I’m not sure whether and how a particular Presidential candidate works for specific states is nearly as important as whether and how each candidate motivates on-and-off voter demographics (younger voters in general, younger black and minority voters, politically unaware/uninvolved, etc.) to actually show up at the polls. So for me, the strategy of how to “deliver Congress” shouldn’t be a separate question from how to win the Presidency. Get more Dems and Independents to show up, and have a national party platform about positive change and you’ll elect more Dems.
That means we’ll do best with the candidate who’s a) resistant to a massive disinformation campaign (through personality, political record or current campaign performance), and b) bold in their promises and policies. Biden probably edges out Harris and Warren for a) but Warren definitely wins b). Harris, to my mind, is pretty good on both aspects…
As to working with a split or hostile Congress, for a Dem POTUS with a GOP House and/or Senate, negotiating skills take a back seat to political hardball, which all of the top three are equipped to play to various degrees. I’ll happily vote for any of 'em, but I see Biden as the least ‘inspirational’ among them, so that’s a bit of a negative for me.
Well you’re right that they felt excluded as a group from HRC’s attention, but I think you’re wrong in placing the blame for that. She absolutely made it a point to talk about those voters’ concerns in her platform and every time she spoke in front of a crowd.
The abysmal political media coverage of the 2016 campaign (emails! DJT! SCANDALSSS!) combined with a massive disinformation campaign (teed up nicely for the Russians and Republicans by the 20 year nonstop cavalcade of anti-Hillary calumny that preceded it) convinced those voters they were being ignored.
So we most need a candidate who can command the stage and direct the narrative. Two of them stand out in that department, and neither of them is an old man named Biden or Sanders.
Obama was perceived as an outsider by many who voted for him. You can quibble over whether this means he was seen as anti-establishment, but its hard to square the adjective “transformational” with “mainstream”. Both Obama and Trump had this in common. I can’t even see how this arguable.
And “appeal to authority”? I posted the viewpoint of someone who is much more experienced at party politics than either one of is, to show that my opinions are not crazily unreasonable. That’s like, the whole point of cites.
On the other hand, “mainstream” is not synonymous with “working within the system.” The first doesn’t describe BHO very well, but the second absolutely does.
You posted a viewpoint from an expert on Muscatine County Iowa politics. And you did it to support your argument about national politics rather than as an elucidation of your reasoning or as additional data; that’s an appeal to authority.
To my eye, change–regardless of what kind of change–seemed to attract these voters. It’s the only reason that accounts for them voting for two radically different candidates. Like moths to flames, they were drawn to voting for the guy that seemed least like all the other presidents that have come before them.
As tempting as it is to assign a bunch of highly sophisticated and nuanced motivations to their voting behavior, I think the truth is simpler.
The expert expressed an opinion about politics on the national stage based on observations regarding independents he’s talked to. The evidence for his opinion is right there in the part I quoted. So what if these observations don’t come from nationally representative sample of the greater US population? It’s anecdotal but it’s more than what the average person in this thread has access to.
It is not an appeal to authority to say “consider what this party person is saying about the very thing we’re talking about in this thread”.
News flash: YWTF has found a Democratic activist, in a state whose Dem activists are renowned for being very activist left (particularly on economic issues), pushing for an activist left presidential nominee. Shocker!
BTW, if the devil offered the deal of getting an uninterrupted series of Democrats in the WH while the GOP permanently holds Congress, vs. the whipsaw of one party or the other getting full control from time to time, I will take Option A without hesitation. It’s increasingly called the “imperial presidency” for a reason.
ETA: So much motivated reasoning ITT. :rolleyes:
Got distracted and hit “post” before I was ready. The “change” motif was the major draw to both Trump and Obama. However, Trump mostly drew the voters who want retrograde changes like “less pc-ness, no more abortions, put them gays back in the closet”, etc. Obama drew the people who wanted less GW Bush.
If you’d offered the third party as a source of reliable information about Dem political considerations that wouldn’t have been a fallacy. But what you did was to cite his agreement with your argument as evidence for its truth value, which is the classic argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. And I’m done chewing this particular bone, so I’ll be dropping it now. Thanks for your patience.
I also think the truth is simpler, but of course we disagree as to what that simple truth is.
We agree that voters voting for Obama and those voting for Trump both find the “change” narrative appealing. What we disagree on is that they both sold disrupting the establishment as the change and that change when running against Trump means the same thing as when someone was running against Clinton, both in the primary and in the general.
I don’t see how thinking that those are the same thing is even arguable.
IF what a voter wants is disruptive change from a pre-Trump baseline then no one running on the D side will win that over Trump. He wins that contest as the most disruptive turn over all the tables and piss on the floor there is.
IF an Obama-Trump voter had said, WTF let’s roll the dice, I have no idea what Trump will actually be but I want to go with what’s behind door number 2 … and now they are not happy with the gag that was there, then they might make another decision, a different sort of one. They want to change out the gag gift.
As to your “appeal to authority” … the only thing that is not textbook of that is the lack of a county chair actually having much authority to appeal to.
xenophon41 the results of this last election, winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college, very much shows the importance of marginal differences in results in very specific states and their very specific balances of demographics and interests.
A few votes one way or the other in one specific state could be the balance of the Senate, no matter what the national popular vote is. Maine, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Montana, Arizona … Performing more or less than their previous partisan leans compared to a general win could be that which flips or flops the Senate.
For both the presidency and the Senate focusing on the national popular vote and ignoring the specifics of specific states that hold the balance is a mistake, if the election is at all close. They just are not the exact same states, not the same exact demographics, not the same exact issues, and maybe not the same exact appeals. Maybe there are pertinent overlaps? I dunno.
But yes a wide landslide of a popular vote win could drag them over even without specific attention. So I am open to hearing arguments who you think can do that and why.
My sense is that Obama-Trump voters fall into two camps: those looking for disruptive change and those who are just attracted to the new and shiny. If we accept this splitting, we should ask ourselves whether the “play it safe” strategy covers either one of these. It doesn’t seem like it does to me.
I’m not optimistic their brains operate this way, at least to a significant extent.
From the WP article that I posted earlier:
66% approval may seem low in an absolute sense, but guess what it is among Democrats? Just 5%. The takeaway is that Obama-Trump voters are much closer to Republicans (who are 90%) than they are to Democrats. And by the time Nov 2020 comes, who knows what their approval rating will be. Take one or two Democratic gaffes outright fabricated or blown out of proportion by Russian bots, and their approval of Trump could very well shoot to the moon.
This is ultimately why I think building a strategy around trying to snag these voters is both insane and unfair. We’re acting like the one group in the electorate that is the least rational and least loyal to the party should ultimately get to decide the kind of candidate all of us have to support. It would be different if there’s actual data telling us that it has to be this way because that’s just how the world works, but there is no data that says that. We just have a bunch of assumptions that haven’t really been properly scrutinized.
I dont think the GOp will really control the Senate like many seem to think. The dems will likely pick up a seat or two. Then Bidens skill at bipartianship can easily bring over a coupe Republicans to vote vs Mcconnell.
Maybe others ITT are arguing for a focus on Obama-Trump voters who have stopped approving of Trump, but that is not the group I am eyeing. I see plenty of evidence for a much larger group of educated white McCain-Romney-Trump voters (along with some McCain-Romney-Johnson voters) who are “gettable” if we don’t tack too far left. They are disgusted with Trump, but will probably go back to the GOP in 2024 if they can vote for someone “normal” like Rubio. For right now, though, they can be very useful.
Not trying to be argumentative, really I’m not, but my gut tells me these voters are much more likely to stay at home than they are to vote for a Democrat. This prospect doesn’t bother me because them staying at home translates to a win for the Dems just as long as this occurs in swing states that see strong Dem turnouts.
Maybe you’re right, though, and enough of them are amenable to jumping ship to make a difference. It sure would be nice to see some data for that before nominating a candidate based on this assumption.
Bernie asking voters if they want chocolate or vanilla, and attempting to banter with “customers” as he stands there in a white apron, sounds HILARIOUS. Cringe comedy at its best. I think even Bernheads would acknowledge that gladhanding, retail politicking is not his strong suit.
