Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
 |
| 10/25/2019 01:03 PM |
|
There is certainly some merit to that...as I noted, Trump attracted a fair number of Obama voters. People who were sick of the status quo and wanted “change”.
However, wanting “change” and being frustrated with the status quo does not necessarily equate to wanting the blow up the whole system.
For example, “Medicare For All” polls very poorly, but people want improved healthcare options. Forgiving student debt also polls poorly, but Sanders and Warren are both advocating strongly for it.
What I have said for over a year now is that Dems need a central platform and that platform needs to address key issues that the majority of the population supports:
* Gun Control
* Climate Change
* Healthcare
* Education
* Taxes on the wealthy
“Here is what we stand for...everyone running for our party’s nomination supports these things. By voting for the Democrat, you will have increased access to lower cost healthcare, we will pass sensible gun regulations, we will install programs to tackle Climate Change, we will restructure student debt and we will rescind the Trump tax cuts on the wealthiest .1%.
Each of our candidates supports these issues, although perhaps to differing degrees. We welcome that debate / discussion. But we all stand united in the pursuit of these goals and we stand united to defeat Donald Trump.”
THAT is how you win the election in 2020....NOT by fighting for some sort of ideological purity. |
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
Orange Crush
Posts:4499
|
| 10/25/2019 01:11 PM |
|
Haha - what I'll agree on, and I think that was my original post in this thread is that the Democrats need a platform before picking a candidate who can sell that platform. This is the perpetual horse behind the cart of primaries in which you first hold what basically comes down to a popularity contest and only when that is settled is there serious talk about platform (mostly set by successful candidate; between that platform and her VP pick Clinton lost the script and I knew she was toast).
In pretty much all other countries the platform/candidate question is settled internally by the party in which the party doesn't end up with someone they didn't really want (as was case with Repubs/Trump). The public at large are really a poor replicate for making this choice (ending up with movie stars and game show hosts). It also substantially shortens the election cycle. In Canada we got things done start to finish in 40 days. But this won't go over well with your media; they need the election cycle to remain the circus and peep show that it is, and they need candidates that know how to throw a tantrum. |
|
|
|
|
longslowdistance
Posts:2886
|
| 10/25/2019 10:18 PM |
|
Warren will increase Dem wins in NY and CA. Who cares. A lot of those essential swing voters in those key swing states won't vote for Warren. Too liberal for them. Even if that's dumb for them.
Harris? Maybe. I like Bullock, but he can't get on the debate stage let alone nominated in the current Dem system. |
|
|
|
|
Orange Crush
Posts:4499
|
| 10/26/2019 09:32 AM |
|
Consider that the repubs are targeting those same swing states with extreme tactics.
"He said the Republican tactics are aimed at a small slice of persuadable independent and swing-state voters."
"We're basically watching a show unfold that is essentially for the benefit of probably less than 10 per cent of the voters in six states," O'Connell said.
Do you put a meek middle of road candidate against such tactics or is it fighting fire with fire? Or is this a separate question from politics and candidates altogether?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/impeachment-trump-republican-sciff-1.5336312 |
|
|
|
|
Orange Crush
Posts:4499
|
| 10/26/2019 09:34 AM |
|
| At a minimum I think this shows kicking Trump out is but a tiny part of a much bigger job to kick out the entire Repub establishment at grass roots Congressional level. A much harder job. This kind of stuff will not disappear with the mere shuttering of Trump. It existed before him and will continue to exist unless addressed at the polls. |
|
|
|
|
Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
|
| 10/26/2019 11:05 AM |
|
Posted By Orange Crush on 10/26/2019 09:32 AM
Consider that the repubs are targeting those same swing states with extreme tactics.
"He said the Republican tactics are aimed at a small slice of persuadable independent and swing-state voters."
"We're basically watching a show unfold that is essentially for the benefit of probably less than 10 per cent of the voters in six states," O'Connell said.
Do you put a meek middle of road candidate against such tactics or is it fighting fire with fire? Or is this a separate question from politics and candidates altogether?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/impeachment-trump-republican-sciff-1.5336312
A centrist or moderate candidate does not equate to being “meek”. |
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
longslowdistance
Posts:2886
|
| 10/26/2019 09:04 PM |
|
| Agree. And along this line, Reagan 2.0 got the nod, heavily retooled from his many losing campaigns. |
|
|
|
|
Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
|
| 11/04/2019 07:20 AM |
|
Again, it is the battle ground states that matter, not national polls. If Dems nominate Warren or Sanders, Trump wins again. Mark my words.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/one-year-from-election-trump-trails-biden-but-leads-warren-in-battlegrounds.html |
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
smokey52
Posts:498
|
| 11/04/2019 06:08 PM |
|
| As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, I do not like open primaries. By coincidence, quite a few of the early primaries are open. The early primaries have undue influence on the following primaries. In my opinion, this means that non-Democrats have undue influence on the eventual nomination. In 2016, Sanders did much better in open primaries than in closed ones. |
|
|
|
|
Orange Crush
Posts:4499
|
| 11/04/2019 06:40 PM |
|
Is that the same NYT that predicted Clinton would cruise to victory LOL. A lot of these polls suck at anything other than bias confirmation. There were a few that deviated from the trend in 2016 and they correctly predicted the outcome. Rasmussen was one of them if memory serves.
And then of course there's this, which means you're hooped any which way.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-03/trump-on-course-to-win-2020-re-election-if-economic-models-right |
|
|
|
|
Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
|
| 11/05/2019 07:18 AM |
|
The NYT never predicted Clinton would cruise to victory. All their polls fell within their margin of error. 70k votes determined the election across a small handful of states.
Which only confirms exactly what I have been saying. This election is not about appealing to the majority of the country, it is about the swing voters in a handful of states.
Nothing else matters except defeating Trump. No agenda or policy is more important than that. |
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
|
| 11/05/2019 08:49 AM |
|
Sorry, it appears I got my 538 polls mixed up with NYT. The NYT polls were accurate on a national level, but missed the state level.
If you listen to podcasts, I highly recommend today's episode of The Daily . Goes into great detail on the polls, how they corrected for 2016, etc. If you aren't scared schittless about the prospect of Trump getting reelected after listening to it, you should be.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/podcasts/the-daily/whos-ahead-2020.html |
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
Orange Crush
Posts:4499
|
| 11/05/2019 11:22 AM |
|
The issue with polls is the same as with preparing a flu vaccine. You can correct for 2016 all you want but you cannot predict the factors that will be important in 2020. Not yet anyway. The other problem with polls is that they've been relying on increasingly small sample sizes, which tend to increase the potential for bias. That economic model predictor I linked has a better track record than the polls (which just goes to show that Bill was right).
The problem with that NYT article is that they made a huge overreach on a poll where all the outcomes were basically within the margin of error (if you get into the weeds of the content). It was bottom line barely hidden messaging of the corporate powers to democratic voters. If you don't support our favorite candidate we will support the other guy. One of a slew of similar articles that have come out of the woodwork in recent weeks with that very Wall Street message. The one thing scarier than another Trump presidency is the notion that corporate powers seem to be perfectly happy with continuing that situation.
I agree with you that it is the swing voters in a handfull of states that matter. But it is important to realize who those swing voters are. They are not the traditional Repub-Dem cross-over voters; this is a very small sliver. The larger numbers are found with Green and Libertarian voters as well as the no shows, and this is who a Democratic candidate will need to appeal to in the swing states. It goes back to Huck's question about "what is a moderate candidate".
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/how-third-party-votes-sunk-clinton-what-they-mean-for-trump
As the article points out, the third party vote is up for grabs as Trump has done zip to appease them. But I don't think Biden is able to make this pitch. His ship will sink in a very similar fashion as Clinton's due to too much baggage (even if some of that baggage is make belief) and being seen as too chummy with the corporate class. It's not Sanders either and I am quite certain he knows this based on that he has and hasn't done so far. Warren is sitting somewhere between these two but it will depend on the moves she would make after the primary (a more conservative VP that is a friend of corporate america and a dialing back on medicare for all messaging could seal the deal). The only other candidate will a real shot seems to be Buttigieg who's fortunes have been rising as Biden is seen as faltering. But he'll need to come up with a coherent message other than just saying no we can't do this. The rest is just running on fumes. |
|
|
|
|
Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
|
| 11/05/2019 04:44 PM |
|
Oh, I agree 100% that Biden is leaking oil and just hoping to cross the finish line w/o screwing up. If the election was today, he would defeat Trump handily. A year from now? Not certain at all.
I like Buttigieg a lot. he has a calm, reasonable demeanor....but 1) I don't think the US is ready for a married gay couple in the WH and 2) he has a HUGE problem in the African American community. NO AA vote, no win next November.
I'll say it again...the fact that the Dems could not get a "safe" candidate to be their nominee is mind-numbing. Biden is leaking oil and playing "hide and seek", Sanders is only about Sanders (and not even a Dem anyway), Warren will get trounced in a general and Mayor Pete is gay.
Beto really screwed up....he should have jumped in immediately after lsoing the TX Senate race. His waffling and indecisiveness cost him any shot at the nomination. He coulda taken it in a cakewalk. |
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
longslowdistance
Posts:2886
|
| 11/05/2019 09:15 PM |
|
| Buttigieg can't win the general election in the current USA. However, he would be great for a cabinet post if a Dem wins, that would be a step forward that would resonate if he does a good job. Beto is a lightweight. He would be effective campaigning for someone else. I was a congressional intern in the early 80s. Sen. Biden was an extremely effective shill for the financial outfits that Delaware sheltered. Some of the same outfits that caused the great recession, etc etc. Now he's a bit senile. Like Beto he would do more good as a king maker. Embrace it Joe! |
|
|
|
|