Competing electability theories. (D side)

[Martin_Hyde]

I suggest checking out Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign, it’s by two journalists that conducted a large number of on the record interviews (and some off the record) with high ranking Hillary campaign staffers and imo is probably the best insiders treatment of the campaign.

There is more than one account of high ranking Hillary aides punishing people who tried to raise concerns about weak points like Midwest or sidelining their concerns because they didn’t want it reaching the candidate level for whatever reason. I think a lot of it was just pure hubris in the Blue Wall and a belief that the candidate didn’t need bothered about it, and shame on Hillary for not being closer to the data.

[CarnalK]

@Martin_Hyde

[…]
1. Campaign on how you can make people’s lives better. I can’t name a single, non-incumbent President who has ever won that didn’t do this effectively. At least not in the modern era in which Presidents personally campaigned. Keep in mind this rule is open to wide gulfs in implementation. Compare the FDR campaign of 1932 to the Trump campaign of 2016. Both actually were campaigns where the candidate vigorously focused on how he would improve people’s lives if they voted for him. Trump’s was a far more negative campaign and focused in part on how he would improve people’s lives by going after the “enemies” of his voters.

[…]

4. Controversy creates cash. More than ever before we live in a 24 hour news, social media world. Getting attention gives you a stage and gives you a platform. Don’t ignore that once you get a platform you can say whatever you want, but getting a platform requires doing things that are exciting and generate interest.

Unfortunately, in this modern world, these points are in conflict…

[Razncain]

While driving back from CO heading back to TX yesterday in this winter blizzard, I was listening to NPR, and was impressed with Bernie Sander’s campaign manager. The host asked something about Bernie and Democratic Socialism and his manager retorted back something to the effect of what we have now is “Corporate Socialism.”

Couldn’t find the transcript from NPR, but will look for it some more. Meanwhile, seen this wiki article that talks about Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor Basically it says:

…is a classical political-economic argument, stating that in the advanced capitalist societies state policies assure that more resources flow to the rich than to the poor, for example in the form of transfer payments. The term corporate welfare is widely used to describe the bestowal of favorable treatment to particular corporations by the government. One of the most commonly raised forms of criticism are statements that the capitalist political economy toward large corporations allows them to “privatize profits and socialize losses.”[1] The argument has been raised and cited on many occasions.

They need to pounce on this at every chance, I think this could lead to a winning strategy.

Regardless of who the nominee is, I’m going to back anybody but Trump.

[iiandyiiii]

@Razncain

While driving back from CO heading back to TX yesterday in this winter blizzard, I was listening to NPR, and was impressed with Bernie Sander’s campaign manager. The host asked something about Bernie and Democratic Socialism and his manager retorted back something to the effect of what we have now is “Corporate Socialism.”

Couldn’t find the transcript from NPR, but will look for it some more. Meanwhile, seen this wiki article that talks about Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor Basically it says:

They need to pounce on this at every chance, I think this could lead to a winning strategy.

Regardless of who the nominee is, I’m going to back anybody but Trump.

I agree. And Sanders used this in a recent interview on Fox News with Chris Wallace – he said Trump himself is a socialist… the difference it that Trump’s socialism is for the rich, and Sanders’ proposed socialism is to benefit the poor and middle class.

[Corry_El]

@Saint_Cad

The fact that the current Dem front runners are not 90-95% favorites to beat Trump tells me the wrong Dems are winning the primary.

Yeah but activist partisans (disproportionately more primary than general election voters, either party) also want what they want politically. It’s not entirely unreasonable if they trade off some more likelihood of losing the general election against candidates who propose what they, not some others voters, want. It really isn’t all about deciding what personality and platform would be most popular, regardless of all other considerations.

And I don’t think it’s ‘pessimistic about the electorate’ necessarily, at least for people self aware enough to realize other people can deeply disagree with them politically not just because the other people are ‘ignorant’, ‘stupid’, ‘ist/phobic’ etc. Although that’s probably part of the reason (many voters on both sides are ignorant and/or stupid at least, self evidently). But for whatever reasons others disagree, I find it questionable that the goal of party activists would ever be to insure 90% likelihood of victory. If the opponent is really weak enough to make such a % possible (Trump is not as of now), a typical partisan would probably want to push the envelope a bit more on the platform and accept a somewhat lower % likelihood of winning.

‘But Trump is so terrible he has to be beaten with near certainly, no matter who and what platform it would take do that’… not many Democratic primary voters truly believe that IMO. They want a platform they entirely agree with and certainty of beating Trump, but there’s probably a trade off between those two things, as usual.

[DrCube]

@CarnalK

Unfortunately, in this modern world, these points are in conflict…

I don’t see it. Take Bernie. Free college and Medicare for all are about making people’s lives better, and also controversial as hell. For that matter, Trump’s “Mexico buys us a wall”, “Lock her up” and “kill Obamacare” planks from 2016 were controversial and also ostensibly about helping the depressingly large group of people who thought those things would actually make their lives better.

The feasibility and practicality of those ideas had nothing to do with it. Just promise the moon and say it in such a way that it’s all over the news and Facebook for as long as possible. Maybe that looks like calling yourself a socialist and promoting UHC, maybe that looks like calling Mexicans rapists and promoting a ban on Muslims. Depends on your audience.

[Wrenching_Spanners]

@DSeid

Which would you argue is the more important theory to think about when thinking about electability?

4. Win back the Obama voters who went Trump/3rd party/stayed home.

5. Sweep the suburbs and increase their turnout. (Inclusive but not limited to keeping the Romney-Clinton voters.)

These two, in that order. The US presidential election is essentially a popularity contest. Non-partisan voters are going to vote for the candidate they like best, which will probably be the one they feel they have the most connection with. That connection doesn’t necessarily have to be a personal connection. I doubt the rural poor believe they have a lot in common with Trump. But I think in 2016 they were impressed by him and liked what he had to say. So for the Democratic candidate for the general election to win, that person will need to have a popular message, be able to deliver it effectively to people with short attention spans, and be charismatic in their delivery. Conversely, that person also needs to avoid alienating people. Being popular with the left while attacking the right, or people the candidate doesn’t think will vote for them will drive non-partisans away. So be popular, but also don’t be unpopular. (Trump got away with being an asshole, but he’s a special case. Everyone already knew he was an asshole, so he owned it. He was the equivalent of the “heel” in a professional wrestling match. Sometimes people cheer for the bad guy.)

If it’s a purely partisan race, I think the Republicans will win. The Democrats need to bring in the non-partisans. I think the biggest source of the non-partisan voters is going to be the suburban class. People with jobs and houses who are relatively well off and care about social issues, but aren’t necessarily politically progressive. So, to pick one topic, people who want better health care for the poor, but don’t want to give up their health insurance policies. I’m thinking of a general group of people who would get behind a slogan like “Making Lives Better”. But they’d have to be convinced that the policies behind that slogan wouldn’t make them personally worse off.

[Wrenching_Spanners]

@DrCube

I don’t see it. Take Bernie. Free college and Medicare for all are about making people’s lives better, and also controversial as hell. For that matter, Trump’s “Mexico buys us a wall”, “Lock her up” and “kill Obamacare” planks from 2016 were controversial and also ostensibly about helping the depressingly large group of people who thought those things would actually make their lives better.

The feasibility and practicality of those ideas had nothing to do with it. Just promise the moon and say it in such a way that it’s all over the news and Facebook for as long as possible. Maybe that looks like calling yourself a socialist and promoting UHC, maybe that looks like calling Mexicans rapists and promoting a ban on Muslims. Depends on your audience.

I think it’s very important for a candidate to gain attention, but I’m not sure that being controversial, at least in an antagonistic sense, is the best way to go about it. I think that most of the very memorable US presidential campaign occurrences that are regarded as successful were atypical and had a cool factor, but weren’t based on belittling people. I’m thinking of things like George H. W. Bush stating “Read my lips. No new taxes.”, Bill Clinton playing the saxophone, and Barack Obama leading “Yes We Can!” chants. Sure, there’s negative campaigning, but for it to come from the candidate and be effective, I think they have to have an easy target. Lloyd Bentsen’s “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy” putdown of Dan Quayle comes to mind. Trump was a successful antagonist, but I think (and hope) he’s an outlier and not the start of a trend.

[Razncain]

I was hoping this thread would take off. Anybody else have any suggestions? Are people excited with their Democratic candidate? Or is it mostly, anybody but Trump?

Getting back to Bernie Sanders, I think him exposing and staying on track with the corporate socialism and costs to taxpayers is a good strategy, which I believe is trillions of dollars (over a few decades, fed, state and local levels, my rough estimate, not sure) could lead to a successful strategy of winning the WH. What I don’t like about him, is the trillions of school debt forgiveness that taxpayers would be responsible for. But another time for that.

Working with this strategy, while on the stump, Bernie and others could go with something like this:

Trump is the spawn of a father who relied on tax dodges and handouts, he has continued the cycle, as will his children which came from the inheritance. Their success doesn’t rely on any special intelligence, any skill set of any kind, none are self-made, what qualifications they have, intelligence and hard work isn’t apart of it, along with ethics.

In place of the failed trickle-down economics that Republicans have been using for the last 40 years, causing our deficit to soar, getting the rich richer, the poor poorer, relying on corporate socialism, we need a trickle-up economics (there’s a phrase I like). We need to stress small businesses and letting them build from the ground up. It would rely on more money getting back to working people.

Or go with something along those lines, pounding away at it every chance they get. I’m sure Bernie is already doing similar speeches, I haven’t followed any as much as I should, mostly waiting to see where the dust settles.

I’m sure quite a few on SD are familiar David Cay Johnston who is the Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, worked for the NY Times many years, I still believe is a professor at several colleges, and has been a part of investigative reporting for some time. He’s written numerous books and articles, I have two of his books, Free Lunch and The Fine Print that give many examples of how the wealthiest Americans enrich themselves courtesy of the taxpayers. He shows plenty of examples of why it’s harder for smaller businesses to compete with these bigger companies that get favorable tax treatment and just get bigger.

I thought David and Bernie could be two great allies, so I went looking. Maybe they still can, but much to my discomfort, David Cay Johnston says Bernie hasn’t been honest with his answers on releasing his tax returns (as of 2016, maybe he has now?). There are plenty of discrepancies. I’m not that familiar with The National Memo source, but am familiar with Johnston who wrote that piece.

Even though it’s difficult for me to get excited about any of the Democratic candidates, with Trump I feel outrage, with any Democratic candidate, it’s ho-hum. Are most feeling the same, or is there a candidate you really like a lot? And regardless do you still plan on voting, mostly to get Trump out of the WH?

[asahi]

What Democrats need is either Trump’s economy to crater, or short of that, they need a candidate with the ability to contrast himself or herself in such a way that they have some confidence that any changes they make to the government will be beneficial, or at least not disruptive - but any changes to the head of state would have to be regarded as highly important in the eyes of voters.

I think there will be a lot of people who will feel that removing Trump will be highly important. But we may be overestimating that number. At this point, I’m curious to know whether the number of people who desperately want Trump out of power is greater than the number of people who desperately want to keep him in power. If that’s the case, then that favors the Democrats.

Bear in mind that this is not lost on Trump: this is why he is so polarizing - he understands that it’s important to motivate those who desperately see the value of keeping him in power: religious fanatics, the wealthy, people who have deep anxieties about losing their white privilege, and people who feel that they’ve been stepped on by “intellectual, urban elites.” As I’ve said before: polarizing isn’t a bug, it’s a feature of his politics. Trumpists enjoy watching him kick liberals in the gut when they’re already on the ground. It’s the same dynamic that gets crowds cheering at WWE matches when The Rock gets ready to deliver “the people’s elbow” smash across the chest or when Stone Cold Steve Austin delivers “the stunner.” To them, it’s justice, Trump style.

What’s more nebulous at this point is how those less partisan voters will cast their ballots.

[Lamoral]

I think a lot of people who THINK they know what Trump supposedly campaigned on - “build the wall, lock her up, destroy Obamacare, etc” - were not actually paying attention to his campaign. It’s true that he did talk up all of those things, but he also held rally after rally after rally where he talked about bringing back manufacturing jobs. I get that people didn’t want to watch all his rallies - they hate Trump, they can’t bring themselves to watch and listen to him because he’s so odious - but I did in fact watch many of these rallies which were live-streamed on YouTube, and I paid attention to what he was actually saying. And much of the content of his speeches related to jobs.

Now, obviously, many of the things he said were lies. But he really, really leaned into the “bringing jobs back” angle.

[Sherrerd]

@Lamoral

I think a lot of people who THINK they know what Trump supposedly campaigned on - “build the wall, lock her up, destroy Obamacare, etc” - were not actually paying attention to his campaign. It’s true that he did talk up all of those things, but he also held rally after rally after rally where he talked about bringing back manufacturing jobs. I get that people didn’t want to watch all his rallies - they hate Trump, they can’t bring themselves to watch and listen to him because he’s so odious - but I did in fact watch many of these rallies which were live-streamed on YouTube, and I paid attention to what he was actually saying. And much of the content of his speeches related to jobs.

Now, obviously, many of the things he said were lies. But he really, really leaned into the “bringing jobs back” angle.

Yes, and this should fuel an important line of campaign ads and (if Trump agrees to debate), debate discussion.

Use all that footage of Trump promising jobs—over and over and over again. Then show the actual data on jobs lost. For example:

The myth of the manufacturing jobs renaissance Updated 3:12 PM ET, Sun February 9, 2020

The Trump administration wants voters to believe in a US manufacturing renaissance – proof of economic success as America barrels toward election day.

President Trump in his State of the Union address Tuesday once again took credit for “restoring our Nation’s manufacturing,” claiming that the United States “has gained 12,000 new factories under my administration, with thousands upon thousands of plants and factories being planned or built. We have created over half a million new manufacturing jobs.”

Those numbers are largely accurate, and US factory activity expanded in January. But the manufacturing industry is hemorrhaging jobs, losing more than 4 million over the past twenty years.

The problem is growth is concentrated in a few outlier industries – pharmaceuticals, computers, semiconductors – that boost output while employing only a fraction of the workers in traditional factories.

Even with the Trump administration’s tariffs and heated rhetoric, that trend is not course-correcting, says Robert Scott, director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Research at the Economic Policy Institute.

“Frankly, Trump is bad for manufacturing. Since he took office, the deficit in goods is up 15%,” according to Scott. A trade deficit occurs when a country buys more products then it sells.
…“His policies haven’t helped change anything – they keep the status quo.”

…Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin in 2016, promising working-class voters he would revive US manufacturing. But all four states have lost more than 16,000 factory jobs in the past year alone.

And many new production jobs are non-union with lower pay, according to Pew Research. …

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/08/economy/manufacturing-jobs/index.html