Democrat’s debate dilemma – 2020 candidates can’t decide if they want to pander to the extreme left or stand out by being more moderate.

Tyler S. Farley

As the slow motion trainwreck that is the 2020 Democratic nomination process moves on an interesting trend is starting to develop. The Democratic candidates can’t decide if they want to keep pandering to the extreme left or try to stand out from the crowd with a more moderate message.

Tuesday’s latest debate was just another example of this obvious pandering. Front-runner candidates are terrified to run afoul of the extreme left wing media, so all their answers and policies are meant to placate the media, not to attract any new voters. Candidates with little to no name recognition decided to test out a moderate approach in hopes it would set them apart and give them ammunition to attack the front-runners.

Tuesday’s debate was a minefield of loaded questions from host Don Lemon of CNN to test candidates stances on race. And candidates were more than willing to take the bait, with questions about the economy even circling back to racism. Not only that, the newly minted phrase “environmental racism” was back at the forefront as candidate and author Marianne Williamson even blamed pollution on racism. Oddly enough, Williamson was seemingly praised for her performance on stage according to post debate press, setting herself apart by at least trying to appeal to independents while surrounded by extremists.


Click here to shop for these t-shirt designs and others. It helps support our content.

Many are calling Williamson the clear winner of the debate which is proof of how far left those she shared the debate stage have become. It’s comically ironic that Williamson, the woman who warned of Trump bringing about a “dark psychic energy” was the one who seemed the most sane. So moving forward, let’s not forget that Tuesday’s supposed debate winner accused President Trump of using supernatural psychic forces to spread hate. Yikes!

On the other side, we had candidates like John Delaney trying to carve out a niche for themselves on the stage by appearing more moderate than the rest of the Democratic party. John Delany and Steve Bullock both took shots at Sander’s and Warren’s socialist policies, a tactic to make themselves appear more moderate, at least relative to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren which isn’t saying much.

But the truth is, I don’t think any of the candidates believe what they are saying or advocating for. Instead, on one hand they are playing to the media, scared to death of not being left-wing enough and then having to deal with the giant monolithic gang of Progressive pundits and blue check mark Twitter zombies who will tear them down and label them racist, too old, or too white. Then on the other hand you have those candidates who are polling so low they have to set themselves apart from the leading candidates, so they pretend to be more moderate simply as a way to contrast themselves with the front-runners. But even their more moderate views are still well outside of what independents and swing voters are looking for.

All of this makes me think of a crazy rumor from last year that just may have some validity. Late last year, there were rumors that Hillary Clinton was actually planning a comeback in 2020. Her plan was to let Democratic candidates expose themselves as insane and out of touch, then midway through the race, she would appear and represent herself as the “sensible” savior of the Democrat’s chances in 2020, stealing the nomination in the process at the last moment.

At the time, this rumor was mostly laughed at, but the more I watch these Democratic debates the more I fear this might actually happen. We’ll have to see how the media and the people behind the scenes at the DNC treat this little uprising by the more moderate candidates. If they nip it in the bud, it probably means the fix is in.

Note: If you enjoyed this article, please make sure to share it! If you would like to support our site in other ways, please visit this page.