Sounds right to me. And even with Obama, he only had that going for him in 2008 (and Clinton in 1992 but not 1996). In other words, with the exception of Obama in 2008, every election since 1996 has featured the Democrats relying on a “vote against the Republican” strategy rather than a “vote for the Democrat” strategy. We need someone that can run on a “vote for me” rather than a “vote against the other guy” strategy. Who is that? I’m not sure, but it’s almost certainly not Harris, unless she is able to do a major remake of her personality in the next year or two.
It goes back to Hillary Clinton’s comment about “deplorables” in 2016. She backed off of that, and it didn’t work out. Maybe if she had leaned into it, owned the comment, and ran against the MAGA base rather than just against Trump, she might have won. I agree, whoever the candidate is needs to hit back, not pretend this is a fair boxing contest with a rulebook, referee, and judges, as opposed to to the street fight that it actually will be.
No, I don’t think so - 2016 was a different time. Going that combative, particularly as a woman who has already had a successful smear campaign waged against her for decades about how shrill and bitchy she was, would have likely made the contest a lot less close than it was.
A decade of MAGA has eroded standards to the point where maybe going that hard as a Democrat might work today. I’m none too sure, really - the Democratic base are a clowder of cats relative to the highly tribal Republican base. They don’t fall into line in the same way and the non-confrontational cohort might go ewwww and abstain. But it might be the right tack in some cases.
But Hillary in 2016? I’m pretty sure not.
Or other parts of the coalition get bent out of shape and feel thrown under the bus that you did or did not include [insert issue here] in your attack line.
Cite: Calling Trump supporters “deplorables” nearly derailed her campaign despite Trump’s worse comments on nearly a daily basis.
I think it would be a mistake to try to beat someone whose brand is being rude and belligerent by also being rude and belligerent. There’s no way to make that work unless you’re better at it, which isn’t likely when you’re going up against someone who’s that way naturally.
Biden beat Trump without going in that direction. The closest he came was when he told Trump to shut up. Part of it was that, after four years of Trump, voters were tired of his act, and wanted someone who acted like an adult.
Trump won again in 2024 after voters had four years to forget how awful he was, and after the crisis of Biden falling on his face in front of the entire world, followed by him ending his candidacy and Kamala Harris becoming the candidate by default. In other words, it was a set of circumstances which isn’t likely to repeat itself in 2028.
I do think a Democratic candidate should fight back against attacks, but the way to do it is to call a lie a lie, and to call a distraction a distraction. It’s also important to criticize the Republican candidate’s policy and character flaws. But in competition it’s usually a mistake to play the opponent’s game.
Yep. I mean, certainly public disagreement of trumps actions is fine. But no name-calling. Yet.
And, she was right, and there is no evidence that hurt her-
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
In 2026 he lied to get the votes. In 2020 they remembered that and didnt vote for him. By 2024, memories were dim, and yes, there were issues.
Presumably you meant 2016 rather than 2026. But yes, there were issues, and not just in 2016 and 2024. There were issues in 2020 as well. It’s just that in 2020, as you say, the reasons to vote against Trump were fresh in the public’s mind, and that was enough for a D victory. The issue, as I mentioned above, is that the Democrats have been relying on the “we want you to vote against Trump” strategy, as opposed to the “we want you to vote for Hillary Clinton / Joe Biden / Kamala Harris”. That needs to change in 2028. We need a candidate that inspires people to come out and vote for them, not just against the Republican nominee.
And lest we forget, before the Covid crisis and the flailing at managing it and its socioeconomic effects, Trump was looking likely to repeat in 2020 if the economy numbers stayed steady (and the Dems absolutely needed a “Return To Normal” candidate to pull it off anyway).
This is too subjective to make such a strong statement of fact. Every election has components of ‘vote for me and my policies’ as well as ‘don’t vote from them and their policies’. You can make this claim about any candidate.
Generally the incumbent administration has more ‘vote for me’ and the challenger more ‘vote against them’.
The problem, as I see it, is that “vote against [him]” is specific to that race and doesn’t have coat-tails that give you a friendly Congress. “Vote for me (us) because X, Y, and Z” can strongly impact down-ballot races.
I agree. It’s not a strong message and it wears off quickly if you win.
Cory Booker just got married. It shouldn’t be a big deal but some didn’t like the idea of a bachelor president. The opposition used his martial status to spread rumors about his sexuality. I don’t know how much that hurt his previous campaign but it didn’t help. I’m not completely cynical to think he only got married now only to get ready for another campaign but it may be an indication he is going to try again.
He takes some pretty extreme views, such as confiscation of “assault guns”, etc.
Tim Walz would have been a strong possibility if he hadn’t been Harris’ running mate.
See, yet another bad reason to disqualify a candidate. Cant be a woman, or black or Jewish, or have anything whatsoever to do with the Biden administration, etc etc
None of those disqualify a candidate. Some are less electable, to be sure.
But being pro gun control is a good reason to disqualify a candidate?
Only an “extreme” position like an assault weapons ban, which is only favored by a tiny fraction–52%–of Americans.
Not gun control- gun confiscation.
Americans are much more inclined to favor a ban on assault weapons, with a slim 52% majority saying there should be a ban on the manufacture, possession and sale of semiautomatic guns, known as assault rifles. However, the current level of support is lower than what Gallup measured in two prior surveys.
That is different than gun confiscation. Booker at one time pushed for door to door confiscation of “assault weapons”. Yes, a razor thin majority of Americans want the sale of such weapons banned, and i am not against that.
And does that disqualify him as a candidate?