Who will have the "Spark"?

[Tom Rinaldo]

I'm talking about the X factor, which is hard to define, which is why I call it the X factor. We must nominate a candidate who captures the imagination, and fires up the passion, of a large swath of our nation. The "Spark" could be hope, it could be rage, it could be fire, or it could be ice. Something will make one of our candidates begin to stand out from the others, and we damn well better pay attention to it when it does.

I am talking about a mass scale phenomena, one that reaches beyond a predictable core loyal following. Virtually all of our potential candidates can count on the latter Hillary Clinton did not have the former in 2016. Yes she had millions who loved her and millions more who admired her and millions more who respected her; in a nation of over 300 million. She had intellect, competence, experience and personal integrity, but no she did not have the "Spark". Obama had it, Gore did not. Trump had it, George H. W. Bush did not.

In most Presidential elections the X factor does not have to be powerful for a candidate to win in November. A reasonable dash of it is usually good enough. Think Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Of those three Bill Clinton came the closest, but even he didn't have it on the scale of a Reagan, a Trump, or an Obama. It is the ability to harness a shifting national mood, or at least a major current within it. It warps the political narrative and dominates it as a result. It taps into something deeper than a collection of policy positions. That deeper strata can inspirational or it can be repugnant, but it animates those who reverberate to it's pitch at a level below mere words.

This is why I am undecided as to who I will support among our candidates right now, and I expect to be for some time to come. I am listening and I am watching. If I had to guess right now it will be the charisma and overall vividness of Kamala Harris who will prevail, or the the deep comfort warmth and stability resonating from Joe Biden, or the fiery populist appeal to the working and middle classes of a Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown that will ultimately break through. Or maybe the youthful energy of a Beto O'Rouke.

As to the individual her or him self I may well be wrong, since my track record in the past is spotty at best. As to the "Spark" though I am pretty sure of its importance. It will settle on one or at most a couple of our codices, almost like a calling from the Holy Spirit. And I will not bet against it when it shows. I can live happily enough with almost any of our potential candidates in this the age of the Orange Peril. We will not win by seeking a candidate bland fuzzy or centrist enough to appeal to everyone. We need someone around whom a movement can coalesce.

[MrsCoffee]

1. Hillary had the spark. She won. I reject narratives that never factor in election interference.

Just because the media tries to legitimize Trump, doesn't mean I have to accept it from them or anyone else.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Yes she won.

She should be President and she would have been excellent. My stated opinion was that in most election cycles a good competent candidate can win. I don't think we are in one of those cycles now. Interference is part of it but not all of what is going on with the electorate.

[bigtree]

3. it's going to have to be more than flash

...I think it's going to be the candidate who people trust (the most) to care about the things they are concerned about in their daily lives.

The candidate who will have the most potential to become both familiar and welcome to voters will need to be someone who speaks to bread and butter issues in a way that reassures and inspires.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Yes. We have a very strong field to choose from. Very few if any are only about "flash"

I didn't use the term flash partially for that reason. Spark implies something beginning, flash more a short moment in time. Our field has substance also. I guess I would invert your comment and say "It's going to have to be more than substance" (though substance too must be in the mix.)

[bigtree]

5. it's going to be very constituency-oriented

...notably around the challenges offered by the leading women candidates, and the prominent black candidates with their direct appeals to African American communities and other constituencies of color.

There will be the dynamic of identification, and the need for other candidates not black or female to pull voters away from those with ready recognition with particular groups, while not getting blown out with other groups of voters.

This is going to be art, more than craft.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. It's pretty amazing actually

Normally it is uncommon to have one major female candidate seeking the nomination. This year there are several, four from the Senate alone. Normally it is uncommon to have one major Person of Color candidate seeking the nomination, this year there are several including two African American Senators and one Hispanic former Cabinet member. That adds complexity to those who advocate for a candidate who directly represents crucial elements of our Democratic coalition.

I like the way you put it: "This is going to be art, more than craft." And may the best artist win. This has to be the most wide open presidential nomination cycle in my life to date, and I'm pushing 70.

[GemDigger]

6. Flash is something you have interest in if you are going to marry the person.

I am not marrying our future president. I am not interested in whether they are funny, cute, handsome or even likeable. I want someone who is strong and knowledgeable. We need someone who can fix the damage done to this nation. Flash or charisma does not help me make my decision.

[Blue_true]

7. I think that it will be Hickenlooper.

He has all the "Its". Was unemployed. Started up a business from scratch and made it successful and still stayed very liberal. Was a successful Mayor of a major US city. Was Governor for two terms and made his state more progressive while limiting the tick off factor on the right. Basically has been successful at every thing that he has done, that says to me that he understands how to get things done.

I have seen the guy talk, he is an alert, plainspeaker. I expect him to be outstanding in the first debate and catch fire. He brings most of what each of the other candidates seem to have as only one strength.

[bigtree]

8. interesting article at FiveThirtyEight

How John Hickenlooper Could Win The 2020 Democratic Nomination

____What Hickenlooper does have going for him is that he may be more skilled than most at getting his name out there. He’s run some of the best political ads in recent memory, including endearing spots about parking meters and his humble wardrobe, which helped him stand out in a wide-open field (sound familiar?) during his first run for mayor. And later ads in which he went skydiving and took a shower — fully clothed — were nothing if not memorable. His quirky personality was his secret political weapon in Colorado, but it’s unclear how it’ll shake out on a national stage, where his demographics — older, white, male — may pigeonhole him as a retread.

But even Hickenlooper himself admits that his moderate image is likely to be a problem in a Democratic presidential primary. The party’s influential left wing will probably view him with suspicion over his opposition to anti-fracking efforts, sympathies with the oil and gas industry (which once employed him) and wishy-washy comments over one of his signature progressive achievements, a gun-control package passed in the wake of the Aurora theater shooting. (Hickenlooper’s reported flirtation with running for president on a “unity ticket” with Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich probably won’t help, either.)

Although his tenure as governor was marked by economic success and liberal wins on social issues, his style of getting things done was undeniably bipartisan (perhaps out of necessity, given that Republicans controlled one chamber of the legislature during six of his eight years in office). Indeed, the only time Hickenlooper’s popularity as governor faltered was when he swerved left in 2013, signing those gun-control bills and staying the execution of convicted murderer Nathan Dunlap. He pivoted back to the center for 2014 and became Colorado’s only statewide Democrat to survive that year’s Republican wave. As he was preparing to leave office in late 2018, his approval/disapproval spread stood at 49 percent to 30 percent, giving him a +18 PARG — Popularity Above Replacement Governor. That’s nerd-speak for “a very high approval rating in a politically divided state.” Clearly, Hickenlooper is a consensus-builder, but it’s hard to imagine his motto of “there’s no profit margin in making enemies” resonating with the current mood of the Democratic electorate.

As FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver has written, Hickenlooper follows in the tradition of other politicians from the American West — candidates who wear cowboy boots and stand amid the great outdoors in ads espousing a nonideological, anti-politician message. That sort of branding has obvious appeal in the Mountain West, but Hickenlooper will have to expand his support elsewhere to win the nomination. In the 2016 primaries, the mountain states2 accounted for just 7 percent of pledged Democratic delegates, a function of their small size and Republican lean. Not to mention that Democrats have never nominated a presidential or vice-presidential candidate from west of the Central time zone in their 191-year history as a party.

Even more troubling, it’s hard to point to a clear base for Hickenlooper — at least one big enough to propel him meaningfully in a national primary...

read more: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-john-hickenlooper-could-win-the-2020-democratic-nomination/

[RobertDevereaux]

12. Thanks for that article excerpt.

As a Colorado resident these past 25 years, I found him engaging for quite a while. But then his opposition to anti-fracking measures and his cozying up to oil and gas cooled my enthusiasm considerably.

We’ll see how he fares.

[Blue_true]

14. Oil and Gas is a major industry in his state.

What was he supposed to do? It is sort of like Bernie on guns and appealing to rural Whites, that is his state's primary demographic. Or like Booker and the pharmaceutical industry, a major employer in his state. I bet anyone that Harris is partial to the High Tech industry and to the Entertainment industry.

[USALiberal]

29. His feelings about pot still bother me. nt

[Blue_true]

30. Yes, he gave a strange answer on decrimilizibg Pot.

In particular after the strong job that he did at implementing it as legal in Colorado after opposing it and being overridden by voters. A republican would have tried everything to block it, even after voters approved it.

[USALiberal]

31. True, still sounds like he is not real convinced it was a good idea. nt

[Blue_true]

32. Yes, that is bothersome to me. nt

[Blue_true]

13. Hickenlooper is a Bill Clinton caliber politician.

He just out thinks his opponents and he gives a clear verbal statement about where he is. I can see him gathering Democratic Party moderates and ending up one on one with a more progressive Dem, the only one that I see him not beating in that situation is Harris. I think open primaries will favor him. The only person that can change the dynamic for him is Biden, since they will appeal to the same voters and could end up splitting that sizeable voting block.

I am obviously in his corner now, I expect him to dominate the first debate based upon his skills at delivering a clear message. If that happens, don't bet against him.

[monmouth4]

10. Adam Schiff sets me a flutter, if that counts, LOL. n/t

[lilactime]

17. Same here! So does Swalwell.

Right now it's between Harris and Inslee.

[Awsi Dooger]

11. Beto is the spark candidate, IMO

Sanders has spark but it would run into the socialism wall. That picture of Biden alongside Harris in a thread here the other day was absolutely shocking. I love Biden but he looked so old in that photo. I opened the thread repeatedly just to look at that photo, and how the reality would play in a general election. Harris tries to present it but I don't trust her on defense, as I've mentioned repeatedly. Trump is superb at deflecting anything from a negative to attempted positive. He has been a liar all his life so it comes naturally, regardless of level. He doesn't hesitate at all. If Harris doesn't figure out how to answer without, "Which tweet? What tweet?" type of waffling the wolves are going to pounce. I've already seen right wingers on sports sites all but begging for her to be the nominee.

Beto survived and largely thrived in what was essentially a mini presidential environment. I don't want to make it more complicated that that.

This was the shocking aspect: Beto maintained a 52-42 positive approval rating in that Texas exit poll, despite the loss. That was amidst an electorate that was 43% self-identified conservatives to only 22% liberals. It shouldn't be possible to own that approval ratio given that demographic split. The same exit poll had Trump square at 49-49. The Democratic Party in that exit poll was 49-48. Pelosi was 26-57. So Beto outperformed the opinion of our party as a whole, despite the flood of negative advertising against him.

I don't know how Inslee and Hickenlooper would come across. Warren is terrific but not exactly charismatic. I support Klobuchar until/unless Beto enters. I believe she would charm the swing voters and defeat Trump but I concede it is difficult for her to gain enough traction given the numbers in our field and a primary base looking for someone more liberal. Klobuchar would fare best in a small field.

Also, don't underestimate Bill Clinton in this category. Situational landscape is everything. Republicans thought they had an electoral lock on the presidency at that point. I won some hefty man-to-man wagers in Las Vegas from right wing "whale" gamblers who didn't think it was possible for a Democrat to win. The sportsbook manager of the Imperial Palace Jay Kornegay put up a gimmick non-bettable prop on the board listing Bush as a -200 (2 to win 1) favorite. This was within a week of election day. When I told him that Clinton was all but certain to win, Kornegay laughed at me.

Right wing talk radio and the vast conspiracy exploded largely because they had such animosity at Clinton for breaking their monopoly. Subsequent Democrats like Obama had it much easier because certain states were now more available, due to the shift of the electorate from 87% whites in 1992 to 74% during Obama's first election in 2008. Can anyone imagine running a national election right now with whites as 87% of the electorate? We would be avalanched.

[sacto95834]

15. Beto, et. al

Regarding Beto and Bernie - hard to capture lightning in a bottle twice. Both I think will always have some kind of charismatic force for different reasons.

Bernie caught fire in 2016 as his platform got the attention of the millennials and it's always exciting when the young enter the body politics. 2020 shows he has sort of picked up where he left off in 2016, but I think the frenzy excitement isn't quite there as it was three years ago. We'll see, it's still early and maybe something will happen. If he can continue to gather more young voters in large numbers to his campaign, it will always be news. I think the real test will be how many older and minorities voters will join him this time. We must remember he had a rather late start in the 2016 cycle and he almost caught HRC. I don't think he'll make that mistake again. He has much better name recognition this time. It's now or never.

Beto was running against a despised and hated Senator in blood red Texas and was making headway. That in itself will get media attention which then focused on the young charismatic challenger. Beto will be on a larger stage should he run for the presidency; not sure there will be much focus on him in this very crowded field. He will need to latch onto some interesting issue so that spotlight is on him again. If he can do this he may have a chance to capture the brass ring. Not since the charming Bill Clinton entered the national stage back in the 90s has there been such a charismatic candidate. Obama had charm too, but he was more wonkish and the nation was tired of the tongue tied W, so having a candidate that could speak in complete sentences on a range of subjects and not offend anyone, he was something new.

I think the Harris campaign will be the one to catch fire this summer. She is rather new to the national stage and she seems to be able to draw support in her early rallies. After HRC, we have taken it sort of for granted that women can run for the presidency and be taken seriously. But it wasn't always so. I think Harris is a interesting candidate who happens to be a woman. We'll see if it can last the summer.

Then there is Joe Biden. Right now he is polling astonishingly well. I suspect it's the glow from the Obama presidency. In his previous presidential runs, he starts well, but seems to fade as time passes. Maybe the 4th time will be the charm. But like several of our candidates age may doom his campaign - rightly or wrongly. In US politics so much is optics and perception. If the nation wants a familiar face to give comfort from the craziness going on now, he may be the one.

[Gothmog]

16. I saw this on twitter and it made me smile-Sen. Harris may have the spark

Link to tweet

[elleng]

18. Love it, quite contrary to ALL the memes that 'they' will never change!

[Gothmog]

21. She is not on the top of my list by I really like Senator Harris as a person

[elleng]

22. I'm not even talking about her choice, as I'm in 'undecided' group

and expect to stay there for quite a while, but just about the fact that she changed from tr to a Dem.

[elleng]

19. Thanks, Tom.

As to 'spark,' seems to me, around here anyway, Inslee had it much more than did Hickenlooper (after their recent msnbc interviews.)

I'm with you, of course; waiting, and not a good track record so putting $$$ on NO one!

[Andy823]

20. I can think of two of them

Harris and Inslee. Harris has the ability to connect with people on a level like Obama. Inslee has a passion for doing something about climate change, and he connects to people, not as much as Harris, but give him time.

Both are at the top of my list.

[Iggo]

23. I don't care about spark.

Let's just run a clean primary and get out of it with a strong Dem candidate, and without creating a bunch of PUMAs in the process.

[Garrett78]

25. Charisma or whatever one wants to call it matters more than some may be comfortable acknowledging.

[kcr]

24. Many of our candidates have spark.

Kamala Harris is the first one that comes to my mind. She seems to be firing up a lot of people and just looks like she's enjoying the heck out of it.

[peggysue2]

26. O'Rourke definitely had the 'spark'

in Texas. That was an amazing campaign where he came very close to pulling off a true upset. Can he translate that to a national platform? I don't know but I'll be watching to see what he does and how he manages in a larger arena. He raised gobs and gobs of money which came from all over the country, not just Texas. He grabbed the magic wand and ran with it.

Can he repeat that success? That's the real question.

[LuvLoogie]

27. Kamala has that "spark." Joe has that spark.

Hillary has that spark. Jimmy Carter has that spark.

But a lot of the electorate is soggy wood at the bottom of a well. No amount of sunlight will reach it.

The well-being of my loved ones inspire me to vote.

[Qutzupalotl]

28. Jay Inslee, Beto and Biden.

Of those three, I think only Biden and Inslee can beat Trump.

The other candidates we have are great on policy, but not crowd-wowers. The large crowds we’re seeing now are more a reaction to Trump than definite allegiance to one of our candidates.

[elleng]

33. Pete Buttigieg?

Did VERY well, @ CNN 'townhall,' Sunday night.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128718849

[greyl]

34. Yep! nt