Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Which Democrat Should I Vote For?
In 2016 I had a very difficult time voting for Donald Trump. When push came to shove, I did vote for him, for two reasons: 1) There was at least a chance that he would appoint judges faithful to the Constitution, and 2) He was not Hillary Clinton. Four years later, I don’t regret my vote. Trump has appointed many good judges, and he is still not Hillary Clinton.
He’s also exposed the Left as the lying, cheating, America-hating extremists they are and advanced the cause of conservatism more than any president since (and, arguably, including) Reagan. I’m still not a fan of Trump the man but I’ve come to appreciate him as a badly needed corrective to the post-American America we are increasingly finding ourselves in. I will be voting for Trump in November without hesitation. He has earned it, by my reckoning.
None of that has anything to do with this post, really, but it’s something I’ve been wanting to give voice to and this seemed as good a place as any.
This post is about soliciting thoughts and recommendations on who I should vote for in the New Hampshire primary, which is up in a few short weeks. I’m registered as an independent, which allows me to vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary. I’m trying to identify a Democrat who has a chance to win, but who will do poorly against Trump in November.
For what they are worth, here are the results from two recent polls:
WBURR
Sanders: 29
Buttigieg: 17
Biden: 14
Warren: 13
Boston Globe:
Sanders: 16
Biden: 15
Buttigieg: 12
Warren: 10
Any thoughts or analysis?
Published in General
Yep. The crowning example was the California referendum on allowing homosexual “marriage”. Blacks were the largest voting block against the measure.
Many blacks are deeply religious in spite of voting Democrat in overwhelming numbers. They know what the Bible says about homosexuality . . .
I think Biden will make the most formidable opponent of the current leaders, and I expect him to get the nod. I think I’d go with Sanders, hoping to keep him in the race as long as possible and deplete Biden’s funds — and perhaps draw Joe further to the left and so away from the Democratic mainstream.
Back in 2008 I argued that Republicans should be hoping Hillary got the nod, because I thought Obama was both awful and electable. I thought Clinton was electable as well, but I didn’t expect her to be as bad as Obama as President. (I still think she probably wouldn’t have been.)
I think any of the Democrats would be just awful, though I don’t think any are as bad as Obama. But I think Republicans have the best chance of winning against someone other than Biden. If I had my choice, we’d run against Warren, who seems to combine the worst qualities of both Clinton and Sanders — with none of the former’s mafia vibe nor the latter’s peculiar and inexplicable charisma.
Alternate Post Title: Pandora’s Ballot Box.
Yes. I fear Biden the most. But I have a poor record of reading the political tea leaves. (I was convinced that Obama would never get reelected, and that Trump would never win the nomination.) So I appreciate all the feedback. Thanks, all!
This race will likely be decided by about 6 states, right? I think we can comfortably predict which party most states are going to go with, regardless of who the candidates are. So if you want to pick the Democrat who will do the poorest in the general election, don’t concern yourself with national polls. Try to figure out who will do the worst in the swingiest of the swing states.
For decades, the Democratic Party has stood four-square in support of abortion and has received 90+% of the black vote. So I’m kind of skeptical that homosexuality would turn religious blacks against the Democratic Party. Which do any of you find to be more morally reprehensible, killing one’s offspring or having a romantic relationship with another adult of the same sex? I’d frankly question the moral judgement of someone who says they’ll vote for taxpayer-funded abortion but being gay is just too far over the line.
They don’t have to vote for Trump to hurt Buttigieg if he’s nominated. They just have to not vote for Buttigieg. The opposite was the case in California in 2008, where the large turnout of black voters for Obama was cited as pushing Proposition 8 over the top (California being California of course, the vote to codify a ban on same-sex marriage into state law was simply reversed by a judge who didn’t like it).
I have seen this giddiness twice before. In 1980, Carter’s people were ecstatic at the notion of running against Reagan, believing him to be the easiest to beat. In 2016, Hillary’s people were ecstatic at the notion of running against Trump, believing him to be the easiest to beat.
Republicans are now ecstatic at the notion of running against Sanders or Warren, believing them to be the easiest to beat. My suggestion is that you vote for the Democrat who would be best for America, not the one you think will be the easiest to beat,
Kozak did a pretty good job explaining why they are all horrible options. I’m gonna go out an a limb and guess you won’t address his valid points.
I generally don’t vote for mythical creatures.
If your primary vote can make a difference in a Senate race, register appropriately. If that’s not on the menu, look at the House candidates, or a state or local race. Probably the best I can do is put together a “government in exile” list and make campaign contributions accordingly. Devin Nunes, maybe.
This is why the candidate vs generic polls should be discounted. A generic candidate is a nebulous creature with no past, no character flaws, as soon as a candidate materializes they generally are less popular than the generic option.
I would vote for someone like ex-Pete – a second tier candidate. New Hampshire is going to create a front runner, a runner up, and a come back kid, but if everyone else is in a near tie – would they feel pressure to drop out? I would vote to keep the primary competitive, so the race goes on, and gets heated, expensive and loud.
Say Amen Brother!
Bloomberg is the only one that has an outside chance of not accelerating the trend of destroying The Republic. I don’t see how anyone can believe otherwise.
Something else you have to factor in are the superdelegates. The Democrat party has rigged the system so the establishment has an outsized influence on getting in who they think can be elected. Matt Boyle of Breitbart had some brutal commentary on this last night. They blew it with Hillary but they have a whole system of making everything move left all of the time. Anyone that falls on a sword for any policy matter gets taken care of etc. The system in Minnesota is incredible.
Yang might be nuts, but he is starting the right conversations. Steve Bannon says (and I completely agree with this) you’re going to get left populism or right populism the hard way no matter what. Act accordingly. The GOPe, the GOP ruling class, and the RNC did every single thing wrong for the last 30 years and that is how you got Trump. Again, act accordingly.
I thought this was quite good. Criticism of GOPe John McCain.
“The Democrats caught the car.” i.e. socialism.
14 minutes
“… After $32 million and 500 search warrants…” –Pat Cipiloni
I can guess the answer.
Because “Orange Man Bad” must be destroyed to save the Party of Reagan™!
No matter what harm it does the country.
No. There is a massive difference in New York City between Bloomberg, and de Blasio. Both are Democrats, but Bloomberg ran the city with efficiency, and the rot is returning with de Blasio. Both were candidates for President as Democrats. What Republican in their right mind would want de Blasio over Bloomberg?
Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar have a proven ability to work with Republicans. When there were government shutdowns, Obama sent Biden to negotiate with McConnell, and they could come to an agreements. Klobuchar has won in all of Minnesota’s eight congressional Districts. She has been the sponsor on bills that have passed.
Trump has expanded the power of the Presidency with his “emergency” declarations. Can you imagine the mischief that Sanders or Warren would do with emergency declarations?
Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Scoop Jackson were Anti-Communist Democrats. Sanders literally honeymooned in the Soviet Union. Please don’t try to equate them.
Freeven, since you ask, I recommend that you not vote in the primary. Your suggestion is that you would cast a vote in the Democratic primary in order to contribute to the selection of a weak Democratic candidate, as you wish for the Republican to win in November.
I do not think that this is an honorable plan.
I know that you did not come up with this idea. I simply recommend that you not go along with such a dishonorable scheme.
Your proposal is, in fact, a good argument against allowing independents to participate in a primary election, and even a pretty good argument against having primary elections at all.
Anti-Communist Democrats? All of these candidates are socialists. And Kozak listed all of their socialist policies, in detail. Nobody is talking about NYC or Truman or reaching across the aisle. I’m stealing from Kozak’s post:
Even the candidates you claim are moderate support the majority of these policies. No true conservative would view any of these commies as a viable option.
I agree with that. I would much prefer that my state had no such thing as a primary election. The nomination should be decided at the state convention by the people who have been elected as delegates. I know this makes me sound like an elitist, but I would rather have my party’s candidates chosen by people who are active enough in the party that they care to go to their precinct caucus, county convention, and state convention, than by any random numbskull who has 20 minutes to spare on primary election day. Not that every party activist is intelligent and wise, but they are more likely to know about the issues than the public at large. Plus, it eliminates cross-party mischief. Few people are going to be devoted enough to messing with the other party that they will take the time and spend the money to go to the conventions.
No doubt, we can find examples where the party insiders backed a certain candidate but the primary election resulted in someone better, such as Ted Cruz in Texas. But by and large, those dreaded establishment party types do have an idea what they are doing. And if you think they are clueless in your county or state, get involved! The largest part of being part of the establishment is showing up and volunteering to help.
Someone needs to figure out how to make things go to the right or more libertarian.
More people who are libertarian or constitutional conservatives need to show up at their party organizations. We have 5 or 6 candidates running for the endorsement for the U.S. House race and I am backing the one who is definitely the small-government guy. Most of the Republicans I know also prefer him, but we hear that there are wealthy out-of-state donors who want someone more moderate. I think there’s a good chance that my guy will get the party endorsement, but if one of the losers decides not to abide by the endorsement, there will be a primary election and perhaps the candidate with more money for ads will prevail.
I don’t think you’re asking quite the right question. I too plan to vote in the democratic primary (in Illinois) but rather than picking the candidate who will be weakest against Trump, my goal is to help minimize the downside risk of the 2020 election. Simply put, Trump is electorally weak and while he may win, it’s very likely it’s going to come down to the wire even if he does, and there’s a good chance he won’t. With that in mind, I think far and away the biggest risk we face is the election of one of what even my democrat friends call “the commies” – i.e. Warren or Sanders. We will survive a Biden presidency. I’m not so sure about a Warren or Sanders presidency. So I’m less worried about Trump winning than I am about Warren or Sanders not winning. That leads me to voting for Biden. If he’s the nominee, I can stop building my fallout shelter.
The irony is that in 2016, in those states where delegates were selected by convention, such as in Colorado, Trump lost. Trump won only due to “plurality wins all delegates” rules.
I will never vote for a Dem. I consider it a matter of conscience. Margaret Sanger is their patron saint, and Planned Parenthood owns them. They support a practice that has destroyed around 60 million lives. Voting for a Dem is one sin I will never have to confess.
Not even Dan Lipinski in IL-3 who is fervent Pro-Life that many Dems are trying to knock off in the primary? What if a Pro-Life Dem ran against Pro-Choice Senators Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski?
The problem with electing endangered species pro-life Democrats is that they help to make for a Democratic majority that will support the most extreme positions on abortion. Even when in senior positions (recall David Bonior) pro-lifers were dhimmis required to defer to party orthodoxy. Being in the majority matters. The Democratic Party had outlawed dissent on the issue of abortion by 1988 when Joe Biden and Dick Gephardt pretended they were never expressly pro-life (Biden had even signed the pledge to support an amendment to overturn Roe v Wade.) Bob Casey (not to be confused with his empty-suit loser senator son of the same name) was the last of the prominent blue-collar pro-life Democrats and the Clintons made sure he was shut out of the convention.
I’m in Dan Lipinski’s district. I’ve met him several times. I’ve voted for him before precisely because he’s the rare Dem pro lifer and he’s not a socialist. He even voted against Obamacare. Except that doesn’t really mean anything; there’s no benefit to it. He’s not stemming let alone reversing any tide. Also, he went along with the BS impeachment even though it was apparent that they had no case aside from perception, interpretation, and presumption and even worse – their own hearings refuted those perceptions, interpretations, and presumptions.
It’s unforgivable really. I understand politics ain’t beanbag and all, but they are playing recklessly with our constitution and foundations of our social compact. This is more fundamental to me than abortion.
I agree with this. I’m considering voting in the Dem primary because it’s important for Warren and Sanders to be rejected at the primary level. It is most important for socialism to be repudiated even if it comes at the cost of making the general election more difficult.