DNC chair Tom Perez: Expect a 'double-digit' field in 2020 presidential primary

[former9thward]

Source: Chicago Tribune

Say what you want about President Donald Trump’s off-color gags about the size of his manhood, the crowded 2016 Republican presidential debates were an undeniable ratings smash. Next time around the Democrats might be aping the widescreen format: Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said Wednesday night that he expects “a double-digit number of candidates” in the field for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

Speaking to University of Chicago students at the university’s Institute of Politics, Perez said, “I would welcome that because sometimes I hear people say we don’t have a bench of presidential candidates, and I could not disagree with that more.”

Perez didn’t identify any candidates he expected to run, though former Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, and U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan have all been rumored to be considering a 2020 run. The Republicans in 2016 had 17 candidates, forcing underperforming candidates off the main stage and into a second-tier debate. A double-digit Democratic field would be a significant increase on the half-dozen Democrats who ran in 2016.

Perez, who upset student supporters of Bernie Sanders by failing to commit to get rid of superdelegates in the 2020 primary, was far less keen to discuss the Washington Post’s scoop that the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the research that resulted in a notorious dossier on Trump. “You’re going to have to ask the folks who were at the DNC at that time,” he said, noting that he was the labor secretary in the Obama administration at the time. “I learned about the dossier a few days ago, OK?”

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chicagoinc/ct-met-tom-perez-dossier-1027-chicago-inc-20171026-story.html

[7962]

1. I'm not seeing this as a great thing.

A LOT of cash will be spent on several campaigns that won't have a shot, instead of consolidating behind 2-3 who have a legit chance of appealing to voters who aren't straight line D voters
Because without them, Democrats will lose

[Honeycombe8]

2. I agree. We saw that having 17 candidates for Repubs enabled Trump to win the nomination.

Too many candidates is too much for people to focus on. Issues don't get discussed enough. It's confusing.

[7962]

5. Exactly. nt

[Hortensis]

22. Me either, but something like 14 people qualified to run

in the Democratic Party primary, and a bunch were whittled out without the electorate ever getting a chance to know who they were and what they wanted to accomplish. One for sure was a nut, but some of the others were endorsed by thousands who wanted them to run.

Notably, in spite of Sanders' extremely misleading claims on this subject, the DNC allowed him to run as a Democrat, discriminating against several candidates on Sanders' behalf, and of course that of the others who were allowed in the debates.

Although I agree with the potential problems, I'd rather lean on the side of knowing what our choices really could be. And I don't really expect Sanders to run in 2020, but if he does, let him compete against the whole, open field and complain about how unfair that is to him.

[bullwinkle428]

12. In 2008, a whole bunch of Democratic candidates dropped out right

after the Iowa caucuses, once it was abundantly clear that the front runners were Obama, Hillary, and John Edwards.

[karynnj]

16. I can think of at least 9

The three you named plus Biden, Dodd, Richardson, vilsack, Bayh and Warner. If you include Kerry who definitely considered it in 2006, there are 10.

Similarly, in 2004, there were Kerry, Dean. Gephardt, Sharpton, Mosley Braun, Kuchinich, and Edwards. Both Biden and Hart tested the waterse and opted not to run. So, that was 9.

[Honeycombe8]

51. Did they? I don't remember. But Iowa is pretty telling, so I guess so. nt

[wiley]

19. Because it is not a great thing

My sole focus and mission is to ensure that every congressional district has a Democrat running that is rallying people in their district to Democratic Party goals and priorities. Of course the Senate matters as well - federal and state level senate seats.But more than a few contenders for anything will actually be a waste of money and effort. Is there really a big difference between what Democrats believe in to justify large numbers of rivals? Highly doubtful. I'd rather have lots of moderate Dems in the house that can be pushed left than any Republican freak that is so alt-right they want to have clinics that counsel and pray for women that want to use contraceptives. Good paying jobs for everyone above and below 55 years old. Will NOT happen under the current tax fraud bill but under a massive infrastructure rebuilding effort - especially in Puerto Rico. Not sure why the red states don't defend themselves against this assault by Republicans, but every CD must have the conversation NOW!

[CentralMass]

26. Don't worry. They'll will pick a favorite if they haven't already.

[bettyellen]

29. Who is this "they"? Dems choose the nominee, as "they" should.

[CentralMass]

30. The DNC''s mission is not to chose the nominee.The states

run their own elections.

"The DNC establishes rules for the caucuses and primaries which choose delegates to the Democratic National Convention, but the caucuses and primaries themselves are most often run not by the DNC but instead by each individual state. Primary elections, in particular, are invariably conducted by state governments according to their own laws. Political parties may choose to participate or not participate in a state's primary election, but no political party executives have any jurisdiction over the dates of primary elections, or how they are conducted.

They don't (or are not supposed to) nominate the candidate until after the primaries have determined a winner.


"Outside of the process of nominating a presidential candidate, the DNC's role in actually selecting candidates to run on the party ticket is minimal."

For instance little niceties like having a Vice Chair, who also happened to have been working for the network, give one candidate the questions and topics to a televised debate before the debate is held should not occur.
You might think that a credible organization would sever their ties with someone who has admitted to doing something like that to avoid the perception of impropriety. .

[bettyellen]

31. The voters chose the candidate, but thanks for the RW smears on Dems.

Thanks a fuckload.

[EllieBC]

33. Just another soul who thinks our party needs

open primaries, I'll bet. Bitter Sanders supporters hated that you had to be a registered Dem to vote in some states primaries.

[bettyellen]

45. As if everyone didn't know there'd be questions about water in Flint, LOL.

And relitigating the primary, big time. I can't reply without getting alerted on and have to let that nonsense stand. I've seen many posters do that deliberately.

[Honeycombe8]

52. I don't see any RW talking points in that post by CentralMass. ??? nt

[bettyellen]

54. You'll have to wait till Zukerberg releases the ads, LOL.

[Baconator]

57. The DNC reserves the right to choose the nominee...

... and may or may not deign to utilize election results.

Came out in the last Bernie lawsuit I believe...

[bettyellen]

58. Again, the voters chose the candidate last year- not the super delegates, not the DNC...

[Baconator]

56. We had that last year... including a few throwaways...

A whopping 3 made it to the primary itself... (including Martin O'Malley)

More competition is better... Let someone who is actually popular and motivating and energizing come out on top like we did in 2008.

[brush]

3. That's ok. The field will get winnowed soon enough. The southern primaries...

will eliminate several when fundraising dries up after lackluster showings.

[Dopers_Greed]

4. But are...

A chunk of Dem voters going to get upset during the general because their preferred candidate didn't win the primary, then vote Trump or 3rd party?

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. If there's double digit Dem candidates, one of them better be Warren

And hopefully, there will be double digits of GOP candidates competing for the nomination against incumbent President Pence.

[yurbud]

9. Warren could be a candidate to bridge the divide between corporate & progressive Dems

but the business wing of the party doesn't seem inclined to compromise or they would have had Warren as VP in 2016, and haven't made noises like they have been chastened in any way.

[Honeycombe8]

10. She doesn't have much of a chance.

IMO, Warren doesn't have a chance any more than Dennis Kucinich did. She just doesn't have "it." She will never be President, IMO. Or even win the nomination. But she would be good to have in the lineup to broaden the discussion of issues.

[yurbud]

15. What's your "it"? She would have the support of the party base and shows an independence of thought

that most of us equate with leadership.

She is also pretty brave since she stands up to people more powerful than her, something sorely lacking in most other party "leaders."

[Honeycombe8]

17. Who's your "base"? nt

[yurbud]

23. Registered Democratic voters tend to be pretty progressive

[Wwcd]

28. Honestly, I have never known a Dem to not be progressive

As far back as I remember, Dems and Progressive are one & the same.
That's why the Dem Party has always had such a great & varied base.

I question the motives of those who continue the attempt to re-label "Democrats."

[yurbud]

46. I think they are in a panic because the Bernie campaign exposed them

as long as they could squeeze out progressive candidates early on in the primaries, they could claim that the business wing was what people wanted.

But when a virtual unknown can come from nowhere and almost beat the business candidate even when the DNC had their thumb on the scale, AND as a result that former unknown becomes the most popular politician in America, that exposes the central lie of the "centrist" dominance of the Democratic Party.

[Wwcd]

47. Who's in a panic? When ya have to create a poll to buoy an image of someone,

to push their disappearing fan base back into paying attention again, well I believe that might just be a panic reaction.

People aren't buying the image makeover. And repeating it on social media won't ever make it true or more believable.
That may have worked to dupe potential voters in the past but really, that slick game was so last year.

[7962]

35. I can't really define "it", but Obama had it, Hillary didn't.

Bill had a ton of it.
Certainly opinions will vary & I'm sure I'll hear them

[yurbud]

42. on that we agree. With eight years to prep, Hillary might have tried to figure "it" out.

That she didn't is not a promising sign of how she would deal with problems as president.

[Honeycombe8]

53. You can't get it. You either have it, or you don't. nt

[Midwestern Democrat]

20. I agree that Warren couldn't win a national election, but I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to

compare her to Kucinich. I don't think Kucinich could win a single state, whereas I think Warren would carry the bluest states - the Northeast, the West Coast, and Illinois - but get blown out everywhere else. I think the same is true of Kamala Harris - which I why I think having a wide open presidential primary would be a good thing - because the names I see commonly mentioned as presidential contenders in 2020 (Harris, Patrick, Gillibrand, Booker, Warren, etc) all seem to have the same problem - I just can't see any of them (with the possible exception of Booker) winning anywhere outside of the bluest states in the country - IMO, we have to hope some dark horse who's palatable to the Midwest emerges and catches fire.

[yurbud]

24. red staters might respect someone who has convictions they've stood by over those

who will say whatever it takes to get elected then only listen to their big donors once in office.

[Not Ruth]

27. If California primaries first, Kamala will sweep

[Honeycombe8]

50. Pretty much my thoughts, too. Kucinich is a bit of a stretch, but by that I mean...

in demeanor, leadership abilities, the "it" factor, and other things...he just couldn't win the Presidency, but his ardent supporters insisted the whole time he could. Which is what supporters do, I suppose.

Not being an avid supporter (but not against), I guess I and others like me can see more objectively. OTOH, I probably wasn't objective about Obama. I was sold on him from the start.

[smirkymonkey]

49. I agree. I am a Boston resident and I voted for her and love her in congress.

I think she is doing a great job and I am 100% behind her in that role. However, even I have to admit that she has a serious charisma problem. Her voice is kind of annoying and she comes across as a scolding, "school-marmish" type. I think she would be great, but I know she is not going to appeal to the masses. Whether we like it or not, a big part of this kind of race has to do with image and "star-quality" and she just doesn't have it.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

7. We should put CA, NY, FL primaries first.

That'll settle this nonsense real fast.

edit to add:
(sort of)

[benh57]

18. Looking like CA is gonna be 5th

Possibly decisive.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/an-early-california-primary-could-change-the-2020-elections.html

[yurbud]

8. a few days ago? And he's a political operative?

[UT_democrat]

11. Cool!

That won't cause more infighting at all.

[marylandblue]

13. I like the idea of a lot of candidates

I like some of the current names, but not crazy about any of them. I'd like to see a young real rough and tumble progressive come out of nowherr and win. Sort of like Trump, but with a conscience and a brain.

[yurbud]

25. Trump shows there's something to be said for experience in public office

[mahatmakanejeeves]

14. Great! They can spend the primary season digging up dirt on each other.

When the general election comes around, all the Republicans will have to do is to rerun existing ads.

[FakeNoose]

32. Steve Bannon wants to primary all the GOP incumbents running for re-election

I think he's going after TeaParty incumbents but I could be wrong. The TeaParty has put some especially vile and stupid people into office the last 10 years. He could be doing us a favor because Bannon's ultra-conservative candidates will likely be easier for a Democrat to beat than any incumbent. At least I'd like to think so.

[7962]

36. I think the opposite; the TP is supposed to be the "ultra conservatve"

I think he'll go after the more "moderate" ones the RW thinks is the problem. The hard "RINO". And those are the ones who win elections. They primary the moderates out and they could very well lose. The majority of voters are moderate; they swing back and forth between D & R. They'll swing back D if they have a likable candidate running against a RW whack. IMO of course

[FakeNoose]

37. You may be correct

I don't really follow Steve Bannon, but I know he has evil intentions. That's enough for me.
It's still an opportunity for Democrats to get a chance to beat the ultra-rightwing candidates.
Let's be optimistic!

[former9thward]

38. Bannon, like Trump is a populist nationalist.

Neither are conservative and that is why Trump was able to draw Democratic votes in the swing states. Populism can have either left wing (Sanders) or right wing (Trump) proponents but as a practical matter they are pretty close. Much tougher to beat than traditional ultra-rightwing candidates

[7962]

41. Thats a good point; we'll see how "his" candidates look. nt

[yurbud]

43. that was Hillary's theory in hoping for Trump to get GOP nom...

Republicans get into office, screw their constituents, then instead of looking for another party to vote for, GOP voters figure the problem was they didn't pick a candidate mean, racist, and stupid enough.

Hence the Tea Party and Trump.

[question everything]

21. Oh really? Like who?

And will there be anyone not from a coast? Will there be anyone younger than 65?

[appal_jack]

34. How about a focus on 2018 midterms, Tom? nt

[yurbud]

55. Even if you get the White House, without Congress, you either do little or triangulate

and triangulating strangles the rest of us.

[sofa king]

39. New Rule:

Every Democratic candidate in 2018 must move to an unopposed Republican district in that candidate's state, and run for Congress in parallel with running for President.

[yurbud]

44. Yep. The 50 state strategy pays medium & long term dividends

DLCers cede so much ground to Republicans without a fight that they virtually guarantee losing on a regular basis.

You can't win big if you don't play in nearly half the games.

[demmiblue]

48. Good!

A total improvement, imo. It gives national exposure/name recognition for our lesser known/younger Dems and highlights our platform. Win, win! Now, let's get those debates scheduled for prime viewing!