Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-18-2019, 04:57 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not once the Senate finds him "not guilty".
They can just run out the clock, constantly having investigations and releasing the results to the press or sending the DOJ to investigate to lower his favoribility ratings.

I don't know if there is a time limit on when the senate has to convict. If the democrats just impeach and don't actually vote for it to go to the senate, thats fine by me.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #52  
Old 07-18-2019, 05:19 PM
kayT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,149
I'm surprised you don't all recognize that the reason Hillary lost is that she's a woman. This country was not and is not ready for a woman to be president, especially a tough (read abrasive) woman. And right now, bump is right in post 26 that the dems have no coherent message and no reason for anyone to vote for any of the dozens of candidates who have a D after their names. I am a Dem and a woman and I find myself having to agree that the only one of the sorry lot that has a chance to beat Trump is Biden. How sorry is that? I am probably going to have to hold my nose and go to the polls and vote for him (if I'm lucky). Too bad some of the dems didn't do that for Hillary last time but water under the bridge. How can we get them to do it this time? GET SERIOUS. Pick a damn leader and get behind them.
  #53  
Old 07-18-2019, 05:26 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
I'm surprised you don't all recognize that the reason Hillary lost is that she's a woman. .....
Oh, this is a recurring theme in my household, going on three years. One reason I once would have rather seen Cory Booker over Kamala Harris, say, and still lean toward Biden now (much as I like Warren's positions and determination).

Last edited by JKellyMap; 07-18-2019 at 05:26 PM.
  #54  
Old 07-18-2019, 05:36 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
I'm surprised you don't all recognize that the reason Hillary lost is that she's a woman. This country was not and is not ready for a woman to be president, especially a tough (read abrasive) woman. And right now, bump is right in post 26 that the dems have no coherent message and no reason for anyone to vote for any of the dozens of candidates who have a D after their names. I am a Dem and a woman and I find myself having to agree that the only one of the sorry lot that has a chance to beat Trump is Biden. How sorry is that? I am probably going to have to hold my nose and go to the polls and vote for him (if I'm lucky). Too bad some of the dems didn't do that for Hillary last time but water under the bridge. How can we get them to do it this time? GET SERIOUS. Pick a damn leader and get behind them.
I dont think that was critical, but yes, it was a factor.

Biden can whip trump, and trump know it.
  #55  
Old 07-18-2019, 05:38 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,430
I think the ground game is overlooked in importance. If your voter registration was destroyed by a Republican operative, if you don't know that your precinct moved or you can't get there, if you were purged from the voter rolls, then your vote isn't going to count. Democrats need to aggressively canvass the inner cities. Get volunteers from every block to go up and down with voter registration forms and copies of the current voter rolls in hand. Find out if people are registered and if they aren't get their registration card filled out and make sure they get to the proper place. For those that need photo ID, help them get through the hoops to get the proper ID.

Spend the money where it does the most good- the brown states in this map. Everything else we can pencil in the results right now.

And as important as the presidential race is, it's only a half victory if McTurtle still controls the Senate. Put money in the brown states here. Yes, if Roy Moore gets nominated again, AL will be in play. We can get Susan Collins and Joni Ernst.

Finally, get the message out how electing a Democrat will make a difference in the lives of ordinary people. Run against the tariffs, the dismantling of health care, the huge tax cuts to the rich, the environmental destruction wrought by Republicans. Let Lil' Donnie throw his little tantrums. Stop giving him the time of day.
  #56  
Old 07-18-2019, 05:45 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If they get a progressive, the moderates will stay home, which is far worse.



The progressives will have to be happy with getting a solid progressive platform. If they arent happy with that, and stay home because it's Biden, then they deserve trump.
I think relying on moderates is a poor strategy. Democrats win when democratic voters are excited. Looking back at pres elections we won, it was when our candidate excited Democratic voters.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #57  
Old 07-18-2019, 05:50 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think relying on moderates is a poor strategy. Democrats win when democratic voters are excited. Looking back at pres elections we won, it was when our candidate excited Democratic voters.
Dems win when the vote gets out, but the most radical presidential Dem candidates have always lost by a landslide.

Radial agendas only excite the radicals.
  #58  
Old 07-18-2019, 06:13 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
  • Try to reduce the visibility of AOC, Omar, Tlaib - 'the Squad' - as much as possible. They are deeply unpopular. Pelosi is more mainstream, let her be the leader.
Among "likely general-election voters who are white and have two years or less of college education". You know, the Fox News demographic. If they DIDN'T think poorly of "the squad", I'd wonder how Fox was fucking up so badly. Even with THAT caveat, AOC is more popular than Congress as a whole. Among that SAME group, Biden (you know, the moderate one) is getting demolished by 20 points against Trump.

Quote:
  • Run on a platform of "return to the normal good old days of Obama" - with "respectability, normalcy and dignity" being emphasized over and over again.
This makes sense.

Quote:
  • Stop pushing the "privilege" issue. It is inherently divisive. There is no way you can say "X has privilege, Y does not" without it starting an X vs. Y resentment. The very nature of that sort of talk serves to divide and aggravate.
This is a non-issue on the national stage. What small parts are being played here are massively magnified by right-wing propaganda like PJ Media and Breitbart.
  #59  
Old 07-18-2019, 06:29 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think relying on moderates is a poor strategy. Democrats win when democratic voters are excited. Looking back at pres elections we won, it was when our candidate excited Democratic voters.
You could look at it the other way and say the GOP were down in the dumps in those elections.

1976 - Carter beats the Republican President who pardoned Nixon by 2% of the vote
1992 - Clinton beats the Republican President who broke his promise of no new taxes, oversaw a recession, and had a third party candidate hitting hard on populist ideas towards free trade and the national debt
2008 - Obama beats a Republican candidate who could not and did not want to use the record of the Republican president in office because it was a massive hindrance rather than a help.

The democrats nearly lost an election the republicans had no right to win post watergate in '76. 20 million people opposed Bush and Clinton in '92. Bush Jr had a disastrous presidency culminating in approval ratings in the 20s so the democrats should have won in 2008 off the back of his unpopularity.
  #60  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:50 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
We'll see. This is all guessing, basically. There's nothing we can do to broadly change the party's approach. I think focusing on turnout is the answer, but I could be wrong -- there's no way to prove it either way until after the fact. We'll find out in a little over a year.
  #61  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:16 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
I'm surprised you don't all recognize that the reason Hillary lost is that she's a woman. This country was not and is not ready for a woman to be president, especially a tough (read abrasive) woman. And right now, bump is right in post 26 that the dems have no coherent message and no reason for anyone to vote for any of the dozens of candidates who have a D after their names. I am a Dem and a woman and I find myself having to agree that the only one of the sorry lot that has a chance to beat Trump is Biden. How sorry is that? I am probably going to have to hold my nose and go to the polls and vote for him (if I'm lucky). Too bad some of the dems didn't do that for Hillary last time but water under the bridge. How can we get them to do it this time? GET SERIOUS. Pick a damn leader and get behind them.
I agree that Biden does have some perks. As a white man who can be kind of crude, he isn't threatening to whites w/o a college degree the same way a woman or non-white would be.

Plus he has the name recognition and he is associated with the Obama years.

But Hillary did win 66 million votes. She just lost 80,000 in three midwestern states. And she was running for a third democratic term, its not common for one part to control the white house for 3 terms in a row. Democrats don't need to win high school educated whites, but if we can lose them by 30 points (a 65-35 loss) rather than a 40 point loss (70-30), then that will make winning much easier.

So we'd have to find that 5% of high school educated whites who voted for Trump but would be willing to vote democratic.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 07-18-2019 at 08:17 PM.
  #62  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:51 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,822
1) Stop trying to play the game of stealing elections with electronic vote counting. You've lost that game. Get on board with hand-counted paper ballots, everywhere.
(Oh, and you should have done this ten years ago, and you didn't, and it's already too late, so it's possible that everything else I say is meaningless and you will lose.)

2) Go populist, not racist but lower-economic class populist, hard. Your best candidate is Bernie Sanders. Give people a leader who represents hope for the little guy.
(But the actual presidential candidate, while important, is less important than the next point.)

3) Go for a progressive Congressional majority.
. 3a) Yes, progressive.
. 3b) Yes, majority.
You put economic progressives up in every district, even ones you have "no hope" of winning. You'll get a few just because you showed you gave a damn. They don't have to be "Justice Dems," but they do have to be more "New Deal" than "Democratic Leadership Council." This will drag the White House along, even if the next prez is Amy Klobuchar or something.

4) (Optional but you should do it anyway.) Have a funeral for the name "Democratic Party" and come up with a new name. The Democratic Party tore itself apart in 2016. It's dead now. Be the "Progressive Party" or something. Also, Howard Schultz is not invited.
  #63  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:58 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,822
And here's some shockingly bad advice:
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Nominate Joe Biden right now. Right. fucking. now. Screw the debates. Forget the DNC convention bullshit. Just throw all the support behind JB. Joe may not be the democrat we want, but he's the democrat we need right now. Sorry, Liz. Sorry, Pete. It was never going to be you, Kamala. Or you, Bernie. You'll all be getting a call for senior cabinet positions. Thanks for coming out and please don't forget to validate your parking stubs.
Joe Biden has said that he's going to cure cancer. Not fix climate change, which is more necessary and mostly doable, but cure cancer, because he thinks it's 1979 and that somehow that's still what we're afraid of.

Joe Biden trotted out "If you like your insurance you can keep it," after that infamously blew up in Obama's face.

Biden won't get through the primary unless Democrats are super-dumb, and he won't get through the general if this is his spiel.

And in any case, if Berniecrats were mad about Hillary sewing up the nomination, how do you think they will respond to Biden getting named before a single primary?

Last edited by foolsguinea; 07-18-2019 at 09:01 PM.
  #64  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:58 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That would ensure a trump re-election.
How so?
  #65  
Old 07-18-2019, 09:05 PM
bionic_man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 66
Biden been around years as a politician lets the dnc break in a new face..
  #66  
Old 07-18-2019, 09:13 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Try to reduce the visibility of AOC, Omar, Tlaib - 'the Squad' - as much as possible. They are deeply unpopular.
Of course, they're unpopular. They've said horrible things about America, like

Quote:
Politicians prospered but the jobs left
Quote:
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs.
Quote:
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

Everyone is listening to you now.
Quote:
At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.
Quote:
But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities
Oh, wait. Those are all quotes from Donald Trump's Inaugural Address. My mistake
  #67  
Old 07-18-2019, 09:31 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Hillary lost because she lost the northern Midwest. So a candidate who does well there.
*snipped*
How to do that? I don't know.
A demographic you left off...union voters. Clinton's margins with the demographic were way down in those states. She even lost the union household vote in Ohio. Nationwide they aren't a key demographic but regionally they are still huge in the general election. It's hard to win those northern midwest states without winning strongly among them. Clinton didn't.
  #68  
Old 07-18-2019, 09:38 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
A demographic you left off...union voters. Clinton's margins with the demographic were way down in those states. She even lost the union household vote in Ohio. Nationwide they aren't a key demographic but regionally they are still huge in the general election. It's hard to win those northern midwest states without winning strongly among them. Clinton didn't.
Clinton didn't lie to them and tell them, like trump did, that he'd get them their factory jobs back. After four years and the factory jobs arent back, those people wont be happy and wont believe those lies again.
  #69  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:58 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,822
My take on this is going to be controversial, but I do think there's some truth to it:

Don't assume that union & working-class voters will see the light and dump Trump. They are likely to, but there is a wrinkle: While they've been sold out by both parties, Trump courted them and the Clintons didn't.

I expect a large chunk of union voters won't want to vote for a Clinton, nor someone like a Clinton, nor someone with ties to the Clintons. Ross Perot was a brittle weirdo, but his protectionism was appealing. By comparison, Bill & Hillary were seen as betrayers by labor voters.

So you don't want a Clinton Democrat, which means, to play it safe, you should be leery of an Obama Democrat, anyone with an Ivy League degree, or anyone who ever worked for Hillary. (Elizabeth Warren has an interesting problem here: Is she going to run as someone who got burned by Clinton & Obama. which she can? Or as the conciliatory unifier who works with moderates, as she seems inclined to do now?)

Why do you think Pete Buttigieg is a thing? The moderates were trying to find someone young & obscure enough that he'd never worked for Hillary & gotten her stink on him.
  #70  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:01 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
....
Don't assume that union & working-class voters will see the light and dump Trump. They are likely to, but there is a wrinkle: While they've been sold out by both parties, Trump courted them and the Clintons didn't.

I expect a large chunk of union voters won't want to vote for a Clinton, nor someone like a Clinton, nor someone with ties to the Clintons. ....

So you don't want a Clinton Democrat, which means, to play it safe, you should be leery of an Obama Democrat, anyone with an Ivy League degree, or anyone who ever worked for Hillary.
Biden is very popular with the rust belt and Unions. And they came out to vote for Obama.
  #71  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:12 PM
wolfman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 10,878
Will you all pull your heads out of your asses? The problem was Clinton, pure and simple. People hated her, swore that they would never vote for her because, She never did a damn thing except try to usurp power as first lady, and killed the healthcare reform effort of the 80s as a drama queen. The moderates of the country spent 25 years telling you they would never ever vote for her under any circumstances on principle. But you all refuse to accept that your responsibility as dumabasses putting her on the ballot is what got Trump elected. For fuck sake.

So many people were so confident in the poll numbers, that she had it without question,
they decided that as much as they hated Trump, they would be safe to not have to not dirty their hands voting for the corruption of democracy that Hillary was. Trump would not have won a re-vote on 11/09/2016, let alone in 2020. Stop stressing, FULL STOP Trump cannot win, FULL STOP and the GOP knows this. Unless people panic.

Last edited by wolfman; 07-18-2019 at 11:14 PM.
  #72  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:22 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post
Will you all pull your heads out of your asses? The problem was Clinton, pure and simple. People hated her, swore that they would never vote for her because, She never did a damn thing except try to usurp power as first lady, and killed the healthcare reform effort of the 80s as a drama queen. The moderates of the country spent 25 years telling you they would never ever vote for her under any circumstances on principle. ...
So many people were so confident in the poll numbers, that she had it without question,
they decided that as much as they hated Trump, they would be safe to not have to not dirty their hands voting for the corruption of democracy that Hillary was. ....
You know, most of this is false. First of all, Hilary wasnt hated while she was Secy of state. Not until the bernie bros, the GOP and the kremlin started posting shit about her 24/7/265.

And the moderates did vote for her, in droves, both during the primary and the general elections.

But yes, you are right, that the poll numbers did convince many to not vote for her.
  #73  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:39 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post
...and killed the healthcare reform effort of the 80s as a drama queen.
What "healthcare reform effort of the 80s" are you referring to?
  #74  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:40 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,822
I don't know that "moderates" is the right word, but there were some of us who hated being put into the position of having to vote the Clintons back into the White House. Bill was not really a good leader for the Democratic Party, and the 1990's were a rough time in some ways. A Hillary presidency would have been a lot of fun for the National Enquirer, and probably not that much fun for the rest of the party.
  #75  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:42 PM
sweepkick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 485
I really wish we could get this Joe Biden back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1op8vwF5UA
  #76  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:25 AM
wolfman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 10,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
What "healthcare reform effort of the 80s" are you referring to?
The On that Ted Kennedy spent his life's work and personal and political capital on.
  #77  
Old 07-19-2019, 08:13 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
I don't know that "moderates" is the right word, but there were some of us who hated being put into the position of having to vote the Clintons back into the White House.
Exactly. I mean, I did NOT like Trump, but it also galled me that the other choice was Hillary Clinton.
  #78  
Old 07-19-2019, 08:43 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You know, most of this is false. First of all, Hilary wasnt hated while she was Secy of state. Not until the bernie bros, the GOP and the kremlin started posting shit about her 24/7/265.
Oh, she was certainly hated while First Lady, too - remember the GOP-fed hysteria about Hillarycare? Or anything else from Scaife's Arkansas Project?
  #79  
Old 07-19-2019, 09:15 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
who was the last incumbent to lose with a good economy? Over 100 years ago? LBJ probably would have lost if he ran in 68 but Vietnam was the big issue then.
  #80  
Old 07-19-2019, 09:20 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,181
This election is going to be won by the party which can mobilise its base more effectively.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #81  
Old 07-19-2019, 09:41 AM
storyteller0910 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Jersey (it's not as bad as they tell you)
Posts: 4,416
An IRL friend noted that the absolute surest way to guarantee that Donald Trump won't be re-elected would be for Mitt Romney to have an attack of conscience and run as an independent. I suspect that would work. Anything else? Who knows. I gave up on trying to understand how people vote in November 2016.
  #82  
Old 07-19-2019, 09:51 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Oh, she was certainly hated while First Lady, too - remember the GOP-fed hysteria about Hillarycare?
Mostly what I remember was a lot of "WTF does she think she's doing? She's the First Lady, not the President or even a member of Congress. She has no business being involved with the business of governing."

It wasn't personal hatred- nobody really knew her in 1993, but it sure put a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.
  #83  
Old 07-19-2019, 10:04 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Mostly what I remember was a lot of "WTF does she think she's doing? She's the First Lady, not the President or even a member of Congress. She has no business being involved with the business of governing."

It wasn't personal hatred- nobody really knew her in 1993, but it sure put a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.
How does it taste in the Trump era?
  #84  
Old 07-19-2019, 10:18 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post
Will you all pull your heads out of your asses? The problem was Clinton, pure and simple. People hated her, swore that they would never vote for her because, She never did a damn thing except try to usurp power as first lady, and killed the healthcare reform effort of the 80s as a drama queen. The moderates of the country spent 25 years telling you they would never ever vote for her under any circumstances on principle. But you all refuse to accept that your responsibility as dumabasses putting her on the ballot is what got Trump elected. For fuck sake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
What "healthcare reform effort of the 80s" are you referring to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post
The On that Ted Kennedy spent his life's work and personal and political capital on.
Per this link, Ted Kennedy began his "long campaign for national health insurance" in 1971. This effort continued through the '80s, '90s, and '00s.

I know Hillary Clinton championed universal health care after her husband was elected President in 1993 (and chaired a health care reform task force), but it seems unfair and disingenuous to blame the failure of the 1993 plan completely on her. The plan was ultimately killed by strident opposition from "conservatives, libertarians, and the health insurance industry." Similar opposition prevented Ted Kennedy from ever getting universal health care passed during his lifetime, although he was able to lay some of the groundwork for the legislation that became the ACA.

As for your main point, you do realize that the reason why Hillary Clinton was supposedly so unpopular with so-called moderates and independents was because Republicans spent 25 years demonizing her. She surely made some missteps in her career, but she never deserved all the vitriol that was and continues to be directed her way.

Heck, I'm a moderate who disliked her in the '90s (because the demonization of her apparently worked on me at the time), but my opinion of her was greatly improved by her performance as a senator and Secretary of State, and I enthusiastically voted for her for President in 2016.
  #85  
Old 07-19-2019, 10:52 AM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emily Litella View Post
Because nominating a neo-liberal centrist worked out so gloriously well in 2016?
Hillary lost not because of her policies, but because she was deeply hated by a significant portion of the electorate. It was her personality, not her politics. The leftist echo chamber around here gives a skewed version of reality.

To win, you need a candidate that appeals to moderates and independents. You can safely ignore the progressives...they ain't gonna vote GOP no matter what. Pushing gun control will cost you. Avoid the abortion debate to the extent possible.

Or...on a completely different tact...make sure whoever you nominate is squeaky clean, then make the election all about character. We need an honorable person in the White House, and we damn sure do not have one now.
  #86  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:04 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,881
A few thoughts:

Trump barely won against Clinton primarily as a protest candidate against politics as usual with the understanding that he wouldn't win so voters could safely vote for him or stay home. That attitude changed November 7th 2016. I don't think there is a Liberal alive in the US who isn't motivated to vote against Trump. All thing being equal, there is no reason that A Democratic candidate shouldn't win handily.

The key being "all things being equal". With a thoroughly partisan Department of justice, a Federal Election Commission that is gridlocked to irrelevancy, and a Republican Party that sees Democracy as a hindrance to their political goals, we should expect that there will be wide spread attempts to do use every dirty trick in the book to prevent Democrats from voting, or from counting when they do vote. These efforts need to be identified and countered as quickly as possible, and also publicized as evidence of the anti-democratic nature of the Republican party.

Which brings us to my third point. I am going to go counter to conventional wisdom and say that after the primaries Democrats should not concentrate on a clear positive message for what policies they will bring to the country. Policies are by their nature complicated and imperfect. Any realistic policy will include pluses and minuses. Republicans will find those minuses and focus all attention on what they are. So that instead of being the anti-global warming candidate, the Dem will be the the pro high gas price candidate. You can try to argue back and forth about which is true and which is a bigger problem but it ends up being at best a draw. 2016 showed that empty promises with no details are just as good if not better than complicated policies, but that the real vote getter is fear. People vote with their amygdala, not their cerebral cortex.

I would recommend concentrating on the president's corruption, lies, contempt for any checks and balances, and autocratic tendencies. Make it clear that what Trump has been normalizing is anything but normal and that if we continue down this road, we may go past the point of no return. It is easy to cobble together the statements that Trump as made to indicate that he wouldn't be satisfied with just two terms. We want to leave the impression that the 2020 election is all that stands between us and the world of the man in the high castle.
  #87  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:11 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
To win, you need a candidate that appeals to moderates and independents. You can safely ignore the progressives...they ain't gonna vote GOP no matter what. Pushing gun control will cost you. Avoid the abortion debate to the extent possible.
This is not how elections work. In reality, few voters vote for presidents from different parties and those who do are, as a category, the lowest-information voters--so a candidate's policy positioning doesn't really affect them.

The correct analysis is not about swing, it is about turn-out. For the relatively small fraction of voters for whom policy positioning matters, going to the left gets better turnout among the left and going to the center gets better turnout from the center-left.

The question, of course, is which positioning as between the two gets better turn-out, and that isn't answerable a priori. More to the point, since policy positioning is less important than other candidate variables (like insider-outsider, demographics, media coverage), it makes little sense to try to argue electability based on policy positioning.

Last edited by Richard Parker; 07-19-2019 at 11:12 AM.
  #88  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:20 AM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
This is not how elections work. In reality, few voters vote for presidents from different parties and those who do are, as a category, the lowest-information voters--so a candidate's policy positioning doesn't really affect them.

The correct analysis is not about swing, it is about turn-out. For the relatively small fraction of voters for whom policy positioning matters, going to the left gets better turnout among the left and going to the center gets better turnout from the center-left.

The question, of course, is which positioning as between the two gets better turn-out, and that isn't answerable a priori. More to the point, since policy positioning is less important than other candidate variables (like insider-outsider, demographics, media coverage), it makes little sense to try to argue electability based on policy positioning.
Bullshit. You nominate AOC or another of her ilk, and you'll make the Reagan-Mondale election look like a real squeaker. Trump will win in a landslide. All that radical leftist/socialist/progressive crap just doesn't fly with mainstream America. Ivory tower liberals always forget they they are the fringe elements.
  #89  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:25 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Bullshit. You nominate AOC or another of her ilk, and you'll make the Reagan-Mondale election look like a real squeaker. Trump will win in a landslide. All that radical leftist/socialist/progressive crap just doesn't fly with mainstream America. Ivory tower liberals always forget they they are the fringe elements.
Somehow this analysis works with supposedly far-left Democrats (AOC isn't 35 yet so couldn't run), but not with demonstrably far-right Republicans like Trump. Trump turned out people who hadn't voted much recently, and Hillary didn't excite progressives and thus many of them stayed home. The relative extreme (racist/misogynist/etc.) won in 2016 over the relative moderate.

I see no reason why this should be considered any better than a guess. There are millions of progressives who didn't vote in 2016. Getting them to vote should be the primary mission of the Democratic primary.
  #90  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:36 AM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Somehow this analysis works with supposedly far-left Democrats (AOC isn't 35 yet so couldn't run), but not with demonstrably far-right Republicans like Trump. Trump turned out people who hadn't voted much recently, and Hillary didn't excite progressives and thus many of them stayed home. The relative extreme (racist/misogynist/etc.) won in 2016 over the relative moderate.

I see no reason why this should be considered any better than a guess. There are millions of progressives who didn't vote in 2016. Getting them to vote should be the primary mission of the Democratic primary.
The difference being that Trump's rhetoric is disgustingly popular with unfortunately large numbers of people that 1) Vote and 2) Give him money.

In my state, all of the GOP candidates except one are running how how deeply they've taken Trump's cock. Dude might be bigger than Jesus down here, at least during the runup to the election. The GOP candidate that isn't sucking Trump cock is the subject of an attack ad, where his opponent outlines how the candidate dared to not support Trump until after the convention, and even after that just wasn't goosestepping high enough. Makes me wanna puke.

Last edited by Oakminster; 07-19-2019 at 11:37 AM.
  #91  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:46 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,137
Let's approach this from the opposite end. How can they NOT win it?!

First of all, they DID win in 2016, even with a very unpopular candidate, but the Electoral College which, by its very definition, is an UNdemocratic entity, defeated the popular majority of voters.

Secondly, we've had two years to observe the dragon rear it's head and display itself in all of its misogynist, racist and hateful glory.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #92  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:53 AM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not once the Senate finds him "not guilty".
Amen, Brother.
  #93  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:54 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
I'm not talking about candidate preference, I'm talking about winning. Biden v. Trump is a rerun of a contest we already lost. Doing it again and thinking it'll work this time is madness.
A lot of people seem to be say this thinking that because Biden and Hillary might have comparable positions on the issues that that makes Biden himself and Hillary herself comparable. It doesn't, and they're not. trump is going to do his stupid schtick no matter who the Dems nominate, but Hillary was uniquely vulnerable to it since the entire weight of the Republican smear machine (gee, dare we call it a vast right-wing conspiracy) had been focused on her since before her husband had even been elected President. (That's 25 years folks.) And, in what passes for logic amongst our friends on the right, the fact that she was still "at large" after all that time did not constitute proof of innocence, but rather proof of the depths of her guilt. So stop it with the Biden=Hillary 2.0 crap. Biden is not Hillary. Biden is Biden and there's good and bad along with that, but we all deserve the chance to be considered in our own right and not through the fun-house mirror of somebody else's issues.
  #94  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:59 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
The difference being that Trump's rhetoric is disgustingly popular with unfortunately large numbers of people that 1) Vote and 2) Give him money.
Those may well be true with a charismatic relative leftist in the Democratic party too -- we just don't know, because we haven't nominated Bernie or someone like him. You don't know, and neither do I.

Quote:
In my state, all of the GOP candidates except one are running how how deeply they've taken Trump's cock. Dude might be bigger than Jesus down here, at least during the runup to the election. The GOP candidate that isn't sucking Trump cock is the subject of an attack ad, where his opponent outlines how the candidate dared to not support Trump until after the convention, and even after that just wasn't goosestepping high enough. Makes me wanna puke.
It is indeed vomit-inducing.
  #95  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:01 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Hillary lost not because of her policies, but because she was deeply hated by a significant portion of the electorate. It was her personality, not her politics. The leftist echo chamber around here gives a skewed version of reality.
If we want to peel off the hard core Hillary haters, we should run Elizabeth Warren, and point out that electing Warren president would be the ultimate insult to Clinton. It would demonstrate conclusively that she didn't lose for being too liberal, or old, or female. She lost because people just. Don't. Like. Her.
  #96  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:04 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,565
How can the Democrats win the election?

I used to naively believe that the strategy should simply be to get more votes, but that shit don't fly.
  #97  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:07 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
How does it taste in the Trump era?
Still bad, but not as bad as Trump.
  #98  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:43 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
A lot of people seem to be say this thinking that because Biden and Hillary might have comparable positions on the issues that that makes Biden himself and Hillary herself comparable. It doesn't, and they're not. ...
All very much true. I'll take it even a step farther - run last election same exact turnout and shares per demographic segment, with 2020 demographic numbers, and you'd have a D in the White House.

A D nominee who does exactly the same as HRC did per group would in fact win in 2020.


But no one running is HRC and people trying to say that her loss proves that someone with her positions can't win, or with her establishment cred can't win, or her gender, or whatever ... is being very foolish. A different woman can win, a different person of the same policies can win ... or lose ... but based on their own strengths and weaknesses, how they appeal to and repel various segments of the voting public, and how well their own campaigns are executed.

You win by getting more votes ... where you need them on election day. You lose by less than before in the demographics you lose and win by more with more turnout in the demographics you win, again, where you need them.

You get Obama level turnout and share of Black voters and/or only lose by his level of loss with white working class voters and/or get unprecedented ahistoric turnout of younger progressive voters. Hit any of them and you likely win the states you need to win. Hit more than one and it is a blowout. Hit them all and it is a mandate level election with Senate winning coat tails.

Ignore none of them.
  #99  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:49 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
How can the Democrats win the election?

I used to naively believe that the strategy should simply be to get more votes, but that shit don't fly.
Yep, because of the EC you have to be sure you get the most votes in the right places. David Axelrod understood that in 2008 and 2012. I'm pretty sure no one in HRC's campaign understood it.

Axelrod was responsible for making the main theme of Obama's first campaign "change". He knew that being seen as a Washington insider was a big negative with the public. This is still an issue today and is part of why DJT was able to win in states everyone, including Hillary, thought would go to the Democrats. Bernie was also seen as an agent of change in 2016 which is what attracted people who wouldn't normally be drawn to a candidate so far to the left. I also think the desire for major change explains some of the popularity of a candidate like Buttigieg.

I'm not so much concerned with the Democrats picking a nominee who is a centrist, moderate, progressive or leftist as I am with them choosing someone who will be able to credibly run as an agent of change, get people excited and to the polls, particulary in the states needed to get a majority in the Electoral College.

I'm not sure any of the Democrats seem to really get this. Bernie is a deeply flawed candidate and I don't see how Biden can credibly make the argument he would be an agent of change given how "inside" he has been for decades.

Until one of the others is able to connect with voters on this level I will continue to think it more likely than not that DJT will be reelected.
  #100  
Old 07-19-2019, 01:40 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Oh, she was certainly hated while First Lady, too - remember the GOP-fed hysteria about Hillarycare? Or anything else from Scaife's Arkansas Project?
Sure, by the far right, who hate all "demon-rats". But her numbers were fairly good until the attacks came when she was the obvious candidate.
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 04:29 AM.

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