Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-18-2017, 11:25 PM
Jim B. Jim B. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,688
Democratic Game Plan For 2020.

I guess even now, some Democrats are looking to 2020, hoping we will get a Democrat in the White House, and save whatever is left of Roe v. Wade and the ACA. But I think I am a keen observer of things, and I suspect it may not be the simple.

Simply put, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were swept into office by a unique set of circumstances. It in fact may never be repeated in our lifetimes. I am serious.

Bill Clinton got in because of the Ross Perot effect. Say what you will, but he never got more than half even the popular vote. Even when he was reëlected in 1996, he still had Perot to thank.

President Obama had the fact that a huge wave of African Americans, who didn't ordinarily vote, showed up in droves.

Say what you will, but no other candidate will have either of these factors working in their behalf, even if they seem a shoo-in. Conventional wisdom suggested that Al Gore would surely win in 2000, after strong economy and a popular Democrat. But he didn't.

Anyways, I don't know who read these boards. But I have a suggestion, of sorts. Why not have another African American run for POTUS in 2020? Why not? By then, more of the vote will be suppressed, yes. But you never know.

What do the rest of you think? As I said, there may be simply no other way.

__________________
"Love takes no less than everything." (from "Love Is", a duet by Vanessa Williams and Brian McKnight)

Last edited by Jim B.; 06-18-2017 at 11:27 PM. Reason: Typo.
  #2  
Old 06-18-2017, 11:50 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,365
I think you are underestimating the Ds and overestimating the Rs. Even with a good economy, Bush Sr. trailed Dukakis by a whopping 17% in the polls at one point in 1988 so Gore losing to Bush Jr. was no surprise. As for Perot, I believe the analysis is that he took roughly equal votes from Bush and Clinton alike.

And if even Bush and Obama trailed Kerry and Romney in the polls at one point in 2004 and 2012, respectively, then surely by extrapolation Trump will be in a deep hole come 2020, if he's even running again.
  #3  
Old 06-19-2017, 12:01 AM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
But I have a suggestion, of sorts. Why not have another African American run for POTUS in 2020? Why not?
Obama mobilized the black vote so much not merely because he was black, but because he was the first non-white president, and thus had the “Let’s make history” novelty factor going for him.

After Obama, any black Democratic candidate will just be seen as a standard/”normal” Democrat, no different than a non-black D such as Biden.
  #4  
Old 06-19-2017, 12:08 AM
Buck Godot Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 4,348
I think the best idea is to put up which ever candidate excites the Democratic electorate and in the process wins the Democratic primary. Deciding on a chosen one, particularly one that screams of tokenism is not going to help matters.

Four years is a long time and things can change, but so far all signs point to a Democratic win in 2020. Note that the Republicans have come in second in the popular vote in 6 out of 7 of the last elections, so they can't really be crowing too much about some sort of dominant advantage. Trump won by promising his supporters the earth and moon, but has since shown that he is incapable of even basic governing. His campaign slogan of I alone can make everything right again, isn't going to play so well the second time around when even with both houses of congress at his fingertips he still couldn't make coal profitable again, or make a heath system that people like better than Obamacare.
  #5  
Old 06-19-2017, 12:13 AM
pjacks pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
I guess even now, some Democrats are looking to 2020, hoping we will get a Democrat in the White House, and save whatever is left of Roe v. Wade and the ACA. But I think I am a keen observer of things, and I suspect it may not be the simple.

Simply put, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were swept into office by a unique set of circumstances. It in fact may never be repeated in our lifetimes. I am serious.

Bill Clinton got in because of the Ross Perot effect. Say what you will, but he never got more than half even the popular vote. Even when he was reëlected in 1996, he still had Perot to thank.

President Obama had the fact that a huge wave of African Americans, who didn't ordinarily vote, showed up in droves.

Say what you will, but no other candidate will have either of these factors working in their behalf, even if they seem a shoo-in. Conventional wisdom suggested that Al Gore would surely win in 2000, after strong economy and a popular Democrat. But he didn't.

Anyways, I don't know who read these boards. But I have a suggestion, of sorts. Why not have another African American run for POTUS in 2020? Why not? By then, more of the vote will be suppressed, yes. But you never know.

What do the rest of you think? As I said, there may be simply no other way.

If the Democratic Party should learn anything from the 2016 election, it's that they should completely set aside any aspirations or game plans for 2020 & instead focus all their energy on the 2018 midterms. Just forget about the presidency for a year and a half, because the party at the local and state level is a steaming crater.

That said, as much as a hate to admit it, maybe nominating a celebrity is the way to go. Nearly half the electorate has proven that they're so addled by disinterest & apathy that they wouldn't even bother bother voting against a vile sexual harasser & proud con-man to lead their nation... Someone like Oprah or the Rock at least will keep enough people entertained until the time comes to vote. Trump has shown that turning the US government into a reality show is a winning strategy, might as well use it to their advantage.

What else are the Dems going to do? The bench is empty aside from the usual Wall Street shills (Clinton, Booker, Coumo), narrowly popular lefties incapable of winning the primaries (Warren, Sanders) & a few decent pols who by either good sense or pragmatism have no desire to run (Franken, Brown).

Or they could always run Chelsea.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
  #6  
Old 06-19-2017, 12:24 AM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 13,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
If the Democratic Party should learn anything from the 2016 election, it's that they should completely set aside any aspirations or game plans for 2020 & instead focus all their energy on the 2018 midterms. Just forget about the presidency for a year and a half, because the party at the local and state level is a steaming crater...
I agree in the strongest possible terms.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
  #7  
Old 06-19-2017, 12:30 AM
PastTense PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,067
Bernie, Hilary and Joe will fight it out.
  #8  
Old 06-19-2017, 12:32 AM
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
Bill Clinton got in because of the Ross Perot effect.
This is a story Republicans told each other to console themselves over the loss. There's not much evidence that it's actually what happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
President Obama had the fact that a huge wave of African Americans, who didn't ordinarily vote, showed up in droves.
He had that fact, but at least in 2008 he would have won without it. Hillary almost won with 2004-level black turnout, and Obama had a lot more white support than she ended up getting.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 06-19-2017 at 12:37 AM.
  #9  
Old 06-19-2017, 08:43 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 19,380
I think the OP is very much underestimating Democratic strength. Republicans have, since the Reagan anomaly, fared as follows:

1988 Beaten the least charismatic candidate in history in Dukakis
1992 Lost as the incumbent party to an upstart albeit charismatic candidate
1996 Run a fossil because it was his turn, lost to incumbent
2000 Won as a minority thanks to an ill-designed ballot and confused voters and with a big assist from a partisan Supreme Court
2004 Won as incumbent thanks to organized smear of opponent
2008 Ran a fossil because it was his turn, lost to one of the great presidents of modern times
2012 Ran out of touch millionaire against charismatic incumbent
2016 Won as a minority thanks to 25 year smear campaign against opponent, with big assist from Vladimir Putin and the unwitting help of the FBI

That track record doesn't indicate to me that Democrats are swimming against a strong current.

I agree that we should not worry about 2020 until 2018 is done. First win Congress and as many statehouses as possible. Then capitalize on running against the illegitimate President Pence in 2020, sweep Congress and as many statehouses as possible, then get to gerrymandering where possible.
  #10  
Old 06-19-2017, 09:23 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
then get to gerrymandering where possible.
Goddammit, no. Democrats can win without gerrymandering. Republicans can't. Even if you're amoral about the electoral process, it's a far better strategy for Democrats to end gerrymandering than to take it over temporarily.

We've got excellent technological tools to end gerrymandering, and we're in a moment where it can actually happen, with work. This should not be the major issues for Dems, but it should be something Dems unite in.
  #11  
Old 06-19-2017, 09:25 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,307
Yes, we should focus on 2018. But out here in the net-sphere, we can talk about whatever we like, so right now I'm in favor of a whole bunch of Democrats running, including even older folks like Biden and Sanders, if they like.
  #12  
Old 06-19-2017, 09:50 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 19,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Goddammit, no. Democrats can win without gerrymandering. Republicans can't. Even if you're amoral about the electoral process, it's a far better strategy for Democrats to end gerrymandering than to take it over temporarily.

We've got excellent technological tools to end gerrymandering, and we're in a moment where it can actually happen, with work. This should not be the major issues for Dems, but it should be something Dems unite in.
In principle, I agree with you. But in practice, I fear that the only states in which gerrymandering could be ended are those where Democrats control. So why should we offer level playing fields when Republicans will tilt the ones they control in their favor?
  #13  
Old 06-19-2017, 12:25 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 9,812
Best thing the Republicans could hope for in 2020 is Hillary to be in the running. She's political poison now, as is any Clinton.

Just give the yam time, he'll screw up more times than we can count making the Dem job easier.
  #14  
Old 06-19-2017, 03:27 PM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,170
Oh, people had been thinking about this right after the election.

The first rule about Democratic game plan 2020 is you don't talk about Hillary Clinton.
  #15  
Old 06-19-2017, 03:37 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
In principle, I agree with you. But in practice, I fear that the only states in which gerrymandering could be ended are those where Democrats control. So why should we offer level playing fields when Republicans will tilt the ones they control in their favor?
Because the partisan goal is to get Republicans to lose the states they control, not simply to fight a rearguard battle.

Get Democratic states to use independent districting methods (or adversarial ones), and this becomes an issue on which people can run. Eventually this becomes an amendment to the constitution, and in future decades it'll beggar belief that we used to let parties gerrymander for control, in the same way it beggars belief that we used to prevent women from voting.
  #16  
Old 06-19-2017, 06:12 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,261
Did Obama do 'that much' better among black voters? My understanding is the democrat candidate normally gets about ~90% of the black vote, while Obama got 95%. And maybe a a % of the electorate, the black vote went up 1%. So instead of being 12%, it might have been 13%.

But would that alone make much of a difference? Obama won the popular vote by 7% in 2008 and 4% in 2012.

I'm not sure about the democratic plan. Dems are losing the white working class by huge numbers, and I'm not sure how to win them back. Policy ideas may win a few, but deep down inside I think the WWC votes republican due to cultural issues and identity politics, which the democrats are not really able to run on with that group, nor should they.
  #17  
Old 06-19-2017, 06:55 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 8,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
Or they could always run Chelsea.
(post shortened)

Chelsea! Chelsea! Chelsea!

Somebody has to be willing to lead the Democrat Party into 2020. It might as well be her. She already has the name recognition thing going for her.
  #18  
Old 06-19-2017, 06:58 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Did Obama do 'that much' better among black voters? My understanding is the democrat candidate normally gets about ~90% of the black vote, while Obama got 95%. And maybe a a % of the electorate, the black vote went up 1%. So instead of being 12%, it might have been 13%.

But would that alone make much of a difference? Obama won the popular vote by 7% in 2008 and 4% in 2012.

I'm not sure about the democratic plan. Dems are losing the white working class by huge numbers, and I'm not sure how to win them back. Policy ideas may win a few, but deep down inside I think the WWC votes republican due to cultural issues and identity politics, which the democrats are not really able to run on with that group, nor should they.
In my understanding there are disproportionately high numbers of black people in many key swing states -- particularly FL, NC, and MI, and still significant numbers in OH and PA.
  #19  
Old 06-20-2017, 05:31 PM
Anny Middon Anny Middon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I'm not sure about the democratic plan. Dems are losing the white working class by huge numbers, and I'm not sure how to win them back. Policy ideas may win a few, but deep down inside I think the WWC votes republican due to cultural issues and identity politics, which the democrats are not really able to run on with that group, nor should they.
Ignorant question to which I should know the answer -- How much of the WWC votes in most elections? Did Trump bring out a bigger percentage of that group than Romney or McCain did? If so, can he bring them out again in 2020?

I know a couple of people who are rabid Trump fans who I'm pretty sure didn't vote in 2008 or 2012. I don't know if they are outliers or representative of a fairly large group.

I think (or maybe it's just I hope) the dynamics in 2020 will be different for the Pubs than they were for the Dems in 2012. I believe that a lot of Pubs thought that people who voted for the first time in 2008 did so to make history by electing the first African-American president, and that many of those people would not vote in 2012. I'd like to believe that those who voted in 2016 in order to "stick it to the man" will come to believe that getting their guy in the WH didn't really change much, and will not bother to vote in 2020.
  #20  
Old 06-20-2017, 06:08 PM
TimeWinder TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Policy ideas may win a few, but deep down inside I think the WWC votes republican due to cultural issues and identity politics, which the democrats are not really able to run on with that group, nor should they.
One thing we could do is take back the language. Calling it "cultural issues" and "identity politics" rather than "not being racist" and "equal rights" just plays into the GOP story.
  #21  
Old 06-21-2017, 07:07 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,488
Starting from about 1968 there's been a trend that has mostly held up for presidential elections. The party in power usually gets about 8 years in the White House before the public gets weary and wants to move in a different direction. There are, of course, exceptions. Jimmy Carter only lasted 4 years and the Reagan revolution was extended 4 years by George H W Bush. But outside of that, as long as presidents are not somehow reinforcing the country's negative self-image, then they get 8 years. Trump is already in trouble, but he has time to recover. But does he even have the DNA to do so? History still suggests, however, that he should have the wind at his back...provided he isn't turning the ship around and sailing in the wrong direction. Which he might be.
  #22  
Old 06-21-2017, 08:47 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Starting from about 1968 there's been a trend that has mostly held up for presidential elections. The party in power usually gets about 8 years in the White House before the public gets weary and wants to move in a different direction.
This is why it's so frustrating when folks disparage the popular vote: it obscures flaws in arguments. The public certainly didn't want to move in a different direction this time. Clinton won the public's vote. What happened is that a small number of people in a small number of states bucked the national trend toward maintaining a Democrat in office.
  #23  
Old 06-21-2017, 12:38 PM
E-DUB E-DUB is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,151
NEVER allow your opponent to tell people who YOU are. YOU tell them who YOU are, as loudly and as often as required.

And as for the "Perot effect", when an incumbent President can't get better than 38% of the vote, he's got nobody to blame but himself.

Think about this. trump is Perot with a major party behind him.
  #24  
Old 06-21-2017, 12:58 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 34,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Best thing the Republicans could hope for in 2020 is Hillary to be in the running. She's political poison now, as is any Clinton.
Yes, the Russian and Rove propaganda machine did really well, aided by the Bernie-Bros and Sandernistas.
  #25  
Old 06-21-2017, 04:10 PM
E-DUB E-DUB is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,151
Asahi wrote: "Starting from about 1968 there's been a trend that has mostly held up for presidential elections."

Curious why you started with '68 rather than, say, '52.
  #26  
Old 06-21-2017, 04:39 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 12,562
Reuters on what the results yesterday mean for Democrats.
  #27  
Old 06-21-2017, 04:58 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
Ignorant question to which I should know the answer -- How much of the WWC votes in most elections? Did Trump bring out a bigger percentage of that group than Romney or McCain did? If so, can he bring them out again in 2020?

I know a couple of people who are rabid Trump fans who I'm pretty sure didn't vote in 2008 or 2012. I don't know if they are outliers or representative of a fairly large group.

I think (or maybe it's just I hope) the dynamics in 2020 will be different for the Pubs than they were for the Dems in 2012. I believe that a lot of Pubs thought that people who voted for the first time in 2008 did so to make history by electing the first African-American president, and that many of those people would not vote in 2012. I'd like to believe that those who voted in 2016 in order to "stick it to the man" will come to believe that getting their guy in the WH didn't really change much, and will not bother to vote in 2020.
The working class is generally defined as not having a bachelor's degree. 538 wrote an article that even after. Controlling for income, whites with a bachelor's degree were 20-30 points less likely to support Trump. Take two people who earn 30k a year, and the one with a bachelor's degree was much less likely to support Trump. It's the same If they both earn 100k.

The % who are without a college diploma has been shrinking. In 2004 they were 58%, in 2012 they were 53%, in 2016 they were 50% of all voters.

However the % among whites is even lower. Whites were about 70% of voters in 2016 but only 33% of voters were whites without a college degree. The other 37% of whites were college graduates.

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 06-21-2017 at 05:01 PM.
  #28  
Old 06-21-2017, 09:48 PM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Asahi wrote: "Starting from about 1968 there's been a trend that has mostly held up for presidential elections."

Curious why you started with '68 rather than, say, '52.
You certainly could make a case for that and I thought about it. I guess I just didn't know how to factor in the JFK/LBJ transition and the decline of LBJ. The 1960s were marked with extraordinary events so that I didn't know what to make of them.
  #29  
Old 06-21-2017, 09:54 PM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
This is why it's so frustrating when folks disparage the popular vote: it obscures flaws in arguments. The public certainly didn't want to move in a different direction this time. Clinton won the public's vote. What happened is that a small number of people in a small number of states bucked the national trend toward maintaining a Democrat in office.
I think there's still a place for the electoral college vote. Most of the country's population is highly concentrated in geographically smaller areas, but the population is spread out over the entire land mass. I think the EC is the right balance between voters of various interests. What I do wish they'd change is the ridiculous laws that still permit faithless electors. It's inevitable that, over time, an election will come down to a handful of corrupt electors who will cause great mischief and disruption to the process. The concept of an electoral 'point' system if you will is consistent with representative democracy; the faithless elector potentially undermines public faith in the entire system altogether. And the philosophical argument for the faithless elector's continued existence was completely destroyed when they made Trump's presidency official.
  #30  
Old 06-21-2017, 10:00 PM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
See, I don't actually think the Democrats should be dispirited. They lost a race they had no business competing in. And yet, I've read several news articles suggesting that Democrats are throwing their hands up, which goes back to a problem I've identified in the Democratic party going back for some time. They're a party of wimps. They're the party of panic. I can't stand Republican politics but I'll give them credit for one thing: generally speaking, more often than not, they have a better sense of what they want and what they don't. They are better at defining their agenda. They are goal oriented. They are committed and they don't waver in pursuit of their goals. They have more determination and more discipline than Democrats. Democrats also want the easiest, most obvious route to power. They make it a point to get out the vote every 4 years but aren't that enthusiastic about smaller races. They demonstrate a fundamental ignorance for how the system works and then seem to complain when they lose. I wish I didn't have to write that, but it's the truth.
  #31  
Old 06-21-2017, 10:37 PM
E-DUB E-DUB is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,151
Asahi wrote: "I can't stand Republican politics but I'll give them credit for one thing: generally speaking, more often than not, they have a better sense of what they want and what they don't."

Well, what they don't want certainly. But as for what they do: We're almost six months into this administration, they've got functional control over all three branches and have yet to get anything of any substance done. Given what they want to do, that doesn't bother me at all, but they really can't use it as a selling point.
  #32  
Old 06-21-2017, 11:20 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
See, I don't actually think the Democrats should be dispirited. They lost a race they had no business competing in. And yet, I've read several news articles suggesting that Democrats are throwing their hands up, which goes back to a problem I've identified in the Democratic party going back for some time. They're a party of wimps. They're the party of panic. I can't stand Republican politics but I'll give them credit for one thing: generally speaking, more often than not, they have a better sense of what they want and what they don't. They are better at defining their agenda. They are goal oriented. They are committed and they don't waver in pursuit of their goals. They have more determination and more discipline than Democrats. Democrats also want the easiest, most obvious route to power. They make it a point to get out the vote every 4 years but aren't that enthusiastic about smaller races. They demonstrate a fundamental ignorance for how the system works and then seem to complain when they lose. I wish I didn't have to write that, but it's the truth.
It sounds like sour grapes, but democrats are losing seats they normally lose by 15-35 points, and now only losing them by 3-7 points.

That may sound like a hollow victory, but if democrats can keep up that momentum and energy, then a lot of GOP seats that the GOP won by <20 points in 2014 and 2016 will be up for grabs in the house.

If all the democrats do is flip all the seats that cook rates as D+ or even that are currently held by republicans, and the democrats win all the R+1 and R+2 seats, that alone gives the democrats the house back. There are 25 seats that fit that description. 8 that are D+, 4 that are even, 6 that are R+1, 7 that are R+2.

Georgia's 6th is R+8, South Carolinas 5th is R+9, Montana is R+11, Kansas's 4th is R+15.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_P...ional_district

The democrats weren't too competitive in Montana or Kansas where they lost by 7, but they only lost by 3-4 in Georgia or South Carolina. So if you assume the democrats have the advantage in every race that is R+4, that means about 45 seats look like realistic pickups.

2018 and 2020 look like good years for the dems, but I fully expect the public to hand the house back to the GOP in 2022. Sadly. But at least Trumps agenda can be blocked starting in 2019 if the dems win the house.

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 06-21-2017 at 11:21 PM.
  #33  
Old 07-03-2017, 12:44 AM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 14,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

Chelsea! Chelsea! Chelsea!

Somebody has to be willing to lead the Democrat Party into 2020. It might as well be her. She already has the name recognition thing going for her.
Chelsea Manning won't be 35 in 2020, and has no experience in office.

Chelsea Clinton also has no experience in office, and if the party continues to be a Clinton-owned operation, well, her mom probably won't be dead yet.
  #34  
Old 07-03-2017, 12:50 AM
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,213
Is this really something that can be planned out this far in advance? In 2013 the Republicans were still holding "autopsies" and declaring that the party must moderate on immigration and attract non-white voters to ever win anything ever again.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 07-03-2017 at 12:50 AM.
  #35  
Old 07-03-2017, 03:03 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,798
While they can't plan everything this far in advance, the Democratic Party can do everything possible to eliminate the ridiculously undemocratic caucuses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #36  
Old 07-03-2017, 04:05 PM
pjacks pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
While they can't plan everything this far in advance, the Democratic Party can do everything possible to eliminate the ridiculously undemocratic caucuses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe they can hold an actual primary next time instead of a coronation?

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
  #37  
Old 07-04-2017, 12:37 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 34,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
Maybe they can hold an actual primary next time instead of a coronation?
They did.
  #38  
Old 07-04-2017, 12:55 AM
pjacks pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
They did.
Yeah, the DNC's chosen candidate vs. someone who wasn't even a democrat. Really cute political theatre.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
  #39  
Old 07-04-2017, 01:17 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 34,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
Yeah, the DNC's chosen candidate vs. someone who wasn't even a democrat. Really cute political theatre.
Anyone could have run. In fact quite a few did. Six, in all.

Hillary got the most votes.
  #40  
Old 07-04-2017, 10:36 AM
pjacks pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 80
Pleeaase, half of them dropped out before a single vote was cast. One dropped out right after Iowa.

And what a collection of the best & brightest the party had to offer! Truly top-tier Democrats.

Or maybe the Clintons convinced the party that it was Hillary's turn & everyone else of note knew to stay away. So yes, Hillary got the most votes against a 70-year old self-described socialist who looks & sounds 90. The fact that she managed to get only 55% of the vote even against one candidate who wasn't even a democrat should illuminate why she was a horrible choice to lead the party.

If the field was full of decent pols, HRC couldn't win. Biden, Gillibrand, Franken, etc... If truly no one else deserved the nomination but HRC, like some democrats think, then maybe the party is too far-gone to be saved.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
  #41  
Old 07-04-2017, 11:42 AM
Blank Slate Blank Slate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,066
Money. Hillary had gobs of it. That's why nobody wanted to go up against her.
  #42  
Old 07-04-2017, 12:53 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 34,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
Money. Hillary had gobs of it. That's why nobody wanted to go up against her.
and polling. No one else besides Biden, Sanders and O'Mally could make the needle even budge. Webb and Chafee both withdrew after consistently polling below 2%. And Sanders fought hard and made it a real race.
  #43  
Old 07-04-2017, 01:00 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,798
Democratic Game Plan For 2020.

But Sanders really didn't make it a real race. There are no winner take all states for the Democrats. The few states where Sanders won big had a tiny amount of delegates. Sanders was way behind the 8 ball after Super Tuesday and after New York, he didn't even have a Hail Mary (even trying to ambush the Pope couldn't give him Divine Intervention!)

Last edited by dalej42; 07-04-2017 at 01:03 PM.
  #44  
Old 07-08-2017, 07:17 AM
Silver lining Silver lining is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
It sounds like sour grapes, but democrats are losing seats they normally lose by 15-35 points, and now only losing them by 3-7 points.

That may sound like a hollow victory, but if democrats can keep up that momentum and energy, then a lot of GOP seats that the GOP won by <20 points in 2014 and 2016 will be up for grabs in the house.

If all the democrats do is flip all the seats that cook rates as D+ or even that are currently held by republicans, and the democrats win all the R+1 and R+2 seats, that alone gives the democrats the house back. There are 25 seats that fit that description. 8 that are D+, 4 that are even, 6 that are R+1, 7 that are R+2.

Georgia's 6th is R+8, South Carolinas 5th is R+9, Montana is R+11, Kansas's 4th is R+15.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_P...ional_district

The democrats weren't too competitive in Montana or Kansas where they lost by 7, but they only lost by 3-4 in Georgia or South Carolina. So if you assume the democrats have the advantage in every race that is R+4, that means about 45 seats look like realistic pickups.

2018 and 2020 look like good years for the dems, but I fully expect the public to hand the house back to the GOP in 2022. Sadly. But at least Trumps agenda can be blocked starting in 2019 if the dems win the house.
Wes,

The Democrats lost over 1,000 seats ( Federal, State, and Local ) while Obama was president. They were 0-4 in special elections even with pouring the record amount of money in the contests, a strategy that can;t be duplicated in a general election year.

Losing by 3-4 % is still a lot when you consider how unpopular Trump...according to the media, and polls, which are using unfair coverage, sometimes fake news, and antiquated polling data.

I assure you 2018 will be tough on the Dem's, particularly in the Senate as they defend more seats in some red states. I just hope there is not a super majority in the Senate, not because I don't think the Republicans are right on some issues, but because it would not be good for our nation.
  #45  
Old 07-08-2017, 08:06 AM
Blank Slate Blank Slate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think there's still a place for the electoral college vote. Most of the country's population is highly concentrated in geographically smaller areas, but the population is spread out over the entire land mass. I think the EC is the right balance between voters of various interests...
What it accomplishes is giving some voters more power than others. It's disenfranchisement by degree.

Regional interests are served locally, yet all Governors are elected by popular vote. The president is elected to serve all the people. The electoral college exists to subvert the will of the people. It should have never happened in the first place.
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 09:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.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.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017