Republicans are making inroads into Black and Hispanic voters, and you think the solution to this is for the Democrats to take up a “only White dudes as candidates” policy? That’s something you think would get more Black and Hispanic voters to support Democrats?
Without reading the rest of the thread, I recommend a message of “eat the rich”, plus “corporations are the enemy”. And the media strategy should be, generally speaking, “the media is dishonest and also the enemy”. Whoever can best embody and communicate these messages gets my support.
That is not what I said or what I was replying to. I was replying to the notion that this was somehow a close election. In my opinion, it wasn’t. The 'Pubs are currently WAAAY better at messaging - of course, they have the advantage of being unafraid to straight-up lie to the populace.
This wasn’t you?
Ahhh…okay, that’s not the post you quoted. Yes, I do believe that. Honestly, I don’t understand the attitude, but it exists. I think it’s, more than anything else, a combination of Republican lies/misinformation, “fuck-you-I-got-mine”, unfortunately deep-seated misogyny (even if subconscious), and a comfort level with traditional “looking” candidates.
Kamala’s run to the center may also have been a factor. Who knows? We play this game every 4 years and there’s no way to test a hypothesis and rerun an election with different assumptions.
Jill Stein and Cornel West did poorly by historic standards for the left of Democratic Party third party vote, especially in swing states. Their successors will still get votes no matter who the Democrats nominate.
Harris went out of her way to avoid offending centrists. Unfortunately, to prove to centrists this marked a genuine move to the center, she needed a few Sister Souljah moments where moderate bonafides are proven by generating real pushback from elements of her base. The easiest opportunity came when she (and Joe) could have endorsed the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision.
I get that Harris and Biden genuinely favor preferential policies, so if they had endorsed that decision, they would have not been true to themselves. I also get that a Sister Souljah moment loses some base voters as you get more centrists. The net effect is hard to prove, but, well, Bill Clinton did win.
I did not like it, but the senators who voted for the Laken Riley Act were making the kind of concrete centrist move I’m afraid is necessary.
Excellent comment and I am guilty. It seems nearly impossible not to look for evidence that your own views are popular.
One thing to keep in mind is that gaining votes in one group may lose votes in another group. If they gain 50,000 votes in one group but lose 100,000 votes in another, then it may not be worth it. Trump was able to make inroads into Black and Hispanic voters without losing his main voting block. The Black and Hispanic voters were bonus voters for him. I’m not sure that Trump actually tried to make inroads with those groups.In fact, it seemed like he tried to alienate those groups. It seems like the people in those groups who voted for him were voting against their best interests. It seems more like his normal rhetoric resonated with enough people in those groups to gain a significant amount of votes from those groups.
Harris seems like a great candidate for minority groups since she tics many different boxes. She’s a woman, has Black and Indian heritage, and has a Jewish husband. But those voting blocks didn’t vote for her in mass enough for her to win. And it didn’t seem like enough of “conventional candidate” block voted for her, either. That’s not to say someone like her can’t win, but such a person would need to really lock in solid blocks of those minority groups. Since “conventional candidate” voters seem to constitute such a large amount of the electorate, if a significant number of them won’t vote for a woman, won’t for for a minority, or won’t vote for a non-Christian, then those lost votes could outweigh any votes gained from the minority groups.
Yes, I agree that the no gay/female/Jewish/etc. thing is bullshit. And tiresome.
And in normal times I’d agree that it’s a terrible argument and needs more study… But in these times….
I have only just heard of the guy, but Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) is pledging to hold up Trump nominees until the orangutang backs down from gutting USAID.
Should he choose a 2028 run, he might be able to tout himself as one who stood up as a line of defense against Trump before and will stand against Trumpism again. He’s fairly young and seems pretty charismatic, and seems to have some good progressive credentials. He is Jewish, but seems to be rather private about his faith, and has criticized Netanyahu.
Read about this on kos. Nice move!
Didn’t want to start a new thread…
Democrats are already jockeying for the 2028 nomination
-
Tim Walz
-
Pete Buttigieg
-
Gavin Newsom
-
Gretchen Whitmer
-
JB Pritzker
-
Rahm Emanuel
-
Jared Polis
When Newsom had Charlie Kirk on his podcast and said that the participation of transgender women in women’s sports is “deeply unfair,” I took it as a signal that he’s running for president. It’s a cynical move to distance himself from the LBGTQ+ community, to be more in line with the majority of the country. Until now, Newsom was one of the most prominent allies of that community. He helped lead the charge for marriage equality, and was way out in front on that issue (not just nationally, but in California, where a backlash led to Proposition 8 (an anti-same-sex marriage initiative that was passed by a popular vote).
I don’t know that this move by Newsom will help him nationally. It alienates a constituency, and it’s an obvious attempt to make people forget his history —so obvious that it’s not likely to convince many people.
Maybe I’m missing it at that link; do we know who polls best?
I believe that question, while relevant, is outside the scope of the axios article.
And, of course, the question is “polls among what groups and when?” Hafta research elsewhere.
Tim Walz has been holding a bunch of “town hall” meetings in several states, including one in Iowa yesterday. He had some good lines, like
Sounds like he’s both needling some Republican congressmen who aren’t holding their own town halls, and putting out some feelers about running in 2028. He has to first announce whether he’s running for a third term as Minnesota governor.
Oh, worse that that; it plays into one of the standard criticisms of the Democrats, that there’s no point in supporting them because they’ll unhesitatingly throw their supporters under the bus in futile attempts to pander to the Right. It’s one reason they have trouble with voter turnout; they’ve convinced a lot of their base that all that voting for a Democrat gets you is betrayal.
If Newsom thought he was running for president, he ain’t anymore.
Yet another reason the Democrats need to take Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, and everyone who’s ever worked for Hillary Clinton, and put them on an ice floe and nudge it out to sea.
At this point — whomever has the most name recognition.
It’s trite to say it is too early to have a good idea who, or what kind of candidate, will have the best chance. But that’s double and triple true this cycle because Trump is such an unpredictable chaos agent.
Some Democrats in this thread seem to want an anti-establishment populist activist as the 2028 nominee. I’m pro-establishment by inclination, but admit that the country today still is in a mood where voters, Democrats and Republicans, want activist leadership. By 2028, most of us may be sick of that.
I think there are liable to be big shifts in public opinion on specific issues, but just do not know what they will be.