I'm thinking the closest analog for the 2020 Dem primaries could be 2004. Field was ostensibly wide open, Dean attracted early energy and attention, but ultimately voters coalesced around the more "electable" candidate (Kerry) because their overriding objective was to beat Bush
-
Show this thread
-
Of course, Kerry didn't turn out to be "electable" -- all his purported strengths were transformed by the GOP into liabilities ("flip-flopper," denigrating his Vietnam service) but that was the thinking of the Dem primary electorate at the time. Hence the current appeal of Biden
12 replies 16 retweets 86 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @mtracey
I think Kerry's military background played a bigger role than we remember, at a time when American war-lust was in full. He came into the race a decorated veteran who had become a vocal opponent of the war. Given economy+post 9/11 I think Kerry did better than he gets credit for.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jtlarsen
But he also voted for the war and had to come up with a convoluted rationalization for that, which reinforced the "flip-flopper" image the GOP successfully crafted.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
I'm sure it reinforced it, but IIRC the "flip-flopper" thing was essentially BS based on exploiting norms of the legislative process. I'm just not sure Dean's flameout or Kerry's nomination came down to electability--and GOP caricaturing can obscure our hindsight sometimes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I infer that it came down to electability because Democratic voters' dominant priority at the time was selecting someone who they thought could beat Bush, and that's how they sorted their preferences, notwithstanding the temporary excitement and attention Dean generated.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.