She won re-election by a 24 point margin, which sounds good, until you realize it was in a State that Hillary Clinton won by 27 points. Yes, she performed worse than Hillary, without even accounting for the much more Democratic environment in 2018 compared to 2016. Based on Massachusetts’ historical voting patterns and the national mood, a generic Democrat would have been expected to win that election by 38. By comparison, Amy Klobuchar did 9 points better than her expectations, and Bernie Sanders did 12 points better.
A recent Presidential poll showed her in third place, behind Biden and Sanders, among Massachusetts Democrats. Meanwhile, in Delaware, Biden leads polls by 40.
Clearly the voters who know her best aren’t super impressed.
This is a huge red flag, because even this early in the process, successful or even near-successful candidates usually have the strong support of their home-State voters. For example, when Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy in 2014 to a resounding shrug from national Democrats, among whom his support was in the low single digits, he was immediately beating Clinton soundly in Vermont polls. On the other hand, Martin O’Malley never got out of the low single digits even in Maryland, so it shouldn’t have been surprising that those candidacies went in very different directions as the campaign wore on.
I’m not going to use bold or italics about it, but I also find it a bit odd that Beto O’Rourke is in second place in this poll. I mean, he seems charismatic enough, and his performance in the Texas Senate election was certainly impressive, but the resume seems awfully thin to be talking about a Presidential run. I hadn’t actually been aware that he didn’t support Medicare for All; that definitely disqualifies him from being anywhere near my first choice all by itself.
I don’t know much about Sherrod Brown. He sounds like he might be a good candidate, but I’m not aware that he’s shown any signs of running.
Personally, I am going to choose from among the candidates who have polling data showing that they would go into the election with a large advantage over Trump. There’s a lot of time left for others to get into that club, but right now it’s Biden and Sanders, and I prefer Sanders between the two.
I’m with you up to a point. I’ll vote for anyone who isn’t stupid, too liberal, and inexperienced. Has to be all three of those. If things are going well under Trump, I’d rather have his kind of stupid than an entirely new, more ambitious stupid that wants to remake 35% of the economy.
Combining negatives the way you did leads to ambiguity. Am I correct that you will vote for Trump unless the Democratic alternative is
not stupid, AND
not too liberal, AND
experienced.
No one being touted is “stupid” in any clinical sense; indeed by the most important criteria they are all much smarter than Trump. I might agree that Beto and Oprah are too inexperienced but of course would prefer either of them to Trump or Pence without hesitation.
Other than Sanders, which possible candidate is “too liberal”? Kamala Harris is a champion for minorities and women, opposes the death penalty and supports gun control. Is that what you mean by “too liberal”? :rolleyes: If Pence were the Gopster nominee instead of Trump, would you shower him with your affection?
In terms of “Which of the Democratic contenders would be the best President”, Beto isn’t remotely close to the top of my list. But based on current evidence he may well be the best campaigner the Democrats have for a lot of reasons, and as recent elections have shown voters pick the best campaigner, not the most qualified person.
In order for me to support Trump, the Democratic candidate must be stupid, too liberal, and inexperienced together. That really just means Kamala Harris or a celebrity candidate. Gillibrand and Holder are also no for me.
So you’d vote for Trump over those three? That’s really, really awful. None of those are admitted sexual abusers. If you’d vote for Trump over those three, especially when you clearly realize how awful he is in general, then trying to halt our abuse-tolerant society must not be particularly important for you.
One of the reasons that she is in my top two is how much anything but that she is. The are many stupid politicians out there, and some who are smart but who do too many stupid things. She is not one one of them. Now you want to claim she is too “liberal” or “progressive” for you, fine. She will be not enough of that for some others I suspect. Not enough relevant experience? I disagree but see can see how someone can believe that.
But stupid? No.
Gillibrand? Holder? There are good reasons to not be crazy about either and I am not (although either would beat Trump in my book by a long shot) but stupid? Neither is that.
I’m all for Kamala Harris, but most others would be acceptable. Not that that threshold even matters, since I’ll be voting against any Republican who does not vehemently speak out against racism and sexism.
My fear for the Democrats is that their tactics will be shaped too much by 2016. That’s the terrain Trump won on. Avoid it.
Democrats need to define the politics of 2020. They need to campaign on their own issues. Fair wages for all. Healthcare for all. Stopping gun violence. Earning international respect. Etc.
Kamala Harris has been working hard building Democratic support. I follow her on Facebook and she has been campaigning and fundraising for a lot of Democratic candidates. And not just federal offices. I don’t know if she’ll get the nomination for 2020, but she’ll get it sometime in the future.
Yeah, Harris will lose us the moderate gun owner vote*. What the NRA calls the “Fudds”. People who dont own a lot of guns, dont own “assault weapons” , who own a few weapons for hunting or a couple for self defense. She supported the illegal gun ban in San Francisco, which shows she is willing to violate the Constitution for votes. She will thus lose the General election.
the hard core gun owners will never vote Dem, unless it is a Blue Dog in the South.
Supporting gun control is one thing, actively making it part of your platform in a presidential election is another…that’s a one-way ticket to a second Trump term.
It’s not really that, it’s that a candidate who’s seen as openly being in favor of stricter gun control makes it easier to rally the other side to come out to vote in greater numbers.
Yes, Americans support some sort of gun control, but nothing strict. Like I said, you can ban bump stocks, no problem. Increase Background checks- OK. Maybe even regulate “assault weapons” (depending on how you define those). More or less what Hillary wanted and what Trump was publically once in favor of.
But once you think about banning all handguns (as Harris tried to do) or all semi-automatics, the support is very small. About 1/4 or so.
And of course this support fluctuates widely depending on how soon the poll is taken after a big Mass Shooting or how the questions are worded.
But yeah, some mild gun control will not hurt you in the General.
I meant what percentage of eligible voters are moderate gun owners? Only about 20-30% of Americans are gun owners, and moderate gun owners are a subset of that.