Well, who’s better than her in terms of taking on Trump? Kamala Harris is the only one I can think of who’s not down in the white noise. Biden’s way overrated as a candidate, having never done well outside of Delaware, and hardly burning up the hustings this year. Sanders? No way. Buttigieg? Not ready for prime time. Other than Harris, I think you’ve got to go down to the lower levels - Booker and the like - to find someone who might be better against Trump.
I think it’s gonna come down to turnout. If the Dems get their base excited and get good turnout, they win. If they put their base to sleep or turn it off, it’ll be close. And I think that’s true, regardless of the candidate. The best way of looking at the candidates is what their effect on turnout is likely to be.
Obviously I’ve been more fixated on regaining some Obama-Trump voters back, but let’s go with the turnout side of the equation for now.
Which group’s turnout do you want to excite?
The younger progressives? Or Black voters? Or Hispanic ones? Or those most interested in women’s issues? Or those most interested in Climate Change?
Given Biden’s still strong support among Black voters one could argue that he’s best to excite turnout in that group. And Warren has not connected with them and would not excite turnout.
Or is the base to you just young enough educated white folk?
The base is not a single group who can all be excited by the same thing. The base is a big tent.
Hillary had overwhelming black support but did not excite black turnout. The black vote is just a slice of the Dem vote and the way they lean has little to do with excitement. I bet a fair number of the extra percentage points he has amongst black poll respondents are like yourself, “Biden is safest til you prove me wrong”.
Seriously, it’s the centenary of the 19th Amendment, and some Dem-friendly PAC needs to roll out a nationwide get-out-the-vote campaign for women. It doesn’t even have to be a partisan campaign - just getting women to register and turnout in high numbers will benefit the Democrats. Hell, I could write the campaign concept for them.
Likewise: part of the Republican voter suppression effort has been to make voting harder for college students. A state-by-state campaign to facilitate student voting (including how to vote if the Republicans have said you can’t vote on campus) would greatly help.
College students are actually an even better opportunity: With a bit of planning, a college student can often choose whether to register and vote in the state where they’re attending college, or the state they’re from (if those are different). So those votes can be distributed more efficiently than general-population votes. Like, an Ohioan going to school in Indiana and an Indianan going to school in Ohio could both count themselves as Ohio voters, and thus vote in a state that’s going to be crucial, not in a state that won’t make any difference (in the nonzero but slim chance that Democrats win Indiana, it’ll be a win-more state, not a margin state).
I appreciate the actual specifying. I hope the point is understood …
“Excite the base.” is often stated as if “the base” is some homogeneous thing with completely confluent interests and perspectives. It isn’t. A certain vocal portion often is what comes to mind but they really are not “the base” … they are one portion and the least reliable portion as well. There can be risks that someone who excites that portion of the base may turn off other more reliable and larger other base portions.
And while it really is neither here of there to the point I am trying to make, HRC did as pretty much as well in regards to Black turnout as any candidate not named Obama has ever done before. That demographic is a critical part of “the base”, and one that does not share all the same perspectives and interests as young white progressives do, but Obama level turnout may be something only Obama was able to achieve.
I’m with you on youth. But unless we’re talking about black and Latino women, I don’t think targeting women as a group is worth the squeeze. 53% of white women voted for Trump.
What Dems need to do is target the groups Republicans have furiously been trying to disenfranchise. Blacks, Latinos, and convicts come to mind.
Yes, exactly right. Which is why I am white-knuckling it, putting all my chips on Harris, even though there are several also-rans who would also be good nominees.
Convicts? Come on, what get out the vote campaign for convicts do you not see backfiring?
Latinx votes, ok, but with the realization that they aren’t as reliably Dem. They seem pretty solidly at about 30% Republican. All of Trump’s racist rhetoric in 2016 and he got 28% of their vote. That would be something to be done on a very regional basis.
Getting out the black vote is a no brainer and doesn’t have a lot specifically to do with voter suppression efforts.
Not if it’s done right. Making sure people are educated on how to restore their lost voting rights can be done without getting on a bullhorn about it. All the Dems need to do is work through groups that already help this population re-enter society.
Well of course. Not all Latinos are the same. Still, 70% of them voting Dem is high enough to make this group a good campaign investment. Y’all think Beto and them speaking Spanish was just a coincidence?
To add, targeting the groups that the GOP is trying to disenfranchise isn’t just about undoing voter suppression. It’s about recognizing what conservatives have long understood: minorities are key to helping liberals win. Millions (maybe billions) of dollars have gone into creating barriers for black and brown voters…this wouldn’t be happening if some big data analyst didn’t have the numbers supporting this strategy.
And the racial makeup of felons is mostly black, who overwhelmingly support Democrats, with the net result that felons as a whole are mostly Democratic. And the low voting rates among felons means that there’s a lot of room there to do better: That’s a reason to focus on them, not a reason to not focus on them.
I’ll certainly agree there’s “room for growth” but I suspect that would be a shit load of work and take many years to up their participation. That may be a long term strategy, and the right thing to do, but I can’t imagine it’s a game changer in 2020.
It’s worth noting that where voters have agreed to return voting rights to felons (Florida and somewhere else, I forget), Republicans are doing everything in their power to prevent that from being implemented.