Even if Brown stays in the Senate, it’s iffy as to whether the Dems will get to 50 in the Senate, which they will need to do just to confirm Administration appointees and judicial nominees, and pass appropriations bills. Brown giving up a Senate seat that would almost surely go Republican would make that a lot harder.
To actually enact meaningful legislation in 2021, the Dems need to:
I think Brown would sweep the Rust Belt.
But he has to survive his own party first - that’s the tricky part.
Let’s not forget that Trump lost to John Kasich in the primary. Obama won Ohio twice. Ohio is conservative, but mostly the centrist type. There are parts of Ohio closer to West Virginia and Kentucky that are probably going to be fiercely Trump, but there are many others who voted simply for him (or simply stayed home) because they didn’t like Hillary and felt her campaign was out of touch. Sherrod Brown ‘gets it’. He would beat Trump, and I suspect he would give him a fairly good beat-down. Ohioans are definitely ‘Merikuns’ but they’re the nice kind. I think Brown would do well there, and his success would carry over into PA, WI, and MI.
Where Democrats are increasingly weak - and astonishingly so - is in Florida. Of all the swing states that are in danger of becoming red, it’s Florida that should keep Democrats up at night. I don’t see anyone right now in the Democratic field who can beat Trump there. Being Latino and having the support of Latinos isn’t necessarily an advantage, either. Latin identity of Florida is different than it is in the rest of America’s Latin communities. A lot of them even look down on other Latinos, so sob stories about children locked in cages might get some traction states like Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico, but it won’t get much mileage in Florida.
On the flip side, I think there’s real momentum in Florida, and I again think that Brown would do well there - perhaps better than the rest of the Democratic field. The potential danger is looking backwards into history a little too much and not seeing where the trends are taking us. I think almost any front-running Democrat who can convince the majority of the party that they’re not anti-white male will win the so-called Rust Belt states that Hillary lost. But they also need to look at what’s happening in Florida, where there’s a real danger of losing, and Texas and Arizona, where there’s a real chance to pick up some gains. That’s why I’m kinda leaning toward someone like Brown. Klobuchar, Castro, and Booker also strike me as having the potential to score as well. I simply don’t know enough about Kamala Harris to have an informed opinion on her, except for the realization that she’s obviously very good at politics and political organizing.
I’d rephrase that as, “but he has to gain support within his own party first.” He’s generally polling down around 1%. Other than Emerson (and something weird’s going on with their numbers, so I don’t exactly trust them), nobody’s had him above 2% in any poll.
That could change, of course, but until it does, how he might do as the nominee is academic.
I don’t even know how serious he is about running. It doesn’t seem like he really gave it much thought until just recently, and people don’t know who the hell he is. If you’re thinking of running in 2020, that’s an important first step. I get the feeling he may have waited too long. And unfortunately, he’s not someone who’s going to shock the world because unlike Bernie Sanders, he doesn’t really have radical ideas. He’s a pragmatist and incrementalist, which I actually think is what we need, but tell that to the teeming masses of voters who want someone to shock the system and want to rage-vote.
I think if your name isn’t Joe Biden or Beto O’Rourke, it’s too late to get in the race. Brown lacks national recognition and an early start, he should think about 2024 or 2028 or being VP.
It’s curious how Ohio went from a swing state to being quite red. If a Democrat carries PA, WI, and MI then all is well, the northern path wins.
To me, Brown’s and Obama’s back-to-back election victories are evidence that Ohio is still in play for Democrats - at least for moderate democrats. It’s far less certain how Bernie Sanders or anyone who embraces the politics of Democratic Socialism would fare in the Buckeye state. Let’s not forget that Clinton murdered Sanders in Ohio in the primary. Trump was probably regarded by many centrist and independent Ohioan Republicans as not being a particularly dangerous Republican, and even if he was, they probably just were fed up with the Clinton dynasty.
But voter distaste for the Clintons doesn’t mean that Sanders or an Ocasio-Cortez type candidate would necessarily do well there. It’ll be interesting to see how a candidate like Kamala Harris or Corey Booker would communicate or shift their campaign strategies post-primaries.
Democrats may be running into the problem that Republicans have had for years: running hard to one side and then having to figure out a way to calibrate to centrists in the general election without alienating the base of the party. I think Obama’s strategy has been the most effective in recent times: pick one issue to give to the base (Obama’s was the ACA) and be more mainstream left on most everything else. If the Democrats push for a revolution, I’m not sure how that’ll play with mid-America.
Sorry, I meant Texas, not Florida. There’s real momentum in Texas, as Beto O’Rourke proved. But O’Rourke proved that moderates and pragmatists could compete with Republicans in Texas. It’s not clear how well more aggressive progressives would play there - I’m guessing not nearly as well.
It’s paradoxical because nationally, I think the country is flirting more and more with liberalism. As I’ve cynically posted before, what would probably do the trick, what would be the tipping point, is a shock to the system. I think the country is starting to understand that there’s some good value in some of the things that progressives are offering - tangible things like healthcare they can use and worker protection as a result of organized labor.
The problem is in the electoral math. In certain places, progressivism is viewed through a jaundiced lens.
Right now the only choice that is running away with it in national polling, when given the choice of “undecided”, is “undecided” … near half. After that it’s Biden at 9%. Even zero to 9 is a pretty tight cluster.
But national polls WILL change dramatically and the first drivers of that change will be performance (especially performance relative to expectations) in Iowa and New Hampshire. He is not known well there yet either but his strengths are a good match to click with people there. He has already started to visit there. His path depends on a performance exceeding expectations in one or both of those states. If he runs and he is not in the top three in either he is done.
I linked to this Mother Jones article in another thread but it really should be here too.
His big primaries dings? One, he’s not as strong on environmental issues. Two, he’s an older white guy. Conversation with a progressive white woman friend who has always been an activist, she’s not going to work for another old white guy no matter what their policies. (She’s behind Klobuchar, even though Klobuchar’s positions are much more centrist than she is and Brown hits her positions to a tee. Harris is, in her mind, too Coastal elite to win.)
I’m not seeing a rebuttal here.
That’s an easy claim to make, and the proof of the pudding won’t be for nearly a year.
Who hasn’t?
Top three, my ass. Finishing second or third in IA or NH won’t save anyone.
I was listening to a public radio show on yesterday morning (forgot which one) in which the guests were discussing the growing democratic party field of contenders. The conversation then turned to Bernie Sanders chances and one of the commentators said that he didn’t believe Sanders’ chances were good. In fact the all three or four of the guests (I assume left-leaning) tossed shade at Sanders’ chances. But one remark in particular jumped out at me, with a young black female activist essentially saying that an older white male can’t lead a revolution (whatever you want to call it).
It was disappointing, not because I’m particularly interested in seeing another white male atop the ticket, but just because it’s an assumption that a white male can’t be the leader of the democratic party anymore. I wholeheartedly agree that it’s time that our politics reflect the diversity of our society and I agree it’s past time for more black candidates, more female candidates, more Latino candidates, gay candidates, Asian-American candidates, etc…being considered as contenders for the presidency. And since the Republican party doesn’t seem to be a particularly hospitable environment for candidates with diverse backgrounds, I’m fine with the democratic party being a vehicle for promoting that kind of diversity, even if it somehow turns out that we may not have another white male nominee for another 2 or more election cycles.
But one of the concerns I’ve had in the era of Trump is that polarization could be used to divide and conquer a political coalition that essentially depends on diversity in order for it to succeed. The Yugoslavian conflict was the result of racial and ethnic polarization, which splintered coalitions along racial lines. Russia has since copied this blueprint to sow unrest throughout Eastern Europe throughout the Putin era. Let’s not kid ourselves: It’s a potentially explosive and effective strategy that could be employed here. White males may be white and they may be male, but they are still a part of the diversity equation.
I want to emphasize that I’ve seen nothing yet that gives me any strong and convincing indication that white males are an endangered species among democrats. Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden are all formidable candidates - all of whom absolutely should expect to be challenged by other strong non-white and non-male candidates. But the snippet that DSeid posted reminded me of that remark yesterday and I found it unfortunate. I’m glad that there’s a political platform that can be used to showcase the value of America’s diversity - I’m glad that Democratic party offers that. I just hope it doesn’t somehow become the anti white male party.
I think the issue with Florida is that the numbers of conservatives continues to increase as older white people who skew conservative retire and move down from up north from places like New York or Massachusetts. Texas, on the other hand and as you mentioned in a later post, is becoming bluer since the people moving in tend to be younger and from places like California, so they tend to skew more liberal. That’s in addition to the growing Latino population, which skews younger and Mexican-American rather than Cuban, so that each election the proportion of Latinos in the youngest part of the electorate is increasing.
From the MoJo link:
Well, fuck him.
It’s perfectly OK for him to reject AOC’s half-baked wish list. But every Dem candidate had better say what they think a Green New Deal should look like, and then we can have a good, healthy debate over the specifics. If they don’t have a plan of their own yet, it’s fine to say they’re for such a deal in principle, and will either sign on to a plan or come up with their own by summer.
But if you were against cap-and-trade in 2009 when you were in a position to make a difference, fuck you once. We had a chance, however slim, to start doing something about climate change a decade ago, to start bending the curve ten years earlier. And if you can’t be bothered to make up for that now, fuck you twice.
My son is more than half a century younger than I am. So half a century more of whatever mess our generations leave behind is the world he will live in and I won’t. I have prayed many times that we haven’t already failed him, and I greatly fear we have.
But whatever chance we have, whatever time we have left, to avert a global climate catastrophe, I insist on having Democrats in control who consider it one of their highest priorities to take full advantage of that time, to maximize whatever chance we have.
Sherrod Brown is not such a Democrat. Ohio can have him.
Assuming #2 was directed at me, septimus, I resent the hell out of your implication. I have followed this issue closely for many years and am quite well informed on the topic. Why would you assume that my opinions are formed by “soundbites” or mindlessly following some “party line”?
But if he can win Ohio, it’s foolish to overlook him just because he doesn’t meet your anti-global catastrophe litmus test!
Not sure what there is to rebut and I am not rebutting anything. Simple comment: the biggest chunk of voters have no idea who they will be supporting yet. Not being known by most yet and leading the pack at 9% or 4% doesn’t have much predictive value.
Haven’t seen your ass and don’t care much about it. But the results in Iowa and NH will winnow the field. If a known established big expectations name (Sanders, Biden, Warren) underperforms (not in top two in either) the storyline for them is how down they are and they sink fast. If a lesser name (pretty much everyone else) overperforms (in top three in one or the other) that is the media cycle, even more than an expected winner winning. And those of the pretty much everyone else who do not hit the top three in one or the other are pretty much done with forks sticking out.
Oh I was definitely disappointed too. Her dismissing out of hand someone based exclusively on their race and gender really took me aback.
Pretty sure you won’t be voting for him in a primary, or donating. It’s his biggest negative on my list too, although I do also note he’s evolved since that cap and trade vote. I agree that he’d need to come up with what his plan would be by summer and that would need to be solid. He needs to be very clear on what his pragmatic solutions now are.
The bolded part is a point I have made in several discussions since 2016 - Florida is lost, the path for the Democrats is to bring PA, WI, MI and if possible OH back to their side. There are several combos of those states that will do the trick. The other point I’ve made is that other than Biden I don’t see any East coast or West coast Democrat being likely to accomplish this in 2020.
I’m a bit surprised by the attitude that the Dems should try to win back OH (Trump won by 8 points) but “Florida is lost” (Trump by less than 2 points).
It’s also worth noting that HRC barely eeked out a win in NH, and only won NV by a couple of points. Even if the 2020 Dem wins MI, WI, and PA back, if they lose NH and NV, President Trump would still win 270-268, so they’ve got to protect those places too (and MN, CO, and VA but beyond that, we’re getting into flipping-OH levels of wishful thinking).
I agree that any white candidate needs at least a top 2 finish in IA or NH to stay credible. I wouldn’t write off any of the minorities until SC and NV have been heard from.