Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-21-2019, 02:48 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997

Would nominating Sherrod Brown checkmate Trump in the Electoral College?


My answer: close, but not quite. Here's the only losing map for Brown I could even squint at and kindasorta imagine as semi-plausible: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc/statu...02220939780096

Zero margin for error for the Trump campaign, unlike against any other Democratic nominee I can think of.

And he's acceptable to both the left wing and the more culturally conservative "beer track" union guys.

The downside is Democrats give up a Senate seat, but as painful as that is, I think it still might be worth it.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #2  
Old 02-21-2019, 03:14 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,371
And this is based on...what, exactly? Your assumption that Brown would carry Ohio and Michigan (but not Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, for some reason?).

I like Brown a lot, but this analysis seems...less than rigorous.

Also, I see from your Twitter icon that you're a Deadhead. So now we can be friends.
  #3  
Old 02-21-2019, 04:49 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
And this is based on...what, exactly? Your assumption that Brown would carry Ohio and Michigan (but not Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, for some reason?).

I like Brown a lot, but this analysis seems...less than rigorous.

Also, I see from your Twitter icon that you're a Deadhead. So now we can be friends.

Right on. To clarify, I don't think this map is the most likely one if it's Brown v. Trump. The most likely one would IMO add several other states to Brown's column. What I'm saying is that this strikes me as the most plausible map if Trump somehow pulls off another upset, even against Brown.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #4  
Old 02-21-2019, 07:13 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,713
Looking at the Northern Path map, IMHO it sort of puts a ceiling on how well Trump can do. I think his ceiling is the 2016 map plus Minnesota. Is Sherrod Brown the candidate best positioned to succeed on this Northern Path? That remains to be seen, but I doubt being from Ohio would be that big of an advantage. I think that Trump has a floor as well as a ceiling, and Ohio is one of the states below the floor. I don't see Trump losing Ohio under any but the most bizarre of circumstances.

ETA. If Trump loses Ohio, that probably means he already lost in places like Florida, North Carolina, and maybe even Arizona and Texas. I'll even go out on a limb and predict that Trump is going to do better in Ohio than he will in either Arizona or Texas.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 02-21-2019 at 07:15 PM.
  #5  
Old 02-22-2019, 07:49 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Looking at the Northern Path map, IMHO it sort of puts a ceiling on how well Trump can do. I think his ceiling is the 2016 map plus Minnesota. Is Sherrod Brown the candidate best positioned to succeed on this Northern Path? That remains to be seen, but I doubt being from Ohio would be that big of an advantage. I think that Trump has a floor as well as a ceiling, and Ohio is one of the states below the floor. I don't see Trump losing Ohio under any but the most bizarre of circumstances.

ETA. If Trump loses Ohio, that probably means he already lost in places like Florida, North Carolina, and maybe even Arizona and Texas. I'll even go out on a limb and predict that Trump is going to do better in Ohio than he will in either Arizona or Texas.
Let's not forget that Trump lost to John Kasich in the primary. Obama won Ohio twice. Ohio is conservative, but mostly the centrist type. There are parts of Ohio closer to West Virginia and Kentucky that are probably going to be fiercely Trump, but there are many others who voted simply for him (or simply stayed home) because they didn't like Hillary and felt her campaign was out of touch. Sherrod Brown 'gets it'. He would beat Trump, and I suspect he would give him a fairly good beat-down. Ohioans are definitely 'Merikuns' but they're the nice kind. I think Brown would do well there, and his success would carry over into PA, WI, and MI.

Where Democrats are increasingly weak - and astonishingly so - is in Florida. Of all the swing states that are in danger of becoming red, it's Florida that should keep Democrats up at night. I don't see anyone right now in the Democratic field who can beat Trump there. Being Latino and having the support of Latinos isn't necessarily an advantage, either. Latin identity of Florida is different than it is in the rest of America's Latin communities. A lot of them even look down on other Latinos, so sob stories about children locked in cages might get some traction states like Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico, but it won't get much mileage in Florida.

On the flip side, I think there's real momentum in Florida, and I again think that Brown would do well there - perhaps better than the rest of the Democratic field. The potential danger is looking backwards into history a little too much and not seeing where the trends are taking us. I think almost any front-running Democrat who can convince the majority of the party that they're not anti-white male will win the so-called Rust Belt states that Hillary lost. But they also need to look at what's happening in Florida, where there's a real danger of losing, and Texas and Arizona, where there's a real chance to pick up some gains. That's why I'm kinda leaning toward someone like Brown. Klobuchar, Castro, and Booker also strike me as having the potential to score as well. I simply don't know enough about Kamala Harris to have an informed opinion on her, except for the realization that she's obviously very good at politics and political organizing.
  #6  
Old 02-22-2019, 10:00 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
On the flip side, I think there's real momentum in Florida, and I again think that Brown would do well there - perhaps better than the rest of the Democratic field. .
Sorry, I meant Texas, not Florida. There's real momentum in Texas, as Beto O'Rourke proved. But O'Rourke proved that moderates and pragmatists could compete with Republicans in Texas. It's not clear how well more aggressive progressives would play there - I'm guessing not nearly as well.

It's paradoxical because nationally, I think the country is flirting more and more with liberalism. As I've cynically posted before, what would probably do the trick, what would be the tipping point, is a shock to the system. I think the country is starting to understand that there's some good value in some of the things that progressives are offering - tangible things like healthcare they can use and worker protection as a result of organized labor.

The problem is in the electoral math. In certain places, progressivism is viewed through a jaundiced lens.
  #7  
Old 02-22-2019, 01:33 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Let's not forget that Trump lost to John Kasich in the primary. Obama won Ohio twice. Ohio is conservative, but mostly the centrist type. There are parts of Ohio closer to West Virginia and Kentucky that are probably going to be fiercely Trump, but there are many others who voted simply for him (or simply stayed home) because they didn't like Hillary and felt her campaign was out of touch. Sherrod Brown 'gets it'. He would beat Trump, and I suspect he would give him a fairly good beat-down. Ohioans are definitely 'Merikuns' but they're the nice kind. I think Brown would do well there, and his success would carry over into PA, WI, and MI.

Where Democrats are increasingly weak - and astonishingly so - is in Florida. Of all the swing states that are in danger of becoming red, it's Florida that should keep Democrats up at night. I don't see anyone right now in the Democratic field who can beat Trump there. Being Latino and having the support of Latinos isn't necessarily an advantage, either. Latin identity of Florida is different than it is in the rest of America's Latin communities. A lot of them even look down on other Latinos, so sob stories about children locked in cages might get some traction states like Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico, but it won't get much mileage in Florida.

On the flip side, I think there's real momentum in Florida, and I again think that Brown would do well there - perhaps better than the rest of the Democratic field. The potential danger is looking backwards into history a little too much and not seeing where the trends are taking us. I think almost any front-running Democrat who can convince the majority of the party that they're not anti-white male will win the so-called Rust Belt states that Hillary lost. But they also need to look at what's happening in Florida, where there's a real danger of losing, and Texas and Arizona, where there's a real chance to pick up some gains. That's why I'm kinda leaning toward someone like Brown. Klobuchar, Castro, and Booker also strike me as having the potential to score as well. I simply don't know enough about Kamala Harris to have an informed opinion on her, except for the realization that she's obviously very good at politics and political organizing.
I think the issue with Florida is that the numbers of conservatives continues to increase as older white people who skew conservative retire and move down from up north from places like New York or Massachusetts. Texas, on the other hand and as you mentioned in a later post, is becoming bluer since the people moving in tend to be younger and from places like California, so they tend to skew more liberal. That's in addition to the growing Latino population, which skews younger and Mexican-American rather than Cuban, so that each election the proportion of Latinos in the youngest part of the electorate is increasing.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 02-22-2019 at 01:34 PM.
  #8  
Old 02-21-2019, 07:42 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Right on. To clarify, I don't think this map is the most likely one if it's Brown v. Trump. The most likely one would IMO add several other states to Brown's column. What I'm saying is that this strikes me as the most plausible map if Trump somehow pulls off another upset, even against Brown.
Gotcha. Like I was thinking "Isn't it more likely the Dems would win PA and not MI?" But if that happened, they'd win, so...

Anyway, I was going to say that I liked him but that giving up the Senate seat was a big deal.

But he's not on board with Medicare For All, so he's dead to me.
  #9  
Old 02-21-2019, 09:12 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Gotcha. Like I was thinking "Isn't it more likely the Dems would win PA and not MI?" But if that happened, they'd win, so...

Anyway, I was going to say that I liked him but that giving up the Senate seat was a big deal.

But he's not on board with Medicare For All, so he's dead to me.
He's FOR getting everyone covered, he's not against universal coverage. But he also knows what messaging works better in the North/Midwest/blue collar states, especially with blue collar union voters who often think a mad rush toward "socialized medicine" threatens the very nice benefits they've negotiated.

My point is, he may not be signing on to one specific path to universal coverage, but that's not the only (or even necessarily the best) path to that goal. If he's a strong candidate to beat Trump in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, saying that he's dead to you because of one issue is a little ridiculous.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 02-21-2019 at 09:13 PM.
  #10  
Old 02-21-2019, 09:47 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
He's FOR getting everyone covered, he's not against universal coverage. But he also knows what messaging works better in the North/Midwest/blue collar states, especially with blue collar union voters who often think a mad rush toward "socialized medicine" threatens the very nice benefits they've negotiated.

My point is, he may not be signing on to one specific path to universal coverage, but that's not the only (or even necessarily the best) path to that goal. If he's a strong candidate to beat Trump in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, saying that he's dead to you because of one issue is a little ridiculous.
Well, of course that was hyperbole. I didn't mean I will never consider voting for him under any circumstances.

But I believe strongly that we have waited long enough for the healthcare we deserve in this country. And given that there are several strong candidates in the field who share that view, I'm not currently interested in supporting anyone who doesn't. Come this time next year, if polls are showing him more likely than his rivals to beat Trump, he will have my undivided attention.
  #11  
Old 02-21-2019, 09:55 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
He's FOR getting everyone covered, he's not against universal coverage. But he also knows what messaging works better in the North/Midwest/blue collar states, especially with blue collar union voters who often think a mad rush toward "socialized medicine" threatens the very nice benefits they've negotiated.

My point is, he may not be signing on to one specific path to universal coverage, but that's not the only (or even necessarily the best) path to that goal. If he's a strong candidate to beat Trump in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, saying that he's dead to you because of one issue is a little ridiculous.
To add some detail - he is against throwing out the Affordable Care Act and to expand Medicare to those 50 and over as a voluntary buy-in.
Quote:
"I want to help people now, and helping people now is building on the Affordable Care Act, not — not repealing ObamaCare, which is what they suggest," he added. "It's making sure we fix the consumer protections for pre-existing conditions."
The plan would be to further expand Medicare as the expansion succeeded.
Quote:
We will see the success of that, and that will end up continuing to broaden and expand coverage for so many Americans.
It's not just what works as messaging. It's not just pragmatically deciding to go for a goal that might get passed. It's what can work as something that can be successfully executed and help people who need help the fastest. And having the backbone to say it in a primary landscape that is not wanting to hear it.
  #12  
Old 02-22-2019, 07:34 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
And this is based on...what, exactly? Your assumption that Brown would carry Ohio and Michigan (but not Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, for some reason?).

I like Brown a lot, but this analysis seems...less than rigorous.

Also, I see from your Twitter icon that you're a Deadhead. So now we can be friends.
I think Brown would sweep the Rust Belt.

But he has to survive his own party first - that's the tricky part.
  #13  
Old 02-22-2019, 08:14 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think Brown would sweep the Rust Belt.

But he has to survive his own party first - that's the tricky part.
I'd rephrase that as, "but he has to gain support within his own party first." He's generally polling down around 1%. Other than Emerson (and something weird's going on with their numbers, so I don't exactly trust them), nobody's had him above 2% in any poll.

That could change, of course, but until it does, how he might do as the nominee is academic.
  #14  
Old 02-22-2019, 08:25 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I'd rephrase that as, "but he has to gain support within his own party first." He's generally polling down around 1%. Other than Emerson (and something weird's going on with their numbers, so I don't exactly trust them), nobody's had him above 2% in any poll.

That could change, of course, but until it does, how he might do as the nominee is academic.
I don't even know how serious he is about running. It doesn't seem like he really gave it much thought until just recently, and people don't know who the hell he is. If you're thinking of running in 2020, that's an important first step. I get the feeling he may have waited too long. And unfortunately, he's not someone who's going to shock the world because unlike Bernie Sanders, he doesn't really have radical ideas. He's a pragmatist and incrementalist, which I actually think is what we need, but tell that to the teeming masses of voters who want someone to shock the system and want to rage-vote.

Last edited by asahi; 02-22-2019 at 08:26 AM.
  #15  
Old 02-22-2019, 08:55 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,427
I think if your name isn't Joe Biden or Beto O'Rourke, it's too late to get in the race. Brown lacks national recognition and an early start, he should think about 2024 or 2028 or being VP.

It's curious how Ohio went from a swing state to being quite red. If a Democrat carries PA, WI, and MI then all is well, the northern path wins.
  #16  
Old 02-22-2019, 10:06 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I'd rephrase that as, "but he has to gain support within his own party first." He's generally polling down around 1%. Other than Emerson (and something weird's going on with their numbers, so I don't exactly trust them), nobody's had him above 2% in any poll. ...
Right now the only choice that is running away with it in national polling, when given the choice of "undecided", is "undecided" ... near half. After that it's Biden at 9%. Even zero to 9 is a pretty tight cluster.

But national polls WILL change dramatically and the first drivers of that change will be performance (especially performance relative to expectations) in Iowa and New Hampshire. He is not known well there yet either but his strengths are a good match to click with people there. He has already started to visit there. His path depends on a performance exceeding expectations in one or both of those states. If he runs and he is not in the top three in either he is done.
  #17  
Old 02-22-2019, 01:05 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Right now the only choice that is running away with it in national polling, when given the choice of "undecided", is "undecided" ... near half. After that it's Biden at 9%. Even zero to 9 is a pretty tight cluster.
I'm not seeing a rebuttal here.
Quote:
But national polls WILL change dramatically and the first drivers of that change will be performance (especially performance relative to expectations) in Iowa and New Hampshire. He is not known well there yet either but his strengths are a good match to click with people there.
That's an easy claim to make, and the proof of the pudding won't be for nearly a year.
Quote:
He has already started to visit there.
Who hasn't?
Quote:
His path depends on a performance exceeding expectations in one or both of those states. If he runs and he is not in the top three in either he is done.
Top three, my ass. Finishing second or third in IA or NH won't save anyone.
  #18  
Old 02-21-2019, 03:23 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,498
This sounds a lot like the old "blue wall" theory.

And I don't think Ohio would be safe D in such an election either. It would be safer than with probably any other alternative but I don't look at Brown's 2018 re-election and see someone who is invincible in the state. Jim Renacci was practically invisible and got 46.6% of the vote.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 02-21-2019 at 03:26 AM.
  #19  
Old 02-21-2019, 08:08 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,333
Brown puts Ohio in play more than anyone else does but he does not confidently deliver it.

There is no blue wall but there is a premise behind SlackerInc's thesis that is reasonable: the Democratic side likeliest path to victory is "the Northern Path"-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 538
... What is clear, though, is the importance of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan (although you could also add Minnesota to the mix). Win all three of them — let’s call them the Northern Path — and Democrats don’t need Florida, assuming that they hold the other states. Lose all three, and even Florida wouldn’t be enough. Instead, they’d have to win Florida plus at least one of North Carolina, Arizona, Texas and Georgia as part of what you might call a Sun Belt Strategy.

Hillary Clinton’s problem was that Trump performed well in the Northern Path states — and she didn’t campaign in them enough — but at the same time, the Sun Belt Strategy wasn’t really ripe yet. ...

... the Northern Path is still the path of least resistance for a Democrat hoping to win the Electoral College. If Trump has lost the benefit of the doubt from voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, he may not have so much of an Electoral College advantage in 2020.
Brown is one of the possible nominees with the best goods for performing strongest in the Northern Path. Likely ability to strongly deliver on that path should be a key metric in choosing a nominee.
  #20  
Old 02-21-2019, 08:39 AM
BlueOhio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dayton OH USA
Posts: 254
Ohio keeps getting older and less educated. Brown taking it is not a given at all.
  #21  
Old 02-21-2019, 10:19 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Count me in the camp that doesn't understand why you concede that he can win PA and WI again, but don't think he could do the same in MI (or possibly snag MN for that matter).
  #22  
Old 02-21-2019, 09:30 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
It's possible that Trump has a good shot to beat Brown in Ohio. But as I see it, under that theory of the case, he is virtually unstoppable against any other Democratic nominee. I'm saying that Brown is the only one who can potentially make a significant difference in the Electoral College due to which state he represents. Maybe I'm overlooking someone, but I sure can't think who it would be. (Saying Biden would have a good shot at that Northern Path is the closest to it, but that's still not about "flipping" a state due to his home state advantage.)
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #23  
Old 02-21-2019, 09:51 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It's possible that Trump has a good shot to beat Brown in Ohio. But as I see it, under that theory of the case, he is virtually unstoppable against any other Democratic nominee. I'm saying that Brown is the only one who can potentially make a significant difference in the Electoral College due to which state he represents. Maybe I'm overlooking someone, but I sure can't think who it would be. (Saying Biden would have a good shot at that Northern Path is the closest to it, but that's still not about "flipping" a state due to his home state advantage.)
I think you're clearly right. None of the others represent a real swing State. Terry McAuliffe, I guess, but he's not going anywhere.
  #24  
Old 02-21-2019, 10:12 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
... I'm saying that Brown is the only one who can potentially make a significant difference in the Electoral College due to which state he represents. ...
Brown's Northern Path strength is based least on his home state and does not depend on bringing Ohio into the D column. If he does that, and he might, it would be icing on the cake.

He has real cred with rural and working class voters of all sorts while also having a long history of real progressive bonafides. His connection to voters in MI, PA, WI, MN ... is helped by being of the region perhaps, but it more is what his record is and how he approaches the issues. He is a candidate who can articulate progressive goals (and whop could actually execute them as President) who at the same time undercuts Trump's strengths.

His track record in support of universal coverage, for example, is deep and serious; it is not trendy and jumping on a bandwagon for soundbites. Here's his OnTheIssues report. Allow me to highlight his 100% rating by The American Public Health Association (APHA), the oldest and largest organization of public health professionals in the world.
  #25  
Old 02-21-2019, 11:06 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,093
And can somebody help me with the pronunciation? For years, just seeing his name in print, I've pronounced it "shur-ROD." Now I'm hearing it's pronounced "SHARE-odd?" Is that right?

It's gonna take a while for that to roll off my tongue.
  #26  
Old 02-21-2019, 11:08 PM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,498
Like Sharon but with a D.
  #27  
Old 02-22-2019, 12:34 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Three comments:

(1) Is it just a home-state advantage? Or would Brown's status as an Ohioan carry over to Pennsylvania — still the swing state #1 in importance? Biden would have a huge home advantage in Pennsylvania, I think. How about Klobuchar? Would her popularity in Minnesota carry over into other Midwest states?

(2) EVERY Democrat wants to work toward UHC. It's a complex matter; soundbites aren't the whole answer. Many smart people decided that ACA was the key first step. PLEASE don't reject a candidate just because he or she doesn't parrot the exact Sanders-AOC party line.

(3) IIUC, the election of Brown would almost automatically cost the Dems a Senate seat. That is just too huge ... unless you can prove that Brown would have significantly better November chance than anyone else. Can you?
  #28  
Old 02-22-2019, 02:05 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Three comments:

(1) Is it just a home-state advantage? Or would Brown's status as an Ohioan carry over to Pennsylvania — still the swing state #1 in importance? Biden would have a huge home advantage in Pennsylvania, I think. How about Klobuchar? Would her popularity in Minnesota carry over into other Midwest states?

(2) EVERY Democrat wants to work toward UHC. It's a complex matter; soundbites aren't the whole answer. Many smart people decided that ACA was the key first step. PLEASE don't reject a candidate just because he or she doesn't parrot the exact Sanders-AOC party line.

(3) IIUC, the election of Brown would almost automatically cost the Dems a Senate seat. That is just too huge ... unless you can prove that Brown would have significantly better November chance than anyone else. Can you?
Assuming #2 was directed at me, septimus, I resent the hell out of your implication. I have followed this issue closely for many years and am quite well informed on the topic. Why would you assume that my opinions are formed by "soundbites" or mindlessly following some "party line"?
  #29  
Old 02-22-2019, 01:41 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Like Sharon but with a D.
"Can I Speak To Your Manager" Sharon or Ariel Sharon?
  #30  
Old 02-22-2019, 07:01 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The downside is Democrats give up a Senate seat, but as painful as that is, I think it still might be worth it.
Even if Brown stays in the Senate, it's iffy as to whether the Dems will get to 50 in the Senate, which they will need to do just to confirm Administration appointees and judicial nominees, and pass appropriations bills. Brown giving up a Senate seat that would almost surely go Republican would make that a lot harder.

To actually enact meaningful legislation in 2021, the Dems need to:

1) Win the Presidency,
2) get to 50 Senators, AND
3) get rid of the filibuster.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 02-22-2019 at 07:02 AM.
  #31  
Old 02-22-2019, 12:41 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,333
I linked to this Mother Jones article in another thread but it really should be here too.
Quote:
... if Brown decides to jump into the race, catch-up may not be such a difficult game for him to play—and not only because he can connect with the white working-class voters that pundits worry have been lost to Republicans. He has a track record in lanes that are in vogue with Democratic voters, ...

...“He’s been very consistent all along in staking out progressive positions,” Ohio State’s Beck explains. In addition to his anti-free-trade stances, he’s been on the universal health care train for a long time: When he joined Congress in 1993, he pledged to pay for his own health care until Congress passed universal coverage, something he stuck with until he married his second wife, journalist Connie Schultz, who added him to her insurance plan when she was a reporter with the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Brown has been dinged for not backing Sanders’ “Medicare-for-all” bill, but he has supported a single-payer system throughout his career and recently has focused on his own legislation that would drop the Medicare eligibility age to 55. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act and for the assault weapons ban when neither vote had consensus across Democratic lawmakers. And he’s focused his time in the Senate on progressive tax policy that aims to put more money in lower-class Americans’ pockets, a project that led the Washington Post’s Ben Terris to call him “Elizabeth Warren before Elizabeth Warren was cool.”

One former DNC member eschewed comparisons to Brown’s contemporaries in favor of another: He told me he thinks Brown best embodies the legacy of Michael Harrington, the political theorist and activist who founded the Democratic Socialists of America and served as the organization’s chairman until his death in 1989. “That probably doesn’t help with the Iowa caucuses,” Brown joked when I told him this. ...

... “You’ve got to work with colleagues of both parties, and you talk to people outside, progressives, to put pressure on Congress,” Brown says of his strategy. A successful example of Brown’s “inside-outside strategy” occurred during the latter half of the Obama administration, when he led negotiations to make expansions of the Earned Income and Child Care Tax Credits permanent before they were set to expire at the end of 2017. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities credited this move with lifting nearly 6 million low-income working Americans out of poverty ...

... “He’s been this messenger for working people without selling short the civil rights message—he sees how they’re connected,” Whaley explains. “We hear a lot from the media, ‘Oh, it’s about the white working class,’ but it’s really not. It transcends race.” ...
His big primaries dings? One, he's not as strong on environmental issues. Two, he's an older white guy. Conversation with a progressive white woman friend who has always been an activist, she's not going to work for another old white guy no matter what their policies. (She's behind Klobuchar, even though Klobuchar's positions are much more centrist than she is and Brown hits her positions to a tee. Harris is, in her mind, too Coastal elite to win.)

Last edited by DSeid; 02-22-2019 at 12:41 PM.
  #32  
Old 02-22-2019, 01:06 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Two, he's an older white guy. Conversation with a progressive white woman friend who has always been an activist, she's not going to work for another old white guy no matter what their policies. (She's behind Klobuchar, even though Klobuchar's positions are much more centrist than she is and Brown hits her positions to a tee. Harris is, in her mind, too Coastal elite to win.)
I was listening to a public radio show on yesterday morning (forgot which one) in which the guests were discussing the growing democratic party field of contenders. The conversation then turned to Bernie Sanders chances and one of the commentators said that he didn't believe Sanders' chances were good. In fact the all three or four of the guests (I assume left-leaning) tossed shade at Sanders' chances. But one remark in particular jumped out at me, with a young black female activist essentially saying that an older white male can't lead a revolution (whatever you want to call it).

It was disappointing, not because I'm particularly interested in seeing another white male atop the ticket, but just because it's an assumption that a white male can't be the leader of the democratic party anymore. I wholeheartedly agree that it's time that our politics reflect the diversity of our society and I agree it's past time for more black candidates, more female candidates, more Latino candidates, gay candidates, Asian-American candidates, etc...being considered as contenders for the presidency. And since the Republican party doesn't seem to be a particularly hospitable environment for candidates with diverse backgrounds, I'm fine with the democratic party being a vehicle for promoting that kind of diversity, even if it somehow turns out that we may not have another white male nominee for another 2 or more election cycles.

But one of *the* concerns I've had in the era of Trump is that polarization could be used to divide and conquer a political coalition that essentially depends on diversity in order for it to succeed. The Yugoslavian conflict was the result of racial and ethnic polarization, which splintered coalitions along racial lines. Russia has since copied this blueprint to sow unrest throughout Eastern Europe throughout the Putin era. Let's not kid ourselves: It's a potentially explosive and effective strategy that could be employed here. White males may be white and they may be male, but they are still a part of the diversity equation.

I want to emphasize that I've seen nothing yet that gives me any strong and convincing indication that white males are an endangered species among democrats. Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden are all formidable candidates - all of whom absolutely should expect to be challenged by other strong non-white and non-male candidates. But the snippet that DSeid posted reminded me of that remark yesterday and I found it unfortunate. I'm glad that there's a political platform that can be used to showcase the value of America's diversity - I'm glad that Democratic party offers that. I just hope it doesn't somehow become the anti white male party.
  #33  
Old 02-22-2019, 05:10 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
His big primaries dings? One, he's not as strong on environmental issues. Two, he's an older white guy.
Complaints that have come up in his senate races are he's a never-a-real-job career politician, and the whole ugly divorce allegations.

And those of us who like free trade are unlikely to get behind his trumpist ideas there. But maybe that's what it takes to get votes.
  #34  
Old 02-22-2019, 01:36 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,256
From the MoJo link:
Quote:
He didn’t support the 2009 cap-and-trade proposal that would have put a price on carbon emissions, he voiced support for coal jobs during his 2012 reelection campaign, and he balked at a 2014 Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants, suggesting that states should have flexibility to address climate change within the bounds of their own economies. In recent years, he’s come along: He later voted to preserve the rules when Republicans tried to scrap them, and his 2018 reelection platform stressed investments in clean-energy jobs and in offshore wind, ethanol, and biodiesel fuels. But he hasn’t joined some of his fellow 2020 candidates—notably, Sanders and Warren—in their pledge to reject fossil fuel contributions and in the support they’ve voiced for the Green New Deal.
Well, fuck him.

It's perfectly OK for him to reject AOC's half-baked wish list. But every Dem candidate had better say what they think a Green New Deal should look like, and then we can have a good, healthy debate over the specifics. If they don't have a plan of their own yet, it's fine to say they're for such a deal in principle, and will either sign on to a plan or come up with their own by summer.

But if you were against cap-and-trade in 2009 when you were in a position to make a difference, fuck you once. We had a chance, however slim, to start doing something about climate change a decade ago, to start bending the curve ten years earlier. And if you can't be bothered to make up for that now, fuck you twice.

My son is more than half a century younger than I am. So half a century more of whatever mess our generations leave behind is the world he will live in and I won't. I have prayed many times that we haven't already failed him, and I greatly fear we have.

But whatever chance we have, whatever time we have left, to avert a global climate catastrophe, I insist on having Democrats in control who consider it one of their highest priorities to take full advantage of that time, to maximize whatever chance we have.

Sherrod Brown is not such a Democrat. Ohio can have him.
  #35  
Old 02-22-2019, 02:07 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
From the MoJo link:Well, fuck him.

It's perfectly OK for him to reject AOC's half-baked wish list. But every Dem candidate had better say what they think a Green New Deal should look like, and then we can have a good, healthy debate over the specifics. If they don't have a plan of their own yet, it's fine to say they're for such a deal in principle, and will either sign on to a plan or come up with their own by summer.

But if you were against cap-and-trade in 2009 when you were in a position to make a difference, fuck you once. We had a chance, however slim, to start doing something about climate change a decade ago, to start bending the curve ten years earlier. And if you can't be bothered to make up for that now, fuck you twice.

My son is more than half a century younger than I am. So half a century more of whatever mess our generations leave behind is the world he will live in and I won't. I have prayed many times that we haven't already failed him, and I greatly fear we have.

But whatever chance we have, whatever time we have left, to avert a global climate catastrophe, I insist on having Democrats in control who consider it one of their highest priorities to take full advantage of that time, to maximize whatever chance we have.

Sherrod Brown is not such a Democrat. Ohio can have him.
But if he can win Ohio, it's foolish to overlook him just because he doesn't meet your anti-global catastrophe litmus test!
  #36  
Old 02-22-2019, 02:13 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I'm not seeing a rebuttal here. That's an easy claim to make, and the proof of the pudding won't be for nearly a year. Who hasn't? Top three, my ass. Finishing second or third in IA or NH won't save anyone.
Not sure what there is to rebut and I am not rebutting anything. Simple comment: the biggest chunk of voters have no idea who they will be supporting yet. Not being known by most yet and leading the pack at 9% or 4% doesn't have much predictive value.

Haven't seen your ass and don't care much about it. But the results in Iowa and NH will winnow the field. If a known established big expectations name (Sanders, Biden, Warren) underperforms (not in top two in either) the storyline for them is how down they are and they sink fast. If a lesser name (pretty much everyone else) overperforms (in top three in one or the other) that is the media cycle, even more than an expected winner winning. And those of the pretty much everyone else who do not hit the top three in one or the other are pretty much done with forks sticking out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
... It was disappointing, not because I'm particularly interested in seeing another white male atop the ticket, but just because it's an assumption that a white male can't be the leader of the democratic party anymore. ...
Oh I was definitely disappointed too. Her dismissing out of hand someone based exclusively on their race and gender really took me aback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
From the MoJo link:Well, fuck him. ... if you can't be bothered to make up for that now, fuck you twice. ...
Pretty sure you won't be voting for him in a primary, or donating. It's his biggest negative on my list too, although I do also note he's evolved since that cap and trade vote. I agree that he'd need to come up with what his plan would be by summer and that would need to be solid. He needs to be very clear on what his pragmatic solutions now are.

Last edited by DSeid; 02-22-2019 at 02:15 PM.
  #37  
Old 02-22-2019, 05:31 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Not sure what there is to rebut and I am not rebutting anything. Simple comment: the biggest chunk of voters have no idea who they will be supporting yet. Not being known by most yet and leading the pack at 9% or 4% doesn't have much predictive value.
The contention that I think you're rebutting is the notion that while a number of candidates have been able to garner a bit more support than the 1% range, Brown isn't one of them.

Your counterclaim is that they're practically all down there, or close enough to it to make no never mind.

But while that one poll asks the question of support differently, it disadvantages (or the standard way of asking the question advantages) all candidates equally. But however you put it, when reminded of the candidates' names, voters say of several other candidates, "Yeah, I like her/him." But Brown's not getting any of that action.

I think that one poll you favor is a measure of more solid support, while the other is a measure of what may be a more ephemeral level of support, of leaning towards a candidate rather than being solidly in their camp. (People in that latter situation don't need to be reminded of the name of the candidate they're supporting. ) But if a candidate can't even get those leaners, he's not going to turn them into solid supporters.
Quote:
Haven't seen your ass and don't care much about it. But the results in Iowa and NH will winnow the field. If a known established big expectations name (Sanders, Biden, Warren) underperforms (not in top two in either) the storyline for them is how down they are and they sink fast. If a lesser name (pretty much everyone else) overperforms (in top three in one or the other) that is the media cycle, even more than an expected winner winning. And those of the pretty much everyone else who do not hit the top three in one or the other are pretty much done with forks sticking out.
(ETA:-->) My point is that IA and NH winnow much more than you think.

New Hampshire, of course, has been part of the winnowing process since time immemorial. Iowa first became part of the winnowing process in 1976, and with the exception of 1992, where all the Dem candidates skipped Iowa to let Tom Harkin have an uncontested win, it's been part of the winnowing process for both parties ever since.

And in all those cycles where Iowa and NH have both been part of the winnowing process, the nominees of each party have won either Iowa or New Hampshire. In none of them has someone whose best finish in IA and NH was a second or third won the nomination, no matter how much they may have beaten expectations.

Maybe this cycle will break the pattern; patterns don't hold up forever - especially given the whiteness of those two states, and the racial and ethnic diversity of the Dem coalition. But (a) it's hard to see Brown being the guy who breaks through in SC or NV on the basis of his greater appeal to blacks or Hispanics after losing in IA and NH, and (b) I'd bet my bottom dollar that nobody's going to win the nomination after their best result in IA and NH is a third-place finish, no matter how much they exceeded expectations by.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 02-22-2019 at 05:36 PM.
  #38  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:33 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
I'm a bit surprised by the attitude that the Dems should try to win back OH (Trump won by 8 points) but "Florida is lost" (Trump by less than 2 points).

It's also worth noting that HRC barely eeked out a win in NH, and only won NV by a couple of points. Even if the 2020 Dem wins MI, WI, and PA back, if they lose NH and NV, President Trump would still win 270-268, so they've got to protect those places too (and MN, CO, and VA but beyond that, we're getting into flipping-OH levels of wishful thinking).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-22-2019 at 03:34 PM.
  #39  
Old 02-22-2019, 04:31 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm a bit surprised by the attitude that the Dems should try to win back OH (Trump won by 8 points) but "Florida is lost" (Trump by less than 2 points).
Trump might have won by 8 points against Hillary Clinton, but he's very unlikely to win by 8 percentage points against a centrist or center-left Democrat with less baggage. Sanders or someone perceived as far left, OTOH, might lose by double digits if the economy's still buoying Trump by that point.

By contrast, the recent races show that Florida is becoming tougher and tougher for even moderate and center-left pragmatists. It's not just that Trump beat Clinton; it's also Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis winning as well in years when Trump and the GOP were much less popular nationally than they were two years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's also worth noting that HRC barely eeked out a win in NH, and only won NV by a couple of points. Even if the 2020 Dem wins MI, WI, and PA back, if they lose NH and NV, President Trump would still win 270-268, so they've got to protect those places too (and MN, CO, and VA but beyond that, we're getting into flipping-OH levels of wishful thinking).
Again, I think the country was just uninspired by Clinton and this was something that plagued her in every close contest. A different kind of candidate with more energy and buzz would probably carry the states that Obama did.
  #40  
Old 02-23-2019, 07:56 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Trump might have won by 8 points against Hillary Clinton, but he's very unlikely to win by 8 percentage points against a centrist or center-left Democrat with less baggage. Sanders or someone perceived as far left, OTOH, might lose by double digits if the economy's still buoying Trump by that point.

By contrast, the recent races show that Florida is becoming tougher and tougher for even moderate and center-left pragmatists. It's not just that Trump beat Clinton; it's also Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis winning as well in years when Trump and the GOP were much less popular nationally than they were two years ago.



Again, I think the country was just uninspired by Clinton and this was something that plagued her in every close contest. A different kind of candidate with more energy and buzz would probably carry the states that Obama did.
I'd point out, though, that in 2018 Florida Ds had a center-left pragmatist running for Senate, and a progressive leftist running for Governor, and they lost by nearly identical margins. So this doesn't support your implied thesis that it's "safer" to nominate moderates.
  #41  
Old 02-23-2019, 09:51 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
I'd point out, though, that in 2018 Florida Ds had a center-left pragmatist running for Senate, and a progressive leftist running for Governor, and they lost by nearly identical margins. So this doesn't support your implied thesis that it's "safer" to nominate moderates.
It does when you consider that Andrew Gillum's opponent was much more flawed and extreme than Rick Scott.

Ron "Don't Monkey this Up" DeSantis and Donald Trump ran racist campaigns - and won. Bill Nelson would have defeated Ron DeSantis for governor; he didn't defeat Rick Scott for Senate.
  #42  
Old 02-22-2019, 06:49 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm a bit surprised by the attitude that the Dems should try to win back OH (Trump won by 8 points) but "Florida is lost" (Trump by less than 2 points).

It's also worth noting that HRC barely eeked out a win in NH, and only won NV by a couple of points. Even if the 2020 Dem wins MI, WI, and PA back, if they lose NH and NV, President Trump would still win 270-268, so they've got to protect those places too (and MN, CO, and VA but beyond that, we're getting into flipping-OH levels of wishful thinking).
I'm in agreement with most of what asahi and DSeid said in their posts but I will clarify what I meant. The idea that Florida is lost has to do with the 2018 midterms as well as 2016. As was mention the ROI is meager at the moment for the Dems. HRC made Florida her focus for time and resources and all it got her was that she lost by 2%. At the same time she took it for granted that PA, MI and WI were solidly in her camp and that she would probably take OH but if she got the other three she didn't need it. Clearly this was a major error on the part of her campaign. Of course there is no guarantee she would have won if she had put her focus in those states and given up on Florida but the 2018 midterms suggest it would be wise for the Democrats to have a nominee in 2020 who will be able to carry those states. Florida, not so much because if they manage to hold all the states HRC carried and add MI, WI and PA the Democrats will win. Whether Brown is the candidate who can pull that off remains to be seen. I've yet to see anything that makes me think Harris, Sanders or Warren can connect with voters in those states.

The closeness in NH and NV had more to do with what a lousy campaign HRC ran.
  #43  
Old 02-22-2019, 04:05 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,371
I agree that any white candidate needs at least a top 2 finish in IA or NH to stay credible. I wouldn't write off any of the minorities until SC and NV have been heard from.
  #44  
Old 02-22-2019, 04:44 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,343
In 2016 I thought nominating Donald Trump would checkmate Donald Trump in the Electoral College.

No more predictions!
  #45  
Old 02-22-2019, 04:44 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,333
H.D.,

I'm with you that FL is not lost ... but it is the place most assured to break a Democrat's heart!

The issue with FL is the ROI. You need a strategy that does not need FL. Last cycle FL got a huge chunk of the budget. Was it worth it? Win the Northern Path and you do not need FL. And if you do not need it maybe the outsized investment of money and time is better spent elsewhere.

You are, of course, correct that the D side needs to defend NV and NH. That said in midterms Ds won the House popular vote in NV by 6 points and NH by 12. (OH? Lost by over 5 in a wave year.)

The 538 article I linked to above for the Northern Path quote played with the midterm results and shifted them 6 point R-ward for a "neutral year". If all shifted in concert Ds would still be in position to win NV in a squeaker and would solidly win NH.

FL (and Iowa) are very winnable. AZ, NC, and even TX are worth making the R side defend and as investments for future cycles. But have a strategy that does not need any of them.
  #46  
Old 02-22-2019, 07:51 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Finishing second or third in IA or NH won't save anyone.
It saved Bill Clinton in 1992, who cannily parlayed it into a "Comeback Kid" narrative.


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'm glad that there's a political platform that can be used to showcase the value of America's diversity - I'm glad that Democratic party offers that. I just hope it doesn't somehow become the anti white male party.

I've been worrying about this for a while now. Today the University of Iowa's basketball announcer got suspended for saying that when the opponent's 6'10" forward, who is black, rebounded and tipped in the winning basket, it was a "King Kong" move. (Next, I guess it will be verboten to say a nonwhite player had a "monster" game.) I wonder what would happen if someone in the Democratic field spoke up to say that this is going too far with political correctness? They'd be instantly dead in the water, I think.

And what I think a lot of people don't understand is that Democrats' losing ground with white males is not the same as the GOP losing ground with black women. There are more non-Hispanic white male voters in the U.S. than there are black male, black female, Hispanic male, and Hispanic female voters COMBINED. And as I noted in that thread, "Even in 2016, only 62% of white men voted for Trump, while 94% of black women voted for Hillary". So even with the big demographic changes in the country, it only translates to a Democratic majority if we keep that number from going up to 65-70% (or, obviously, higher). Making white men (more specifically, straight cisgendered white men) personas non gratas is not going to help us keep at least a third of them in our camp.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
H.D.,
You are, of course, correct that the D side needs to defend NV and NH. That said in midterms Ds won the House popular vote in NV by 6 points and NH by 12. (OH? Lost by over 5 in a wave year.)

Ohio in 2018 is a weird situation though. I don't have the House popular vote numbers, but I think it's interesting (and perhaps instructive, but I'm not sure of exactly what) to look at their gubernatorial election. Progressive candidate Richard Cordray lost by 3.7 points in a good Democratic year, 'tis true. But he received more than two million votes in a losing cause, and in fact got more than twice as many votes as the Democratic candidate from the previous election in 2014. In that election, John Kasich won by thirty points, but still didn't manage to get to the two million vote mark himself! So I think it's difficult to predict what the electorate in the next presidential year election in Ohio will look like.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I'd rather have someone who can beat the shit out of Trump and actually get positive shit done than someone who squawks my deepest desires into the cold wind and farts angrily while they die a sorry death.

So much this!


Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Three comments:
(1) Is it just a home-state advantage? Or would Brown's status as an Ohioan carry over to Pennsylvania — still the swing state #1 in importance? Biden would have a huge home advantage in Pennsylvania, I think. How about Klobuchar? Would her popularity in Minnesota carry over into other Midwest states?
(2) EVERY Democrat wants to work toward UHC. It's a complex matter; soundbites aren't the whole answer. Many smart people decided that ACA was the key first step. PLEASE don't reject a candidate just because he or she doesn't parrot the exact Sanders-AOC party line.
(3) IIUC, the election of Brown would almost automatically cost the Dems a Senate seat. That is just too huge ... unless you can prove that Brown would have significantly better November chance than anyone else. Can you?

(1) Yeah, good point. PA was so narrowly lost.
(2) Cosigned. A lot of extreme purity testing going on, and it needs to stop.
(3) It's a definite concern for sure. And Brown isn't even my top candidate right now. But I do think it's very possible Trump (or, more importantly, Kellyanne) is more scared of Brown than anyone else.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
To actually enact meaningful legislation in 2021, the Dems need to:
1) Win the Presidency,
2) get to 50 Senators, AND
3) get rid of the filibuster.

I'm not in favor of eliminating the filibuster. Too dangerous. I was glad to hear Bernie Sanders expressing reluctance to do this on MSNBC last night.


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Sorry, I meant Texas, not Florida. There's real momentum in Texas, as Beto O'Rourke proved. But O'Rourke proved that moderates and pragmatists could compete with Republicans in Texas.

Beto is an interesting cat though. He does have a moderate voting record, and clearly was able to appeal to people who usually vote Republican. But he had lots of progressives all over the country (including some of my friends, who pay pretty close attention to politics) convinced he was one of them. Neat trick if you can pull it off! That's actually something that appeals to me about him, as I think it's a great political strength.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-22-2019 at 07:53 PM.
  #47  
Old 02-22-2019, 10:57 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Some of you are overthinking the Electoral College.
  • The Democrat must win all of MN, MI, and PA.
  • The Democrat must win at least one of AZ, WI, FL.
  • None of the other 45 states make any difference.
  • If Ohio goes D, the D is winning a landslide anyway.
Which Democratic candidate is most likely to win Michigan and Pennsylvania? This is the only question that even matters over the coming 15 months of frenzy.
  #48  
Old 02-23-2019, 12:23 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Some of you are overthinking the Electoral College.
  • The Democrat must win all of MN, MI, and PA.
  • The Democrat must win at least one of AZ, WI, FL.
  • None of the other 45 states make any difference.
  • If Ohio goes D, the D is winning a landslide anyway.

Are there 51 states? I wish! (Assuming the new one is either DC or PR.)

I don't agree that it's impossible for Ohio to go very narrowly (D) with Brown on the ticket, while not winning a landslide nationally.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #49  
Old 02-23-2019, 12:59 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Are there 51 states?
When discussing the Electoral College only a pedant would feel the need to type out Every.Single.Time in full, "51 states where for the purpose of discussing electoral votes the District of Coumbia is included among the states."
  #50  
Old 02-23-2019, 09:45 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It saved Bill Clinton in 1992, who cannily parlayed it into a "Comeback Kid" narrative.
As I said (bolding and italics added just now):
Quote:
New Hampshire, of course, has been part of the winnowing process since time immemorial. Iowa first became part of the winnowing process in 1976, and with the exception of 1992, where all the Dem candidates skipped Iowa to let Tom Harkin have an uncontested win, it's been part of the winnowing process for both parties ever since.

And in all those cycles where Iowa and NH have both been part of the winnowing process, the nominees of each party have won either Iowa or New Hampshire.
Quote:
I'm not in favor of eliminating the filibuster. Too dangerous. I was glad to hear Bernie Sanders expressing reluctance to do this on MSNBC last night.
Too dangerous, how?

How can it be more dangerous than a near-complete failure to meaningfully act to deal with global warming?? If we get rid of the filibuster, will we get hit by the giant meteor?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017