The democrats are having a huge field of declared candidates at present that will compete between themselves in the primaries in order to win the nomination and then move on to face against Donald Trump in November 2020.
With the USA elections about a year and a half away and the first primary elections less than a year away, I believe it is time start a discussion about the candidates, the primaries and the procedure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_D...tial_primaries
The list of candidates for the democrats is very large and diverse with moderates to more fringe politicians, people of all ages, newcomers and old faces, people of various ethnic and religious backgrounds and sexual orientations.
Do you think this multi-voice (some would say cacophony) of potential candidates will end up harming the democrats (disunity over very different agendas) or help them (polyphony, draw in various groups that will in the end support the candidate whomever he or she is).
Personally, I think the group is too diverse and the various shouting matches between the democrats turning on each other as candidates come and go will harm the party.
There have been changes since the 2016, with the superdelegates having to sit at the bench and not vote before the first round is completed. Do you think such reforms help? Are they meaningful or just placating the angry Sanders fans of 2016?
In the 2016 elections, I was saying again and again that 15% split between two candidates is nothing. Had one candidate got 65% and the other 35% a clear-cut popular will, the SDelegates couldn't do crap to change it, nor they would dare. In pesky 53%/47% cases, i.e. both candidates being about equal, yes, they would play a role which is IMO a good thing. If the Republicans had SDelegates then Donald Trump would have been making a much more tame and moderate game to earn their votes instead of just divisive populist rhetorics and he may not even have got the nomination if the people that know how government works, people with experience, had their thumb on the scale.
HOWEVER that was then. In a field of 20 candidates, It would be insane if Superdelegates voted in the first round. An adjustment of 5%, is minor in a 53% / 47% split. It is however huge in a 9/9/8/8/7/7/7/6/6/5/5/5/4/4/4/3/3 split.
There are a lot of women on the democratic field. I like that. I am not sure why I like that, because I am against Feminists, SJWs, PC and Multi-culti crap. But... there's something feeling right with many candidates being women. If anything, so many women there, treated as equals by most, allows us to point out to Feminazis bemoaning the evil patriarchy their foolishness.
I would love for a moderate (not SJW, no leftwing) woman to win. Again, just the expression of some Trump supporters and politicians would be hilarious. Sorry if I act as this is a show for my entertainment, but it would be entertaining.
Last but not least, the list of candidates includes some of the oldest candidates in history. Out of the 20 candidates so far, 7 are above 65. Biden and Sanders are old, very old. They would be well in their 80s by the time they finish their first term if they are elected. And then, there's an 88 years old fellow running. When there's well founded concern you may not make it to the election alive, you're too old to run.
I can't understand why there are arbitrary term limits blocking a good politician from running whatever the voters think of him or her, but there are no limits on the upper age.
So... what do you think?