Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 07-19-2019, 01:44 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,551
Kolak,

Agreed that Sanders succeeded in cementing Clinton as antithetical to "change" and that Trump was a much of a change as one could get ... albeit no one really knew what that change would be.

So now Trump is what is in place and change is not-Trump. A D cannot let Trump place himself as a change agent after being in office for nearly a term. He's made his changes and this is what they are: the swamp is deeper and stinkier; discord and division are the order of the day; farmers are only staying afloat on government handouts as Trump's incompetence has destroyed the trade they require; our long time alliances are fracturing; our water, air, and food are not as safe; healthcare is at risk for more and more; the richest are hoarding more more of the wealth and the power.

Trumpism is the government norm now and it has delivered the above. The Democrat runs to change from that. To deliver this change: a government that tries to be the government of us all and that helps us all have each others' backs with decency not reality TV snark, one that actually gets shit done for the good of us all.

I am not so sure that progressive or center-left is the dimension that captures being able to make that argument well. It requires being believed as someone who says what they mean, who is felt to be a decent person, who can make those of diverse identities feel that they care and understand them and their issues, and is a clear contrast to Trump. Biden can make that argument. But if he proves in the debates that he does not have the campaigning skill to do it, I think Warren can too. Sanders too one-note to pull it off. Others? Maybe.
  #102  
Old 07-19-2019, 03:27 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,960
I agree. I think at this point most voters don't necessarily want radical change, what they want is a return to sanity, decency, and honesty.
  #103  
Old 07-19-2019, 04:21 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
I agree. I think at this point most voters don't necessarily want radical change, what they want is a return to sanity, decency, and honesty.
I had the idea of having bumperstickers printed up saying "SANITY-2020", "DECENCY-2020", etc.
  #104  
Old 07-19-2019, 05:21 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,248
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.
I assume part of the appeal was that Trump pretended he'd bring their jobs back. Also Trump's dog whistles about making white America great again probably appealed to them. Plus Clinton probably reminded them of NAFTA.

I'm hoping this time around it'll be different, but the reality is the democrats don't offer much economically to people. Democrats are scared to make the rich angry, so they focus on social issues rather than economic ones. Bernie would do well with the union crowd I would assume.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
And here's some shockingly bad advice: 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?
Biden could win. If the progressive vote is split between Warren and Sanders, then Biden could soak up all the moderate and centrist democrat votes.

The % of democrats who identify as liberal keeps growing, its now at about 50%. But liberals are more politically engaged, so they may make up 55%+ of primary voters. However if their vote is split between multiple candidates while all the other <45% of the vote goes to one candidate, that one candidate wins.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #105  
Old 07-19-2019, 05:25 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,834
My thoughts:
As others have already said, the key to winning is to win the enthusiasm metric. People aghast at Trump are already motivated to vote against them, but the path to victory comes from giving them something inspiring to vote for, as well.

So:
Focus on ideas and policies that are intended to help Americans - be the party/candidate of "getting things done" for the American people (it's one of the reasons that I favor Warren so much - it is impossible to listen to her talk about plans and not come away thinking that she wants to make changes that benefit the average person and has specific ideas on how to get those changes accomplished).

Never mention the opponent - When you need to talk about the last 4 years, refer to the "vacuum of leadership" or the "lack of a leader" in America, but try to avoid saying Trump's name or talking about what he has done. The message is what you want to do going forward, with that emphasis on taking action.

Make your positive advertising similarly optimistic and oriented to programs and ideas that make the average person feel like there are things to be done to make their lives better.

When you run attack ads, make them montages of Trump's statements and behavior as President (I'd especially like to see a string of expletives and insults). While you will be on the ad saying that you 'approve of the message', that's as far as you need to go to be involved. These ads are all you'll need to remind the average decent person how despicable the leadership has been.
...
Generally, I think people want to vote for a candidate who they think cares about them. Discussing Trump and his failings doesn't get to this desire. So, make the campaign about the ideas and plans you have for the People. Trump, instead, wants to make it a mud slinging contest with people voting for their "side" instead of for improvements and expectations about everyday lives. That's why you don't go to his level; he'll whine and complain about you, distorting your message and calling it a socialist giveaway. You won't win by directly rebutting that nonsense but instead staying above it all. You want the average person to see that Trump is in the mud all by himself while the real adults talk about moving on.

If our country has any decency, and I still think it does, I think that would be enough: The stark choice between the candidate that cares enough to govern versus the reality show shock value that we are enduring.

If you engage with Trump, the risk is letting people conclude that everybody is just a character in the reality show, and since there's nothing that you can do about it you might as well vote for the entertainment value.

Last edited by Moriarty; 07-19-2019 at 05:26 PM.
  #106  
Old 07-19-2019, 06:11 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
When you run attack ads, make them montages of Trump's statements and behavior as President (I'd especially like to see a string of expletives and insults). While you will be on the ad saying that you 'approve of the message', that's as far as you need to go to be involved. These ads are all you'll need to remind the average decent person how despicable the leadership has been.
...
Hillary already did this in 2016. I don't think it achieved anything. The majority of Americans of all political orientations use expletives and insults when they're discussing people they don't like behind closed doors. The fact that Trump talked like normal average people and not like a politician was a big part of his appeal.
  #107  
Old 07-19-2019, 06:35 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
... Biden could win. If the progressive vote is split between Warren and Sanders, then Biden could soak up all the moderate and centrist democrat votes.

The % of democrats who identify as liberal keeps growing, its now at about 50%. But liberals are more politically engaged, so they may make up 55%+ of primary voters. However if their vote is split between multiple candidates while all the other <45% of the vote goes to one candidate, that one candidate wins.
You are mistaken if you think that no self-identified liberals likely to vote in the D primaries would vote for Biden. It isn't his strongest segment but in, for example, the most recent YouGov (7/14 to 16) he is tied for second with Sanders in that group at 16% (with Warren leading at 21%). Harris is next at 14%. Yes, as many liberals prefer Biden as prefer Sanders.

Imagining the highly improbable of Sanders dropping out that support would not all go to Warren. Morning Consult in fact finds that Biden leads as second choice among Sanders' supporters by a significant margin.

Still the basic concept of your point is valid. Biden is ahead because he is more widely preferred by Democrats who self-describe as moderate (and even a few as conservative).

It is interesting to see the actual views of those who self-describe as each label, and the Gallup poll that is usually cited as the source for the increase in liberal self-ID has some data on that. There is pretty good agreement between "liberal" and "moderate" Ds and even those who call themselves "conservative" on many items. All
Quote:
three groups are on the same side when it comes to beliefs that corporations and upper-income Americans pay too little in taxes and that global warming is caused by human activities. Also, all three groups support stricter gun laws, broadly approve of labor unions and want to see union influence expanded.

Additionally, despite recent discussion about the extent of Democrats' support for Israel, fewer than a third of Democrats in any of the ideological groups say they sympathize more with the Palestinians than the Israelis in the Middle East conflict.
There is slightly more divergence on doctor-assisted suicide, on whether abortion should be legal under any circumstance, embryonic stem cell research, and government-run healthcare> Some others too but more in magnitude of support than directionality (e.g.a narrow majority of moderates believe that same sex marriages should be legally valid while the majority is more sizable among those who call themselves liberal.

Gallup's take goes on
Quote:
Democrats, as a whole, are becoming more liberal, and this is seen across all subgroups.

Increased liberalism has been more pronounced among white than among black or Hispanic Democrats, and white Democrats are now majority liberal.

An increase in college education among Democrats, particularly white Democrats, may be a major contributor to the party's liberal shift.

Majorities of liberal, moderate and conservative Democrats share similar outlooks on corporate and upper-income tax rates, gun control, the human role in global warming and labor unions.

Democrats diverge by ideology on a variety of issues, such as doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, defense spending and government-run healthcare.

Taken together, these findings suggest that proposals to shrink the wealth gap, strengthen labor unions and address climate change could have broad appeal in the party.
These are issues that can drive turnout within the party across ideologies and happen to be winning issues to appeal to the swingable as well. Gallup posits that government run healthcare would suppress moderate voters but I don't think Medicare for All as an issue would be that or do that. I also don't think Medicare for All who want it as a position would suppress the progressive turnout side.

Other than that on issues where do the significant progressive and those more center Left candidates really differ much? They differ in degree that they want to aim for on a few items maybe ... but in terms of what could get done, even with a Senate majority? At all?
  #108  
Old 07-19-2019, 10:33 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,543
Trump’s Electoral College Edge Could Grow in 2020, Rewarding Polarizing Campaign

Re-election looks plausible even with a bigger loss in the national popular vote.

By Nate Cohn

Sad to see Milwaukee’s suburbs favor Trump. Bad news overall (though plenty can happen in a year-plus).
  #109  
Old 07-19-2019, 11:28 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Kolak,

Agreed that Sanders succeeded in cementing Clinton as antithetical to "change" and that Trump was a much of a change as one could get ... albeit no one really knew what that change would be.

So now Trump is what is in place and change is not-Trump. A D cannot let Trump place himself as a change agent after being in office for nearly a term. He's made his changes and this is what they are: the swamp is deeper and stinkier; discord and division are the order of the day; farmers are only staying afloat on government handouts as Trump's incompetence has destroyed the trade they require; our long time alliances are fracturing; our water, air, and food are not as safe; healthcare is at risk for more and more; the richest are hoarding more more of the wealth and the power.

Trumpism is the government norm now and it has delivered the above. The Democrat runs to change from that. To deliver this change: a government that tries to be the government of us all and that helps us all have each others' backs with decency not reality TV snark, one that actually gets shit done for the good of us all.

I am not so sure that progressive or center-left is the dimension that captures being able to make that argument well. It requires being believed as someone who says what they mean, who is felt to be a decent person, who can make those of diverse identities feel that they care and understand them and their issues, and is a clear contrast to Trump. Biden can make that argument. But if he proves in the debates that he does not have the campaigning skill to do it, I think Warren can too. Sanders too one-note to pull it off. Others? Maybe.
No serious disagreement from me on this.

I still haven't seen anyone I believe can deal with the tsunami of bullshit that will be showered on them by DJT and the GOP. Staying on message about change and how to bring it about will be difficult while responding to the BS.
  #110  
Old 07-20-2019, 01:48 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 222
The question is: why would they want to?

No matter who wins the presidency next year, McConnell will remain Senate Majority Leader. Any dem president would get absolutely nothing done, and even if Ginsburg & Breyer dropped dead during the next hypothetical Presidential term, their seats would remain vacant until a Republican names their replacements.

The Dems would of course lose the House in 2022 in this scenario, as nothing will get accomplished and Democratic voters will be demoralized and stay home on election day. There will more likely then not be a recession by that time too, and voters are piss-stupid so they will blame it on whoever is in the White House. They'd lose even more seats in the Senate, as is tradition for all first-term presidents not named Trump. Then we get another Republican president in 2024- maybe Trump will even decide to run for a non-consecutive 2nd term.

This all could've been avoided if Democrats understood power and how to wield it. After the 2008 blue tsunami, they could have made lasting changes like pushing through Puerto Rican & DC statehood, passing vote-by mail reforms in every state possible, and implementing a healthcare public option that excited the base instead of the disastrous ACA that everyone hated on all sides.

But Democrats are cowards and losers. They are banking on identity politics to save them, but it won't. Whining about racism and sexism sounds like nails on a chalkboard to anyone who isn't an urbane liberal Twitter user. I live in a mostly Latino working class neighborhood in Chicago, and the only MAGA hats I've ever seen in real life were on the heads of Hispanic guys. Think about that.

Just let Trump win. The inevitable recession in his next term will finish him off, and maybe we'll get another blue tsunami in 2022 or 2024. Hopefully by then the Democratic party will grow a spine (lol yeah right).
  #111  
Old 07-20-2019, 09:26 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Trump’s Electoral College Edge Could Grow in 2020, Rewarding Polarizing Campaign

Re-election looks plausible even with a bigger loss in the national popular vote.

By Nate Cohn

Sad to see Milwaukee’s suburbs favor Trump. Bad news overall (though plenty can happen in a year-plus).
I don't know if Trump is in a position to really expand the vote much, but one assumption that is probably safe is that, unless the economy collapses or we get sucked into some foreign policy disaster, it's going to be a tight election, EC-wise. I think it'll be more challenging to defeat Trump than people now assume. The advantage an incumbent with a 2-year term limit has is he can tell voters: Why fix things if they're not broken now? And if you're worried they'll break later, well, hey, I'll be gone then. Voters - and in this case, white centrist voters - have to be convinced that the country is about to go down the toilet for them to be scared enough to vote Trump out of office.

The electoral map doesn't look good for Trump, but one thing I would be caution about is automatically applying the 2016 map to 2020. Democrats can't just look at the 2020 map and say "We're gonna flip WI, MI, and PA - game over." It's entirely possible that Trump could lose Wisconsin, and pick up another state like Minnesota, which he lost by less than 3% if I recall correctly. New Hampshire was close. Nevada was close. Trump could expand his map even if the Dems expand theirs.

People are wondering about the best candidate to beat Trump from the currently most viable contenders, and I see vulnerabilities in each one - even Biden. As much of a long-shot as he is to win the Democratic nomination, I would like to see more attention given to Steve Bullock. He has positions that are probably similar to Biden's, but he's younger and he has won elections in Trump Land.
  #112  
Old 07-20-2019, 09:27 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
The question is: why would they want to?

No matter who wins the presidency next year, McConnell will remain Senate Majority Leader. Any dem president would get absolutely nothing done, and even if Ginsburg & Breyer dropped dead during the next hypothetical Presidential term, their seats would remain vacant until a Republican names their replacements.

The Dems would of course lose the House in 2022 in this scenario, as nothing will get accomplished and Democratic voters will be demoralized and stay home on election day. There will more likely then not be a recession by that time too, and voters are piss-stupid so they will blame it on whoever is in the White House. They'd lose even more seats in the Senate, as is tradition for all first-term presidents not named Trump. Then we get another Republican president in 2024- maybe Trump will even decide to run for a non-consecutive 2nd term.

This all could've been avoided if Democrats understood power and how to wield it. After the 2008 blue tsunami, they could have made lasting changes like pushing through Puerto Rican & DC statehood, passing vote-by mail reforms in every state possible, and implementing a healthcare public option that excited the base instead of the disastrous ACA that everyone hated on all sides.

But Democrats are cowards and losers. They are banking on identity politics to save them, but it won't. Whining about racism and sexism sounds like nails on a chalkboard to anyone who isn't an urbane liberal Twitter user. I live in a mostly Latino working class neighborhood in Chicago, and the only MAGA hats I've ever seen in real life were on the heads of Hispanic guys. Think about that.

Just let Trump win. The inevitable recession in his next term will finish him off, and maybe we'll get another blue tsunami in 2022 or 2024. Hopefully by then the Democratic party will grow a spine (lol yeah right).
  #113  
Old 07-20-2019, 11:44 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
The question is: why would they want to?

No matter who wins the presidency next year, McConnell will remain Senate Majority Leader. Any dem president would get absolutely nothing done, and even if Ginsburg & Breyer dropped dead during the next hypothetical Presidential term, their seats would remain vacant until a Republican names their replacements.

The Dems would of course lose the House in 2022 in this scenario, as nothing will get accomplished and Democratic voters will be demoralized and stay home on election day. There will more likely then not be a recession by that time too, and voters are piss-stupid so they will blame it on whoever is in the White House. They'd lose even more seats in the Senate, as is tradition for all first-term presidents not named Trump. Then we get another Republican president in 2024- maybe Trump will even decide to run for a non-consecutive 2nd term.

This all could've been avoided if Democrats understood power and how to wield it. After the 2008 blue tsunami, they could have made lasting changes like pushing through Puerto Rican & DC statehood, passing vote-by mail reforms in every state possible, and implementing a healthcare public option that excited the base instead of the disastrous ACA that everyone hated on all sides.

But Democrats are cowards and losers. They are banking on identity politics to save them, but it won't. Whining about racism and sexism sounds like nails on a chalkboard to anyone who isn't an urbane liberal Twitter user. I live in a mostly Latino working class neighborhood in Chicago, and the only MAGA hats I've ever seen in real life were on the heads of Hispanic guys. Think about that.

Just let Trump win. The inevitable recession in his next term will finish him off, and maybe we'll get another blue tsunami in 2022 or 2024. Hopefully by then the Democratic party will grow a spine (lol yeah right).
Sad but true. The democrats could've appointed SC judges up until 2014, but I don't think Ginsberg was willing to retire. Now everyone is terrified she will die and we will get a GOP judge.

But yes, the democrats do not know how to govern. They are terrified of everything and everyone (except their own voters) and don't want to use the power given to them.

For the most part, democrats didn't even start supporting voter rights or women's rights until the GOP attacked them.

Trump winning re-election won't be so bad if democrats control congress. If we control the senate and can block judges, that'd be great (but sadly people like Manchin would probably vote for the GOP judges).
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #114  
Old 07-20-2019, 03:18 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,515
I'm not sure that McConnell will be Majority Leader or even Senator after 2020. Here's a possible map. Collins is as good as gone, her schtick of "I'm pretty sure that the Republican that I'm going to approve for the Supreme Court isn't going to overturn Roe" is getting pretty old. Ernst is vulnerable in Iowa, Donald's tariffs have hurt the farm belt too hard. McSally in AZ has already lost an election for Senate. I don't think McConnell is invulnerable.

I don't think it's that Democrats can't govern, it's that they were not ready for the thermonuclear version of the Republicans. It is clear that no Democrat will ever get a Supreme Court justice as long as McConnell is where he's at. And should Democrats win the presidency and the majority in the Senate in 2020, if Ginsburg died on New Year's Eve 2020, they'd have a successor nominated and confirmed before the new Congress convenes Jan 3, 2021.

Health care is the key. The best argument Democrats have is what affects everyone, will they have health care? Drop the Medicare for all, Biden's approach to strengthen and expand the ACA makes the most sense. Nominate Joe and run on health care.
  #115  
Old 07-20-2019, 05:59 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,690
Agree, Bob, that healthcare has to be a major campaign theme, which I think it will be. They also need to attack wage and wealth disparities as well. Class warfare can work, and I don't think it's an accident that we're seeing racial warfare in response. Race wars have always been started by the wealthy to fend off and break up a united working class and working poor.
  #116  
Old 07-20-2019, 06:08 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,551
Attacking wealth (and power) inequality can be a cogent issue without class warfare as the approach. Othering and demonizing is always an easy go-to, but not always the best one.
  #117  
Old 07-20-2019, 07:31 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I'm not sure that McConnell will be Majority Leader or even Senator after 2020. Here's a possible map. Collins is as good as gone, her schtick of "I'm pretty sure that the Republican that I'm going to approve for the Supreme Court isn't going to overturn Roe" is getting pretty old. Ernst is vulnerable in Iowa, Donald's tariffs have hurt the farm belt too hard. McSally in AZ has already lost an election for Senate. I don't think McConnell is invulnerable.

I don't think it's that Democrats can't govern, it's that they were not ready for the thermonuclear version of the Republicans. It is clear that no Democrat will ever get a Supreme Court justice as long as McConnell is where he's at. And should Democrats win the presidency and the majority in the Senate in 2020, if Ginsburg died on New Year's Eve 2020, they'd have a successor nominated and confirmed before the new Congress convenes Jan 3, 2021.

Health care is the key. The best argument Democrats have is what affects everyone, will they have health care? Drop the Medicare for all, Biden's approach to strengthen and expand the ACA makes the most sense. Nominate Joe and run on health care.
I think they can't govern. The democrats are reactive, not-proactive. The GOP are proactive. The GOP proactively tries to destroy unions, voter rights, democracy. The democrats just respond after the fact. After the GOP assaults women's rights, the democrats respond. After the GOP assaults voter rights the democrats respond. The democrats don't lead either, they wait for their voters to pass a bunch of ballot initiatives, and then they start passing the same thing legislatively. The GOP try to destroy unions, but when the democrats have power they don't try to expand unions.

Also the democrats aren't going to pass health reform sadly. I'd love it if they did, but there is no path to genuine health reform that doesn't anger and enrage very powerful business interests like pharma, insurance companies, hospitals, etc. Connecticut talked about health reform, and gave up without a fight because wealthy interests like the insurance companies, pharma, etc fought back. Even Bidens plan (which honestly isn't a bad plan, I'm glad we're at the point in our politics where a plan like Biden's is considered the moderate choice) won't be passed. The democrats aren't going to make the rich angry. I'm perfectly fine with incremental health reform, but the democrats won't pass 'any' reform unless it doesn't make the rich angry. And there is no path to genuine health reform that can avoid this. The only true health reform will come from ballot initiative.

Democrats aren't willing to fight for their voters or principles. If we are lucky (very lucky) we will get an updated version of ACA. But even that is questionable. It'll probably just be increased subsidies so people can buy junk insurance in a broken health care system. True reform (a strong public option, reimportation of drugs, government negotiation of drugs, single payer, etc) will have to come from ballot initiatives. I doubt even blue states will enact these.

I'd love to be wrong. But when Connecticut was discussing health reform I said 'I bet the democrats give up without a fight when the rich get mad at them, I'd love to be wrong' and I wasn't.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 07-20-2019 at 07:35 PM.
  #118  
Old 07-21-2019, 12:51 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
...Connecticut talked about health reform, and gave up without a fight because wealthy interests like the insurance companies, pharma, etc fought back.

...But when Connecticut was discussing health reform I said 'I bet the democrats give up without a fight when the rich get mad at them, I'd love to be wrong' and I wasn't.
I've lived in Connecticut for two decades now. Other than creating a health insurance exchange under the ACA, I'm not aware of any health care reform that Connecticut has so much as talked about.
  #119  
Old 07-21-2019, 06:04 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
The actual answer to the question could never happen because the Democratic electorate does not have its eye on the ball and is too eager to rush a progressive agenda to just stop and take a moment to get the clear and present danger out of the White House first and then maybe look at some of that stuff later.

It would involve nominating a boring and relatively moderate purple state governor who is not pushing for any radical policies, but simply promising to protect and improve Obamacare and to return the country to normalcy.

But since that is a pipe dream, I would settle for Democrats recognizing that nominating Elizabeth Warren is a super bad idea, as is nominating someone over 75, or someone under 40 who is the mayor of a small city and admits he failed to address racial problems.

There are seven or eight candidates who would make good nominees—but of those, only Kamala Harris is polling above 3%. As long as that is the case, I am backing her strongly.
  #120  
Old 07-21-2019, 07:11 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,690
All of the remaining candidates have vulnerabilities, but if there's one candidate who strikes me as having the mental toughness and the political savvy of being able to go toe-to-toe with Trump, I think it's Harris. Yes, I thought Harris played dirty with Biden in the debate, but that's politics. I'm more disappointed and alarmed that Joe Biden wasn't prepared for the attack than I was that Harris launched it. I also kinda, sorta believe that when push comes to shove, Harris will pivot away from racial politics -- at least I hope so. Harris is clearly a razor sharp smart woman, and I think she knows how to play tactically in the short term and strategically over time.

Last edited by asahi; 07-21-2019 at 07:11 AM.
  #121  
Old 07-21-2019, 07:54 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Exactly. Everyone seems to have forgotten that the centerpiece of her campaign is a middle class tax cut. Classic pander, far from innovative, but also tried and true. No need to reinvent the wheel.
  #122  
Old 07-21-2019, 08:27 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Exactly. Everyone seems to have forgotten that the centerpiece of her campaign is a middle class tax cut. Classic pander, far from innovative, but also tried and true. No need to reinvent the wheel.
It is? Oh, brother. Just when I was starting to really like her...

(Depends on what is meant by “middle class,” in this case — can anyone summarize? I know, Google is my friend...)
  #123  
Old 07-21-2019, 11:47 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
I've lived in Connecticut for two decades now. Other than creating a health insurance exchange under the ACA, I'm not aware of any health care reform that Connecticut has so much as talked about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeST2B1nxho

They put together a bill package that had a wide range of health reform ideas and claimed that their constituents were by far the biggest source of lobbying on health reform, then Cigna threatened them and they gave up without a fight the next day.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #124  
Old 07-21-2019, 11:51 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Exactly. Everyone seems to have forgotten that the centerpiece of her campaign is a middle class tax cut. Classic pander, far from innovative, but also tried and true. No need to reinvent the wheel.
Do voters understand or care about middle class tax cuts? Obama gave us a middle class tax cut as part of the stimulus when he cut the payroll social security tax from 6.2% down to 4.2%, saving middle class families $200 a year on every 10k in income up to 130k in income.

I don't think it benefited him or the democrats in the polls though.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 07-21-2019 at 11:51 AM.
  #125  
Old 07-21-2019, 12:33 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Do voters understand or care about middle class tax cuts? Obama gave us a middle class tax cut as part of the stimulus when he cut the payroll social security tax from 6.2% down to 4.2%, saving middle class families $200 a year on every 10k in income up to 130k in income.

I don't think it benefited him or the democrats in the polls though.
Then that's their own damn fault. (Bolding above is mine.)

To win Democrats have to talk about what they will do in the future, how they will make life better for blue-collar, middle class families. Hammer away at the need for affordable healthcare, income inequality, stagnant wages and the importance of climate and environmental issues. Everyone wants clean air and water. This should be EASY but the Democrats too often are reactive and not proactive when talking about issues.

We have to nominate a candidate who can and will set the agenda rather than reacting to the GOP/Trump. It is already clear Trump is going to hammer away with racist and religious fear-mongering. Plenty of people are disgusted by much of his rhetoric and behavior but unless the Democrats give them something to vote for rather than counting on people voting against Trump, the Democrats will lose.

Someone said upthread to nominate a safe, boring moderate. I don't care about the moderate/progressive/liberal component so much as I strongly disagree with the safe and boring part. The Democrats have to find someone who excites people and gets them to the polls on Election Day, particularly a candidate who does this in the swing states Trump won last time out. Focus on those states with voter registration and get out the vote efforts. This should be EASY. We are only talking about maybe a half dozen states. A tour of small to medium sized towns from Pennsylvania through Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa shaking hands and kissing babies has the potential to move plenty of voters in those states.

I've heard a number of posters in this and other threads dismiss people who voted for Trump in 2016 or sat out the election as unreachable, bigoted and ignorant. There are undoubtedly voters who can't be persuaded to vote for the Democratic nominee but I don't believe it makes sense to write all of them off. There are a lot of people in those states who just want someone they believe will fight for their interests to flip those states to the Democrats in 2020.

Unfortunately I've yet to see anyone on the Democrat side who I think can connect with these voters.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 07-21-2019 at 12:34 PM.
  #126  
Old 07-22-2019, 02:58 PM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post
The conditions in which the Dems win the presidency:
1. They don't nominate Hillary
2. The Earth continues to revolve around the sun for ~550 more days.
'Bout sums it up. Hillary lost the election for the Dems.

Biden is not as divisive - is anybody? - but he is too much the old politician, and that was the very thing that put people off Hillary and made think think that anything else was worth a try. Do you go with the tried and (more or less) trusted or do you try to repeat Trump's "outsider wins against the odds" upset by bringing in a new Dem candidate? But seeing what the incumbent has done on the basis of no track record and no political or diplomatic experience before being elected ...

And, is insanity contagious? The latest poll shows Boris "Trump Lite" Johnson the odds on favorite for No 10 Downing Street.
  #127  
Old 07-22-2019, 05:13 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Do voters understand or care about middle class tax cuts? Obama gave us a middle class tax cut as part of the stimulus when he cut the payroll social security tax from 6.2% down to 4.2%, saving middle class families $200 a year on every 10k in income up to 130k in income.
Wait. Didn't Donald Trump and the Republicans give us a tax cut?

<Checks recent history>

Why, they certainly did. Way back in 2017.

How'd that work for the middle class?

This guy says it was pretty sweet. Average Joe Taxpayer got an eight percent cut.

Others feel it was

Not so good,

Not so good,

And "the most predictable financial crisis in the history of our nation."
  #128  
Old 07-22-2019, 08:53 PM
Major Matt Mason is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Somewhere west of Bugtown
Posts: 60
Three words: Draft Mike Rowe. ;-)

-MMM-
  #129  
Old 07-27-2019, 05:01 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Do voters understand or care about middle class tax cuts? Obama gave us a middle class tax cut as part of the stimulus when he cut the payroll social security tax from 6.2% down to 4.2%, saving middle class families $200 a year on every 10k in income up to 130k in income.

I don't think it benefited him or the democrats in the polls though.

They bungled that so badly, and I said so at the time. I believe the majority of voters, or at least a large plurality, thought their taxes had gone up under Obama! You have to do it the way Bush did in his first term, by sending out rebate checks. The big difference of course being that Dubya’s were covering for much larger tax breaks for the rich, while hers would be covering for tax increases on the rich.
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 07:40 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