Well that’s where we’re wrong. We need to have the mentality that there is NO difference between 40% chance of losing and 10% chance of losing. We aren’t betting on a football game here. This is life and death shit. There cannot be ANY MORE taking for granted the idea that Trump is vulnerable in the election. NO MORE of it.
You’re not making sense, Lamoral. Of course there’s a difference between the 40% chance of losing and the 10% chance of losing, and saying there’s not a difference is going to, at best, get us the 40% (and at worst, the 90%).
I meant it more in terms of the way he said “any Democratic nominee is favored against Trump.” That is not the right attitude, in my opinion. I don’t think it is possible to determine with any degree of accuracy, what percentage a candidate might lose to Trump. I think a candidate can either beat Trump, or can’t. Not “WILL” and “WON’T” but “can” or “can’t.” Whether they do, depends on how they run their campaign. But there are certain people who I think simply CAN’T beat Trump no matter how hard they campaign.
Actually, no. Four presidents were younger (most recently JFK and Clinton), and one was tied (Cleveland). And Obama was not only a decade older than Mayor Pete, he had garnered 3.6 million votes in his most recent election before running for president, literally hundreds of times as many as the South Bend mayor received in *his *most recent election.
This puts me to mind of Chuck Klosterman, in his book Sex Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs:
I like Klosterman, so I choose to believe he was joking. But I’m not 100% certain about that, as I sense that a lot of people do think this way.
So I really was very impressed when I heard Buttigieg interviewed on the radio but didn’t go much farther as he was not someone who I felt could make it to the top tier. Now that he is polling stronger it is time to look more at what his positions actually are.
His fumble on supporting vaccine personal exemptions was a big one to me.
What is he proposing that is different from the pack? On healthcare he supports a gradual process to single payer and using “all-payer rate setting” as a stepping stone. (A discussion about that idea here but it doesn’t impress me much.)
Otherwise any differences? He’s well educated and articulate and young and is willing to address some nuance and complexity. Is that enough? He lacks experience or appeal to important segments of Ds, D-leaners, and swingable Independents. He’d do okay keeping the Romney-Clinton voters but not appeal to many of the Obama-Trump ones or maximize Black turn-out or get Hispanic voters off their asses.
When he fades, as I think he will, who gets his support?
He strikes me as someone whose support wouldn’t stay very concentrated when he fades. ISTM, his support is based mostly on “he seems like a smart energetic young fellow” and I don’t know where that would move too. Beto? But hopefully he fades at least as early.
He already stole all of Beto’s fire! His credentials are 10x what Beto’s are.
Not wanting to hijack, but when I read that, I assumed Klosterman was talking about the thought processes of others.
Hopefully Klobuchar. Besides her and Pete everyone else sucks or is trailing her lowly status in the polls.
Pffffffffft. :rolleyes:
You really nailed it here.
I don’t know what thread I posted it in, maybe it was this one. But I’ve got my own personal polling audience: my Uncle G (retired railworker, active retiree union member, lives in Metro Detroit, solid Democrat for years, 2x Obama voter, sat out 2016) and my Cousin D (Millennial, currently a utility worker, active union member, lives in Metro Detroit, Obama voter the one time he was old enough to vote for him, voted for Trump in 2016). Neither would be excited for Pete, although Cousin D has a gay brother, so that wouldn’t be the stumbling block for him. The fact that Pete doesn’t come across as an Alpha Male would probably be the major stumbling block for both.
Biden, Booker and Bernie all come across as Alphas and could carry solid lunch-bucket messages. THIS is what will appeal to the industrial Midwest voters like my Uncle G and Cousin D. Never mind these candidates’ records. Forget that Biden did something with banks, or Booker has taken money from drug companies, or Bernie is a “socialist”. These guys can *speak *to Uncle G and Cousin D. Klobuchar would be mocked by them, as would Gillibrand and Warren and Kamala as well as many of the current B/C-list candidates (Castro, Beto, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Gabbard,) And I just don’t see blue collar guys in MI, PA and WI showing up for “Little Petey” (as I’m sure this is how Trump would characterize him).
Biden, Booker or Bernie. These are the candidates that will have support from the blue-collar voters and their families in the industrial Midwest. I love Pete, and hope he’s president someday. January 20, 2021 is not that day.
Interesting theory (sincerely, not sarcastically). How do you square Biden and Bernie with voters’ reservations about candidates over 75? Not to mention, for Bernie, socialists? I think you may have something here, but it points to Booker, not so much the other two IMO.
For the age thing: Age might be a barrier to the general voting public, but for these types of voters, as long as the candidate “speaks” to them, they’re ok. At least that’s my take right now, just thinking about Uncle G and Cousin D. Biden, old as he is, can speak their language, and can come across as tough. His past votes, how he raised money in the past, those things are less important than how he can speak to them now. Uncle G and Cousin D aren’t political nerds combing The Hill, Politico and FiveThirtyEight for info, so a lot of the past details on candidates aren’t as important with them, and I don’t think age would be either.
For the socialist thing: This one puzzles me (and admittedly worries me, as I’m not confident it wouldn’t end up being a problem with voters down the road). I would say 80% of union members I’ve talked to in Michigan and Ohio are 100% in the bag for Bernie (point of reference, I worked in labor for 15 years, and still have a number of friends and acquaintances in the labor movement). Donating, posting stuff on Facebook, going to hear him speak, etc. So, it would seem anyway, the socialist thing doesn’t bother union people. My only worry is that the only union members I’m hearing from are the most vocal ones, who happen to support Bernie. Perhaps the less vocal ones (and maybe they outnumber the vocal ones) support someone else.
So I’m not fully sold on Bernie, but if the socialist thing doesn’t become an issue, Bernie has the message and style to win the vote of Uncle G and Cousin D.
So if I were to rank my three, it would be:
1.Booker
2.Biden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3. Sanders
I’m not a Buttihead, but that seems like pretty reductionist thinking. Your assumption is that because he’s young, gay, and white, that he will turn off voters who aren’t? Certainly as a general rule that might be true, but we’re looking for a special case here. The candidate we want is one who can get support from voters who they don’t have an obvious demographic affinity for. Buttigieg’s performance thus far suggests we can’t rule out the possibility that he might be the guy.
Though as I’ve made clear I personally have little time for any candidate whose “process” for getting to single-payer health care is more complicated than “pass a law implementing single-payer health care”.
Anecdotally, my parents (lifelong union members from the Midwest) aren’t following the race closely but are quite impressed with Buttigieg. Last time they were for Bernie, but now they think he’s too old.
No. Not turn them off but not particularly turn them on either. That is not based on identity alone. Oh identity can help but more so is a track record of support, performance, and being able to speak to and with the populations in ways that resonate, or evidence that those populations are currently resonating with him.
Obama-Trump voters are not most motivated by climate change or impressed by being well-educated (in fact some may be suspicious of the well-educated and have an anti-intellectual streak). Biden has very strong approval among Black Democrats, much stronger than the current Black candidates do. And nothing has seemed to get Hispanic voters to flex the substantial muscle they have but I don’t see anything that Mayor Pete brings to possibly change that.
I’m willing to be convinced otherwise but not being able to rule it out isn’t enough. To me the burden of proof is the other way.
To make clear (and have stated elsewhere). I have Biden as my default but am looking and hoping for someone more exciting to displace him on their strengths. But I need to be convinced of those strengths, not just think they are not ruled out as being present.
I’m not trying to convince* you* to support him – I’m not an enthusiast myself. Just saying that I don’t see any particular reason to assume that he’s going to “fade” in the short to medium term.
What performance? Cracking double digits in some polls, thanks almost entirely to enthusiasm from college-educated white liberals? 
I’d turn that around. What reason is there to think he won’t fade?
What are his positions that stand out from the crowd? By positions he’s a middle of the road pragmatic liberal. That won’t make the strong progressives happy (many of them like you will not want to support someone who says that single payer will be a process, for example). Which of the other groups are probable to gravitate to him and why?
His support is not based on agreeing with his positions very much and not based on thinking he is the most electable or thinking he is the most qualified and skilled for the job. Nor is he exciting. I’m thinking you need at least one of those to not fade.
But I have been surprised by his getting up this high so I am open to being surprised as the process unfurls!