Send in the Clown Car

[The Mikado]

I am so, so pumped for what will probably be a Democratic primary more packed than last cycle's GOP one. I think a 15-20 candidate field is just what the party needs to create a chaotic mess where Democrats and their petty ridiculous feuds are all people are talking about, much like last cycle did with the GOP. Having double-decker primary debates with dozens of Democrats arguing the finer points of very similar Democratic policy, especially if the race is competitive, will lead to a lot more people getting exposed to them.

I neither know nor care who I will support in 2019, but I think a wide, chaotic, free-for-all brawl for the Democratic nomination with a whole host of people from serious to oddball is exactly what the party needs.

[President Johnson]

A clowncar:

- Elizabeth Warren
- Lincoln Chaffee
- Tulsi Gabbard
- Andrew Cuomo
- Martin O'Malley
- Tom Steyer
- Eric Holder
- Dan Malloy
- Julian Castro
- Ed Rendell
- Dwanye Johnson
- Mark Cuban
- Caroline Kennedy
- Jason Kander
- Mark Warner
- Bill de Blasio

[Mr. Morden]

I think one possible downside though is that, with 15+ candidates, the field is so large that it's impossible for all of them to get anything resembling a fair chance at even making it onto voters' radar screens.  This is actually more of an issue with the 2020 Dem. field than the 2016 GOP field.  In the 2016 case, there were actually quite a few candidates (Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Bush, Trump, Christie, etc.) who managed to get decent levels of national name recognition years before they ever ran for president.  This isn't really the case for the 2020 Dems, as most voters don't (yet) know who Kirsten Gillibrand is, let alone Jeff Merkley or Amy Klobuchar.

So one concern is that, to get any media oxygen at all, say, by making it onto the 1st tier debate stage, you need to get somewhere with your poll #s, which is difficult if voters don't already know who you are.  And the candidates who do break through might end up doing so for the "wrong" reasons (e.g., they say something dumb that leads to a round of national media attention, but also gives them enough exposure to hit 3% in the polls, which is enough to get into the debates).

So I hope any "gatekeepers", like the people setting the debate rules, think through the pitfalls on this, and don't make it too easy for otherwise good candidates to get squeezed out early due to some more or less random poll fluctuations, that don't reflect candidate quality in any meaningful way.

[publicunofficial]

I hope the field is big enough that the networks have to do a "Kiddie Table" debate like they did with the bottom 5 candidates in the GOP field last year. That ruled.

[RFKFan68]

I hope the field is big enough that the networks have to do a "Kiddie Table" debate like they did with the bottom 5 candidates in the GOP field last year. That ruled.

[Frimaire]

If this is the case, whoever is endorsed by Bernie will get the best shot, imho.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The clown car cometh

[Indy Texas]

When has a clown car ever worked?

It didn't work for the Democrats in 1972 or 1988.

It didn't work for the Republicans in 2012 or 2016*.

* They failed to convince a plurality of voters that their candidate was the best one. The fact that he won the Electoral College was akin to getting a winning scratch-off ticket - more about luck than skill.

[Technocracy Timmy]

When has a clown car ever worked?

It didn't work for the Democrats in 1972 or 1988.

It didn't work for the Republicans in 2012 or 2016*.

* They failed to convince a plurality of voters that their candidate was the best one. The fact that he won the Electoral College was akin to getting a winning scratch-off ticket - more about luck than skill.

I think 1976 was a clown car for the Dems (9 candidates right??) and Carter won a majority of the popular vote in the GE. And you could argue that the opposite situation of a clear cut winner early on (Clinton, Gore, etc.) isn't that successful either.

If the Democratic frontrunner can't hold back somebody like Zuckerberg or YEEZY then I highly doubt they were ever gonna defeat President Trump/Pence in November to begin with.

[Mr. Smith]

When has a clown car ever worked?

It didn't work for the Democrats in 1972 or 1988.

It didn't work for the Republicans in 2012 or 2016*.

* They failed to convince a plurality of voters that their candidate was the best one. The fact that he won the Electoral College was akin to getting a winning scratch-off ticket - more about luck than skill.

1976 says hello. 16 candidates actually!

2008 and 1992 also worked out quite nicely too.

Now how did 2000 and 2016 pan out again? Ya' know, when the field was cleared except for one insurgent?...Exactly.

EDIT: Fine '92's a stretch, but still decent sized bench that your logic could've gone wrong.

[The Mikado]

When has a clown car ever worked?

It didn't work for the Democrats in 1972 or 1988.

It didn't work for the Republicans in 2012 or 2016*.

* They failed to convince a plurality of voters that their candidate was the best one. The fact that he won the Electoral College was akin to getting a winning scratch-off ticket - more about luck than skill.

1976 says hello. 16 candidates actually!

2008 and 1992 also worked out quite nicely too.

Now how did 2000 and 2016 pan out again? Ya' know, when the field was cleared except for one insurgent?...Exactly.

2008 was the rare Double Clown Car.

[RFKFan68]

I don't need a clown car but I'm excited to not have a presumptive front runner hogging up all the air in the room like HRC in 2008 and 2016. Even Biden wouldn't be "inevitable" the way they painted Sec. Clinton both times.

[mgop]

When has a clown car ever worked?

It didn't work for the Democrats in 1972 or 1988.

It didn't work for the Republicans in 2012 or 2016*.

* They failed to convince a plurality of voters that their candidate was the best one. The fact that he won the Electoral College was akin to getting a winning scratch-off ticket - more about luck than skill.

it's not luck. he spent last months of campaign in wisconsin, michigan and pennsylvania, why would he go to california when everybody knows how they vote. it's called tactic, not luck.

[MAINEiac4434]

2008 was a clowncar.

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Vilsack, Kucinich, Gravel, Biden, Dodd and Bayh.

10 candidates, though Vilsack and Bayh both withdrew before the primaries.

[Technocracy Timmy]

2008 was a clowncar.

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Vilsack, Kucinich, Gravel, Biden, Dodd and Bayh.

10 candidates, though Vilsack and Bayh both withdrew before the primaries.

I'll never forget Mike Gravel's glorious rock ad.

[MAINEiac4434]

2008 was a clowncar.

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Vilsack, Kucinich, Gravel, Biden, Dodd and Bayh.

10 candidates, though Vilsack and Bayh both withdrew before the primaries.

I'll never forget Mike Gravel's glorious rock ad.

Gravel 2020

#BringBackTheRock

EDIT: I didn't realize '08 was also a clowncar on the GOP side:

McCain, Huckabee, Paul, Giuliani, Tancredo, Thompson, Keyes (lol), Hunter, Brownback, Gilmore(!), other Thompson.

[Fuzzy Bear]

When has a clown car ever worked?

It didn't work for the Democrats in 1972 or 1988.

It didn't work for the Republicans in 2012 or 2016*.

* They failed to convince a plurality of voters that their candidate was the best one. The fact that he won the Electoral College was akin to getting a winning scratch-off ticket - more about luck than skill.

I think 1976 was a clown car for the Dems (9 candidates right??) and Carter won a majority of the popular vote in the GE. And you could argue that the opposite situation of a clear cut winner early on (Clinton, Gore, etc.) isn't that successful either.

If the Democratic frontrunner can't hold back somebody like Zuckerberg or YEEZY then I highly doubt they were ever gonna defeat President Trump/Pence in November to begin with.

Carter won a majority of the popular vote in 1976 because (A) he was able to position himself as a moderate, (B) he was from the Deep South and won enough parochial Southern white votes to carry 10 of 11 Southern states, and (C) after being walloped by a 49 state Nixon blowout in 1972, no Democrat wanted to be responsible for a Democratic loss in the wake of Watergate.  The Southern aspect cannot be overplayed; Carter won the South over George Wallace, head to head, without alienating either Wallace or his supporters.  Indeed, Wallace endorsed Carter in 1976 and, as much as he could, returned to the national Democratic fold; this was Carter's doing, and was no mean feat.

It was not lost on the Democratic Party regulars in 1976 that their Presidential blowouts were due to losing their ability to be competitive in the South, where local and state officials, most every one a nominal Democrat, conspicuously abandoned the national ticket in Presidential years.  In Carter, Democratic regulars came to recognize that they had stumbled onto a candidate who could actually be conservative enough to carry the South, but liberal enough to win over labor. 

The problem with Democrats in 1980 was that they forgot that lesson, and allowed a Kennedy insurgency to destroy the party for the next 3 Presidential elections.  Sensible liberals should have cut this off at the pass, but they let the Kennedy movement build.  Had the liberal powers of the Democratic Party stood firm and precluded the Kennedy challenge, Carter would have likely been re-elected.  A primary challenge to a sitting President is NEVER a good thing.  I can't think of a single sitting President that had such a challenge and won.
 

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

2008 was a clowncar.

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Vilsack, Kucinich, Gravel, Biden, Dodd and Bayh.

10 candidates, though Vilsack and Bayh both withdrew before the primaries.

I'll never forget Mike Gravel's glorious rock ad.

I was such a Gravel hack in '08. Good times.