn to bend a little or we're all going to break.

[Figueira]

The people on the left need to learn to bend a little or we're all going to break.

I agree (not necessarily with Booker but in general I agree) but this argument isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

[uti2]

attacked Obama when Obama criticized PE, defend Bain, doesn't support Glass Steagal etc.

This is of course, the biggest irony, Obama won, because he ran as an economic populist and was anti-bain.

[SCNCmod]

He's a terrible candidate

And Truthfully...another black Democratic candidate would solidify the Dems as just the party of minorities

Regardless if he ends up being the best candidate or not... I totally disagree with both of these statements.

Also, I think all of the overplayed "wall street" claims, are so void of critical intellectual thought.  And the reality is- in most cases- raising money from wealthy donors is required if a candidate want to have a chance in H#ll of getting elected.(and naturally the wealthy donors in NY & NJ are much more likely to be wall street guys ... compared to other states/cities. And many big donors give to both candidates and know they don't "own the candidate.

Bernie Sanders happened to be the Perfect Storm for many reasons- to allow him to successfully raise the adequate amount of money solely from small individual sources.  But this is very rarely the case.  In fact- Bernie had the luxury of running initially thinking he had no shot of winning.  Whereas candidates without such luxury/ expectations- often feel the pressure of not being able to risk throwing away an election- by not raising adequate money from individuals only.

[houseonaboat]

Two things:

(1) if the dynamics of the 2020 primary are just an amplified version of the 2016 primary, then no, Booker probably won't win.

(2) After 2004, Democrats said (and I can probably find articles quoting this if I wasn't lazy) that they needed a white moderate from a swing state to win the presidency. Hillary was the overwhelming favorite largely because she was someone who could satisfy the liberal wing of the Democratic Party while also being moderate enough to win a general election (ha!) and the "dark horses" at that time were Mark Warner and Evan Bayh -- two guys who didn't even run.

My point is that party dynamics change quickly and it's impossible to predict how politics will look in 2020. If there's a broad demand for a leftist populist uprising, then Booker may even be primaried hard in NJ. I'm just doubtful of people's certainty on that.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Can't say I'd support Booker in a primary, but

The people on the left need to learn to bend a little or we're all going to break.

[SCNCmod]

Two things:

(1) if the dynamics of the 2020 primary are just an amplified version of the 2016 primary, then no, Booker probably won't win.

(2) After 2004, Democrats said (and I can probably find articles quoting this if I wasn't lazy) that they needed a white moderate from a swing state to win the presidency. Hillary was the overwhelming favorite largely because she was someone who could satisfy the liberal wing of the Democratic Party while also being moderate enough to win a general election (ha!) and the "dark horses" at that time were Mark Warner and Evan Bayh -- two guys who didn't even run.

My point is that party dynamics change quickly and it's impossible to predict how politics will look in 2020. If there's a broad demand for a leftist populist uprising, then Booker may even be primaried hard in NJ. I'm just doubtful of people's certainty on that.

But one thing that stays the same... The most likable of the two candidates (person who can come off with a bit of charisma, Not overly partisan in demeanor/delivery), seems to have genuine convictions, seems to cares about people etc) is who wins...

Reagan/Clinton/Bush, Obama, Trump ... all fit this Matrix more than their opponents (Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney,  Hillary, etc).   So I think the candidate who has the right personally mix will win regardless of race or gender.

But I do think Booker would need to be on the ticket with someone from a landlocked State.  But Booker would win Penn & Mich (he would be able to turn out adequate numbers in Philly & Detroit etc). And he would probably play well in Florida.

[houseonaboat]

Two things:

(1) if the dynamics of the 2020 primary are just an amplified version of the 2016 primary, then no, Booker probably won't win.

(2) After 2004, Democrats said (and I can probably find articles quoting this if I wasn't lazy) that they needed a white moderate from a swing state to win the presidency. Hillary was the overwhelming favorite largely because she was someone who could satisfy the liberal wing of the Democratic Party while also being moderate enough to win a general election (ha!) and the "dark horses" at that time were Mark Warner and Evan Bayh -- two guys who didn't even run.

My point is that party dynamics change quickly and it's impossible to predict how politics will look in 2020. If there's a broad demand for a leftist populist uprising, then Booker may even be primaried hard in NJ. I'm just doubtful of people's certainty on that.

But one thing that stays the same... The most likable of the two candidates (person who can come off with a bit of charisma, Not overly partisan in demeanor/delivery), seems to have genuine convictions, seems to cares about people etc) is who wins...

Reagan/Clinton/Bush, Obama, Trump ... all fit this Matrix more than their opponents (Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney,  Hillary, etc).   So I think the candidate who has the right personally mix will win regardless of race or gender.

But I do think Booker would need to be on the ticket with someone from a landlocked State.  But Booker would win Penn & Mich (he would be able to turn out adequate numbers in Philly & Detroit etc). And he would probably play well in Florida.

A week ago I posted a thread asking how Tester/Booker would do. Thinking about it I think Bullock/Booker (or Booker/Bullock) could be a winning ticket. As a Dem, I'd want to see a woman on the ticket, but yeah, I agree that a geographically diverse ticket with Booker would do really well.

[Lief 🗽]

If Cory Booker is not good enough for the purity leftists, then I guess the Democratic Party will just never win a national election again.

Booker fits pretty well into the middle of the Democratic Party. He is not just a progressive, but a leading progressive on a number of important issues, chief among them criminal justice reform.

[Klartext89]

Voting against Mattis and race baiting against Sessions after praising him a few months ago should really be a big Bonus in a Dem Primary. I mean, if a criminal, corrupt elitist and a communist can drive the progressive wing, then an African American hypocrite should be able to do it too.

[JA]

The people on the left need to learn to bend a little or we're all going to break.

That depends on which issues we're supposed to bend.

[Mr. Smith]

The people on the left need to learn to bend a little or we're all going to break.

Already tried that this cycle, look what happened.

[houseonaboat]

The people on the left need to learn to bend a little or we're all going to break.

Already tried that this cycle, look what happened.

Let's dispel with the notion that Hillary lost because she was a relative moderate. She lost because she's an uncharismatic, unlikeable person that was running on a third D term. It's truly a remarkable feat that she came as close to winning as she did (with a big assist from Trump).

Ironically, the stances Hillary was most liberal on (immigration in particular, race more broadly) probably cost her more votes than the issues she was more moderate/hawkish on.

[Shadows]

If Cory Booker is not good enough for the purity leftists, then I guess the Democratic Party will just never win a national election again.

Booker fits pretty well into the middle of the Democratic Party. He is not just a progressive, but a leading progressive on a number of important issues, chief among them criminal justice reform.

Yeah, this anti-Booker sentiment on here is almost obsessive. While you may be able to beat Trump in 2020 with anyone if he implodes, it's probably advisable to nominate someone who has the potential for broad appeal anyways if you're looking to grow the Democratic coalition and hang on to the white suburbanites they gained in 2016. Booker is an excellent fit for both of those groups, but if liberals are hellbent on leftist Tea Party-ism, that's their prerogative.

Ridiculous comment. For one, you need to win the EC not PV. At the current rate, MN & NH could go red in 2020. Donald Trump is going to gain big among some Republicans & sub-urbans when he proves that he is sane. That is all he needs to prove.

You tried that BS policy, lose WC & it didn't work out. You lost to a modern Hitler, an ultra radical extremist racist islamophobe sexual assaulter, the most hated candidate in history. Booker can get more urban votes in NY & NJ, that won't get him the EC.

He needs to win WI, MI, retain MN, NH to win the Presidency which he can't do without millennials & working class. And if this fraud wins in 2020, there will be massive defection to the green party. People have held their nose & voted for Clinton once, they won't do it again now that Trump will be somewhat sane.

And congrats for helping to elect Trump. You chose Clinton & thus elected Trump. Fully on you.

Also if you think "You liberals" while addressing people, you are in the wrong party.

[Shadows]

Whatever dude. I voted in the Republican primary for Kasich before I voted for Clinton in the general, and I was certainly not her biggest fan. And half the things you wrote about are probably not true. I highly doubt that the Democratic primary electorate is going to care nearly as much about these things as you do. As for Millennials, the ones who know of Booker seem to love him, so that comparison to Hillary isn't good at all. And for those suburbanites who you seem to think will come running back to Trump once he proves he's sane, um, yeah, have you seen or read anything about Trump in the past two months that indicates he's going to change? I don't think so. (PS: once a group of voters abandons a party's presidential nominee in droves, as happened with the WWC abandoning Hillary and suburbanites abandoning Trump, it's usually indicative of a longer term trend about to happen downballot and long-term, or a realignment. I suspect that's what's going to happen, and I'm extremely skeptical that we'll see a reversion to pre-2016 among either of those groups to that significant of a degree, unless a) Trump fails on his promises to the WWC or b) Trump manages to hone in on his behavior and moral deficits to appease those educated suburbanites.

You are a Republican Kasich voter (7%) who voted for Hillary. You think as per your lens, a small section electability will be determined.

Unfortunately people like you are completely cut off from the Dem primary base. Because if there were more like you, then Hillary would be President. She got 7% of you guys & lost 9% of Dems against Trump. That number would be MUCH bigger in Rust Belt states where she also got very low turnout among her base.

That 9% could become 19% if Trump is sane, so your 7% to 17% may not matter.

I know most millennials who don't go by he is a charismatic speaker absolutely hate him & look @ him as worse than Hillary. The guy has fringe radical positions like Voucher for education (It is a hard right stand when large parts of Dem party is campaigning on Free Tuition).

Booker is never going to get the young votes when most of the Dem contenders will be presenting some plans for college affordability & he will asked about voucher programs. Plus for significant portion of half the Dem base (Bernie supporters), Money in politics is an absolute deal breaker.

Noway would votes go to Wall Street cronies who attack Obama for regulation of PE & sell votes for money for big pharma. Imagine in a Dem debate, Booker raises 100's of M of $ with his Super pac, it will be very difficult for progressives to support him.

He also is a drama queen & has no substance, tweeting quotes of leaders & advertising his testimony while he was profusely praising Sessions a while back. He is a political opportunist & people are sick & tired of opportunists.

[Famous Mortimer]

I guess Booker would keep abortion legal but so would every other Democrat (and most Republicans really). Other than that, there's no real way Booker is superior to Trump except if you find being funny a negative quality.

[Famous Mortimer]

Im sorry but Booker lives in freaking NJ Wall Street execs and the people they employ live in suburbs in NJ. Being "pro-wall street" just means he does right by his constituents, also "alt-right on education" isn't a thing the "alt-right" is a race movement like neo-nazis

Yeah, "alt right on education" was a stupid comment and you should feel stupid for making it. "alt right" has a meaning, just like neo-conservative has a meaning, and "fascist" has a meaning. It doesn't just mean "something vaguely on the right that I don't like".

[Mr. Morden]

You are a Republican Kasich voter (7%) who voted for Hillary. You think as per your lens, a small section electability will be determined.

Unfortunately people like you are completely cut off from the Dem primary base. Because if there were more like you, then Hillary would be President. She got 7% of you guys & lost 9% of Dems against Trump. That number would be MUCH bigger in Rust Belt states where she also got very low turnout among her base.

The exit poll says it was 8% each way: 8% of Dems voting Trump and 8% of Republicans voting Clinton:

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

[RINO Tom]

If Cory Booker is not good enough for the purity leftists, then I guess the Democratic Party will just never win a national election again.

Booker fits pretty well into the middle of the Democratic Party. He is not just a progressive, but a leading progressive on a number of important issues, chief among them criminal justice reform.

Yeah, this anti-Booker sentiment on here is almost obsessive. While you may be able to beat Trump in 2020 with anyone if he implodes, it's probably advisable to nominate someone who has the potential for broad appeal anyways if you're looking to grow the Democratic coalition and hang on to the white suburbanites they gained in 2016. Booker is an excellent fit for both of those groups, but if liberals are hellbent on leftist Tea Party-ism, that's their prerogative.

The people who are most loyal to the Democratic Party DON'T WANT TO DO THIS.  The Dem leadership knows it, the GOP knows it ... heck, the White suburbanites know it, hence why they remained loyal to downballot Republicans and, really, Trump at the end of the day.

Dems' performance among White college graduates and suburbanites in 2016 is about as relevant going forward as the GOP's performance among Asians in 2014.  Kiss 'em goodbye if Trump is even remotely successful.

[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 among those groups.