"The people you really have to motivate aren’t the Democratic base"

Absolutely right.

True, but these Middle American types have a wide variety of opinions about what they think is a "reasonable alternative" to Trump. It's impossible to please them all enough to get them off their fat lazy asses and go vote, even if the vote is against someone like Trump.

Just look at all the political accounts on Twitter who scream day in and day out about their particular issues -- none of them, with the exception of a handful of alt-right nutjobs, actually have gone and done anything about it. They just tweet. They cry about being scared of what Trump will do but I would bet 90% of them haven't even called their representatives.

Our society is lazy to the core and that's our biggest hurdle.

Four years ago Trump asked, "What do you have to lose?"

The Democrats need to appeal to those people who now know the answer to that question.

Actually, just the 4M black voters who sat out the last election will do.

r4, you mean Black men who could not vote for the woman?

Article is by a Republican, and one in California at that, where they're like cornered animals. He does NOT have Democrats' best interests in mind.

Totally agree with this, IDGAF who wrote it.

So R6 by calling for the election of a Democrat over Trump he doesn't have Democrats' best interest in mind?

I'd love to hear the reasoning here.

Obviously it's in the best interests of Republicans for Democrats to be as conservative as possible. The only way Trump was able to get widespread support, apart from the fact that the media obligingly presented him as a serious candidate, was to take populist positions on war and the economy that would formerly have been the ambit of the Democratic party.

Article makes a fair point:

[quote] No matter how popular something might be with activists in Los Angeles or donors in Manhattan, it’s dead weight or worse if it isn’t a winner with Rotary Club members in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

The never Trumpers CANNOT be trusted, no matter how many Democrats seem to think they're our friends. They're still Republicans, and they want to push the Democratic Party rightward so it will be a better fit for them and all those 'undecided' nitwits (who mostly lean rightward, despite their indecision). They also see the conflict between the more moderate Dems and the younger progressives, and how that can divide the Dems and make them less effective. Either scenario benefits them. They're too lazy and cowardly to remake their own party into something sane so would rather just co-opt the Dems. Just like the Berniebots who want to take over in order to push the party to the far-left, rather than start their own.

I'm a Californian, and surrounded by these assholes. They despise Democrats, liberals, whatever word you want to use. Trust them and any 'advice' they want to give the Democrats at your peril. They hate us and everything we stand for, and they are JEALOUS, because their party is on life support here, irrelevant. The stench of Trump took many of them down last year. And while the Republicans on a national level have fully embraced white supremacy, the ones here in CA, with our demographics, see the future, and they know what it means for the GOP.

Like I said, cornered animals. Not to be trusted.

Well, the article triggered the DL coastal socialists who think they know everything. The article is spot on, but, unfortunately too much pub is given to AOC and those idiots, who will lose the election for the Dems. Go left - lose. Period.

That's why you have to give them Joe. He's like a smarter version of Trump in some ways, with a bit of the same ability to make public gaffes. And he's an old, white man. He's probably the most relatable that way.

This is classic right wing concern trolling. No one ever tells the Republicans to not nominate a too far right candidate. EVER. But Democrats have to hears this bullshit about too far left EVERY FUCKING ELECTION. The worse part is that every proposal we've heard is mainstream thinking in the rest of the developed world and is supported by large majorities in polls in this fucking country. Warren's health care and student loan debt plans are for people in Manhattan AND Michigan, as just one example. The author of this piece is bashing the coasts like a good Republican twat and is being utterly disingenuous. Article is IGNORED.

This is common sense. The entire country votes jn elections, including places some DLers have seething contempt for.

But r14, Americans are much more likely to identity as conservative than liberal, and socialism is still a curse word to Middle America. The rest of the world is inapposite to us

Couldn’t care less about the Midwest or the “centrists” (really, right wingers) who we supposedly have to cater to.

No. Fuck off. And stop posting these articles here. They’re worthless. Blocked.

Ugh this "Dems have to worry about appealing to the mythical swing voter." Fuck that.

The Dems need a candidate who excites the base and can explain why their policies are good for that mythical swing voter.

Hillary couldn't because after 20+ years of being attacked no one listened to her.

R17 Again, common sense. You can't win national elections with just the coasts.

Republicans don’t have any problem running the most right-wing trash they can.

Why should Democrats have to go centrist?

R20 To win.

Why worry about voters in always red states? @70k idiots in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan are the reason we have a Trump presidency, and mostly because he was running against a Clinton.

2016 was whack. I doubt anyone feels all that confident about a model for 2020.

Hm we need a heartfelt advice letter from a Democrat to the GOP. What should that day?

R17 - your attitude is one of a loser. "I don't care if the Dems win the election; I want what I want. Fuck everybody else." Have fun with four more years of Trump. or, maybe you'd be very happy with that. Most of us won't So, take your AOC socialist crap and masturbate. It's the only pleasure you'll get.

Four more years? The GOP is setting him up for Life - in the wh not behind bars.

R25 Please stay in reality. Trump is already bad, we don't have to daydream up anything extra.

R16: When you poll individual issues, the American public goes for the liberal position. Student loan relief and universal health care help both the coasts and Middle America. And Warren is not a socialist, she's been clear about that. Either engage with the reality on the ground or don't bother.

R19: Student loan relief and universal health care help both the coasts and Middle America. Stop accepting the right wing framing. Either engage with the reality on the ground or don't bother.

R27 So what you're saying is that they're centrist positions, since they're popular across the board.

R27, yet swing states and Middle America don’t vote based on those issues, so why keep citing that when we are talking about issues that motivate swing staters. Cultural issues and candidate personality are driving voters

R28: They're mainstream thinking. A lot of them have been for a very long time. They're not wild eyed crazy left wing policies at all.

R29: I REFUSE to throw away this opportunity to move this country to a more civilized position on a range of issues because some mythical people in the Fartland of America might be worried about it. If we win in 2020, but change absolutely nothing, then we loose big in 2022 and 2024. And it will be to people worse than Trump. It's not enough to get rid of him, we need fundamental change to make sure another like him cannot rise again.

Cultural issues are not a driving force in the heartland; jobs and the economy are. Swing staters care about why they have to work so hard, only to have their jobs relocated to another country or lose their health coverage. The Dems must realize this. Trump promised the world and delivered shit. There are countless voters ( many of whom used to vote Dem) who will vote against Trump, if they can see a candidate who understands their plight and addresses it. The trans, SJW shit is far from the minds of most, despite what the coasters insist is the case. The contempt coming from the coasters is counter-productive, but continues from the very people who should be concerned with the election. In this cycle, the coasters are irrelevant. Recognize it and change your attitude or live with Trump's attack on democracy for four more years. JOBS!

R30 Either they want it or they don't, if they want student loan forgiveness campaign on it. If it comes in a package with gender identity and reparations they still won't support it though.

R31 You hit the nail on the head. The dems weak spot in 2016 was economic issues (remember the TPP?)

Cultural issues certainly have turned Iowa, Florida, and Ohio likely red for the foreseeable future. Certainly changed West Virginia into a deep red state

OMG, if you have to 'motivate' people not to vote for Trump- based on his behavior, decisions, failed track record, broken promises, hirings 'n firings, scandals- then they deserve all that he will bring upon them.

Am i supposed to take advice from someone who in 2019 still considers himself a Republican??

Hillary didn’t treat 2016 like a base election and she lost.

LOCK HIM UP!!!!!!

[quote]If it comes in a package with gender identity and reparations they still won't support it though.

What the fuck does this even mean? It's student loan forgiveness. Warren is campaigning on it, so is Sanders and I'm sure some more candidates will come out with their own plans. It is distinct from those issues. Everything you've said so far is either right wing framing or just buzzwords that are unconnected to what is going on. Every economic platform issue that Warren comes out with is for the whole country, not just the big bad coasts. Same with every other Democrat running. The terms of this debate are fake as hell, there is no coast vs. interior distinction for loan forgiveness, universal income, health care, minimum wage, unionization. It's a false dichotomy.

And frankly, I don't care about Never Trump Republicans. Instead of relying on us to sell ourselves out to make their precious snowflake fee fees better, maybe they should take back their own rotten party. Instead of waiting for us to clean up their messes and wipe their collective asses, maybe they should show personal responsibility and pull their own party back by it's bootstraps. Just a thought.

Never Trump Republicans are the worst pieces of shit.

They would rather lecture Democrats about what to do, instead of doing something about their own dumpster-fire Party.

[quote]You hit the nail on the head. The dems weak spot in 2016 was economic issues (remember the TPP?)

The dem’s weak spot in 2016 was Hillary.

At least the progressive Democrats have motivated the QAnon & Log Cabin bitches to come out of their caves and squirm uncontrollably like rabid bitches in heat.

R34, Democrats and media assumeD Trump’s vile behavior and ignorance made him unelectable in 2016. We would be foolish to think the same in 2020. After all, around 45 percent of the country approves of him

Student loan relief and (especially) some form of health care reform are universal issues.

Trans rights, reparations, buying black people houses and busing are ways to re-elect Trump.

R39 is correct. Biden would have won

[quote] [R39] is correct. Biden would have won

Anyone but Hillary would have won. Independents and Republicans didn't like her, and Democratic base other than the hacks weren't excited by her.

And when the Bernie crowd tried to bring this up in the primary we were told to be quiet because it was her turn.

The Dems DON’T realize this R31. They also are too busy calling these types of voters racist or privileged, and their servicemen and women part of a racist police state with their anti-military, anti-police (“law and order”) policies.

They also see city and coastal elites as the types who bend over for black welfare and for illegal immigrants. Democratic politicians can explain this all they like and professorial types can go on and on about the “legacy” of racism, but Dems constantly beat this drum and the middle classes feel they subsidize the poor.

Just look at Mayor Pete, a pretty centrist white who gained popularity WITH centrist whites, now bending over backward to ball lick the black community. That’ll go over like a lead balloon with these types, but that’s de rigeur with the Democrats these days.

R42: Fortunately, America is pro-trans rights so your first point isn't an issue at all. As far as the other things, there is a racial wealth gap in this country and it needs to be addressed. Pretending it's not there is not gonna solve it. No one is advocating busing, and a home loan program to help minorities would be exactly the type of reparations that would solve the wealth gap problem, by increasing equity.

R4 nails it. Get black turnout to Al Gore levels and we win in 2020. No need to worry about Never Trump Republican snowflakes. Let them clean up their own party.

Al Sharpton made a few points this morning, about black American voters and progressives.

They didn’t like the attacks on Biden because it’s attacking Obama and his administration by proxy.

R20 I don't think the Republicunts will ever have a "normal" candidate again. Trump has destroyed the party. They are going to have to run semi-literate hicks that middle america can relate to. They resent anyone who appears smarter than they are, which is just about everybody running, besides Trump. I hate to say it, but Pete is almost too intelligent and polished. He's so vanilla he will never get the black vote and there aren't enough white people anymore to get him elected on our own. Biden is the only one that POC are excited about. Like it or not, he will be the front runner. If he has Kamala , Julian, or Cory as his VP, he might just pull out the win. Hillary's biggest mistake was the fugly and boring Tim Kaine. If she had picked Cory, she'd be sitting in the WH right now. But that's a moot point.

Black people voted for “vanilla” old white men for a long time

Fuck these cunts.

As others have said - why are they lecturing DEMOCRATS when their precious party has been taken over by fascists? STFU and get your OWN shit in order, bitch!

Second - FUCK them and what sort of Democrat they want to vote for. You all have opportunities every goddamned day to hold your beloved rethug reps and senator's feet to the fire yet you bitch about DEMOCRATS? I can't even.

Third - go straight to hell. This is NOT your party. It is OURS and we do not want or need your fucking racist, misogynistic liars dictating what we should want or do. We have listened to your bullshit long enough and it's time Democrats play to THEIR base.

Shitstain rethugs will ALWAYS scream "socialism" and lie. It's all they have left.

"See who you made me vote for!" Is the "why do you make me hit you?" That serial abusers use because they refuse to take responsibility for their own destructive actions.

Lastly, if you're so fucking concerned about your precious fascist cunt party leaving you behind, I suggest you use your platform to shill for Bill Weld or Justin Amash for president because no Democrat gives a rat's ass what you hypocritical fuckwits want or think.

I disagree with the entire premise of this article. The Democratic party needs to motivate and stimulate interest in younger voters. They need to focus on energizing and engaging future generations of voters, and promote candidates and adjust policies accordingly to meet that goal. Of course the Dems shouldn't completely abandon the middle, but this perpetual demand that they focus most of their efforts on coddling the moderates or Republican-Lites will be fatal to turnout.

R50. Thank you very much. You and those like you will assure my future four years. MAGA

^^^Yep, the did. But those days are gone. Trump has changed the Rethugs for good. Trump's base, and it's much larger than we think, will never accept anything else but an obnoxious lunatic. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

Trump has changed the nation and world. We are seeing the rise of Trumpism around the globe

This thread is really disheartening.

R54 - Nah, he's just motivated the backwards bigots, xenophobes, and idiots all around the globe to out themselves. These fools are loud, over-spotlighted by the media, and desperate for attention because they think attention = relevance. It's an ugly state of affairs, to be sure, but now they're also much easier to keep track of as well.

When you live in a bubble all you see is your own reflection.

Americans are sick of being told they’re as racist and homophobic as the bad guy racists in every movie they saw growing up. You can only guilt someone so long before they say “fuck it.”

If you’re lucky enough to know anyone who’s not obsessed with this shit, they’re absolutely fine with Trump or are ambivalent. Sorry, but your news sources are lying to you: even though their lying didn’t sway public opinion in 2016. Imagine Mueller cleared Trump before the midterms?

Anyway, I’m voting for Tulsi. You can tell she’s a good candidate because she gets treated with Trump gloves by CNN and MSNBC, and ignored by CBS and the rest!

[quote]They can see what Trump is and will happily vote for a reasonable alternative.

This times one million.

Nominating a crazy eyed/hectoring Ivory Tower super-lib will re-elect Trump, for sure.

R56, you forgot they are in power, including in Brasil your

R57, which is exactly why most of the Dem candidates will lose. People are tired of being called racist by the SJW crowd or that they should be ashamed for being white or male. There is an inevitable backlash coming, but the AOCs of the country couldn't care less. She and her ilk would love to see another Trump presidency, since this would mean that they could gain power and their radical agenda brought to mainstream Dems. Leftist Dems are more dangerous to the victory in the next election than Trump and all of his deplorables.

Gay activists are learning calling people “bigots” just because they have different beliefs won’t help their movement

Uh-huh, that line was stated repeatedly in 2018, R60. How did that work out for you?

It was bullshit then; it's bullshit now.

But ya are, r61, ya ARE!

R61: So you're a self hating gay or a straight troll who doesn't belong here. Got it.

R57: Voting for homophobe bigot and all-around idiot Tulsi Gabbard? So you're a self hating gay or a straight troll who doesn't belong here. Got it.

R50: The Lord Bless And Keep You and Let No Evil Befall You. Let these Republican Snowflakes clean up their own party's mess.

Related because of this key paragraph. "Today’s GOP is overwhelming reliant on the votes of older Americans. In 2016, Donald Trump commanded the support of only 28 percent of voters under 30, according to Pew Research. His disapproval rating among Americans under 35 currently hovers around 70 percent. And millennials’ antipathy for our Republican president isn’t personal; the Fox News grandpa-in-chief might be especially unappealing to the rising generation, but the kids don’t have much use for the GOP’s kinder, gentler reactionaries, either. Less than 30 percent of millennials wanted Republicans to retain control of Congress last year. And in broader measures of generational opinion, both millennials and Gen-Zers evince higher levels of support for liberal ideological premises and policy proposals than any older cohorts."

Tulsa Gabardi and the rest of the Who Dat under 2% need to bow out with dignity.

Note to Senator Booker, stay in the Senate where you are needed.

Old people were once young, R65

R48: Or Deval Patrick. Clinton/Patrick would be preparing the reelection campaign right now if she picked him. And I say this as not one of his biggest fans.

Yeah Deval could have made the difference in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Black men underperformed for Democrats, and I think it may be a longterm trend. I’m seeing a lot of anti Democratic stuff from black men right now

Wisconsin trending Repub because of white men

@SeanTrende @L2political @MULawPoll Here is the major source of change. White, non college men. From +5R to +18R

@PollsAndVotes @SeanTrende @L2political @MULawPoll No surprise. Suburban and rural Wisconsin ≈ suburban and rural Indiana, politically, and metro Indianapolis has more people than metro Milwaukee. Wisconsin may be just as uphill as Indiana for the 2020 D nominee no matter who it is.

Trump supporters don't need persuading, they need deprogramming.

Half the electorate didn't vote at all in 2016. Those are the people you persuade.

[quote]Nominating a crazy eyed/hectoring Ivory Tower super-lib will re-elect Trump, for sure.

You are aware that AOC isn't running for President, right? This is how far right the goal posts have been shifted: positions like "rich people should pay taxes" and "caging children is bad" are pegged as liberal talking points.

Also, "don't call racists racists or they'll vote for Trump" is a hell of a stupid hot take.

I am done with Democrats trying to appeal to Republicans. It gets us nowhere.

I say we hunt down those 12 hypothetical white rednecks in Buttfuck Ohio who will elect the next president and lock them up in the detention camps.

[quote]Getting activists “excited” by bold policy positions is a waste of time

It amazes me the ability of the American elite to not ever learn from their own mistakes. Being anti-Trump, by itself, doesn't win elections. That should have been clear in November 2016. How come some there are still people do not realize that in 2019?

Perhaps this Republican isn't simply ignorant; maybe there's a method here. As a Republican, that is, as a conservative, he'd rather that the Democratic Party remain what it has been since the 90s, a center-right party, so it is his wish that Democrats don't argue big ideas, by which he means left-wing ideas that appeal to burdened students and workers against financial and labor exploitation.

This Republican is essentially correct, but the east coast socialists won't listen. because they only listen to AOC and her crowd.

You best believe culture is driving elections. Even within the Democratic Party, there is a battle between the coastal urban secular elites and the purple district and Heartland mainstream voters.

Democrats need to protect its new congressmen in purple districts and not alienate voters in swing states

It'll probably be Trump being himself that prevents his reelection.

He was himself in 2016

Tulsi is a homophobe? In what way? The same way Biden is a racist?

This Republica in a nutshell:

"Please, Dumbocrats, no more big progressive ideas, try right-wing ideas for a change. Because, um, I want you to win, not because I'm afraid of moving the US political spectrum to the left."

The country has to essentially be destitute and in a bloody, failed war to vote Democratic (presidential and Congress), largely thanks to swing state culture. Just an observation: this country is more tolerant of radicalism from the right than it is from the left. Why is that? I have an idea, but what do you think?

The Overton Window has shifted way to the right. Centrism in America is right wing globally. The "far left" is really the center. It's because the corporate billionaire class of this country owns the politicians of both parties as well as the media, and controls the narrative.

R83, you mean progressive ideas like that of Kamala Harris to give $ to blacks to buy houses? Will you be attending Trump's second inauguration?

r86 Chill, if Kamala gets the nomination she'll drop that idea in a nanosecond.

[quote]This thread is really disheartening.

Not at all. We are, quite properly, rejecting the idiotic ideas of a Republican who basically wants Democrats to run a Republican-like candidate. Let them clean up their own party and run those candidates, if that is what they want. The whole thing was a thoroughly dishonest mess, one in a long line of such messes that we've heard over and over again since Trump was elected. We read similar drivel in 2018 and, somehow, the Democratic candidates ignored it all and still did just fine.

This take, from February, about other similar articles and comments, is spot on:

[quote]These takes—frequently featured as earnest appeals in liberal and centrist outlets—are ostensibly framed as straight-talk advice that should be accepted as objectively in the Democrats’ best interest, and never presented as an ideological argument that would otherwise make sense coming from a right-winger. “Republican hates socialism” isn’t that newsworthy, whereas “GOP operative identifies Democrats’ best interests” somehow is.

The linked article contains multiple examples of the genre, each equally ridiculous and dishonest, from such notable Republicans as Scarborough, Goeas, Dougherty, Lowry, Boot, Ruffini, and yes, this same idiot, writing another such op-ed back in December of last year.

We are going to see this over and over and over again in the next year and a half and the only proper response in each case is to ignore them.

Harris has based her campaign on getting the black vote away from Biden, since it's the only demographic she has any shot of winning over. The early pubic perception is that of a black woman, speaking only about and to other black people. She doesn't have a shot with this strategy.

R89, her only shot is with young black voters. As Sharpton pointed out, believing Biden is racist is to betray Obama’s legacy. Did beloved Obama choose a racist running mate and second-in-command?

Young black voters are chilly toward Biden. Not as bad as toward Hillary, but he definitely doesn’t stoke excitement about black millennials

Biden has the same problem as Hillary. He’s been around forever, and therefore has decades worth of “issues” that the competition can use as ammunition.

I think Kamala has the same problem as Hillary but more accentuated. Barring an economic calamity like in 2008 Harris will have a hard time reaching the big chair.

At least Harris excites black millennials

So does Michael B. Jordan.

The Party will Lose with another candidate that doesn’t excite black voters, especially millennials

Donald Trump should be enough to excite black millennials. If not, then fuck them.

"At least Harris excites black millennials"

" You get a check, and you get a check. Now go and buy a house. Oh, wait a minute. Here's a reparations check because of slavery 400 yrs ago. BTW, buy my shirts."

Wonder why?

R97, that strategy was a failure in 2016

It was a success in 2018, R99.

Yeah, but the Trump base will be excited to vote in 2020

They were in 2018, too, R101. Both parties had luck motivating their respective bases. But the Democratic base is larger.

[quote] It was a success in 2018

That was an anomaly. That pedophile from Alabama was running, and all the repugs, including the president were supporting him. That got a LOT of media coverage and it pissed people off enough to go out and vote

It wasn't an "anomaly," as the other off-cycle elections in 2017, 2018, and 2019 have also showed. And if you're going to pretend that a single Senate race in Alabama motivated the entire country, I'm just going to laugh at you.

Trump trails Biden, Warren and Sanders in new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll

Joe Biden holds largest lead against Trump due to better performance among Independents and suburban voters.

Former Vice President Joe Biden leads the president by 9 points among registered voters, 51 percent to 42 percent — outside of the poll’s margin of error of plus-minus 3.5 percentage points.

(Everyone else is within the margin of error.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is ahead of Trump by 7 points, 50 percent to 43 percent.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., holds a 5-point advantage, 48 percent to 43 percent.

And Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., is ahead by just 1 point, 45 percent to 44 percent — a jump ball.

Biden’s larger lead over Trump is largely due to the former vice president's stronger performance among independent voters, whites and suburban residents than the rest of the Democratic field.

In a Trump-versus-Biden contest, the president has the advantage with men (51 percent to 42 percent), white voters (50 percent to 43 percent) and whites without college degrees (56 percent to 37 percent).

Biden, meanwhile, leads among African-American voters (85 percent to 9 percent), women (59 percent to 34 percent), suburban voters (49 percent to 43 percent) and independents (45 percent to 41 percent).

Against the other three Democratic contenders, however, Trump runs even or slightly leads among independent and suburban voters, and his advantage with white voters is in the double digits.

Democrats’ performance in 2018 in Florida does not bode well for their future in the state

[quote] Joe Biden holds largest lead against Trump due to better performance among Independents and suburban voters.

[quote] Former Vice President Joe Biden leads the president by 9 points among registered voters, 51 percent to 42 percent — outside of the poll’s margin of error of plus-minus 3.5 percentage points.

[quote] Biden’s larger lead over Trump is largely due to the former vice president's stronger performance among independent voters, whites and suburban residents than the rest of the Democratic field.

Poll after poll shows Biden performing better than any of the other Democrats against Trump. And poll after poll shows that the reason is that a centrist like Biden performs better among independents and moderates in the swing states that matter.

Yet most DL'ers choose to ignore all of this evidence and insist that that someone much further to the left who appeals to the Democratic base in bright blue states is our best choice.

True

Dems should be inviting people in, not pushing people away R97

If people don't see how a candidate is good for them, explain why they are.

[quote]Tulsi is a homophobe? In what way? The same way Biden is a racist?

She grew up in a quite homophobic household and made many public remarks denouncing homosexuality.

She's "sorry" for all that now.

Tulsi worked for her father's anti-gay marriage organization.

Many older and middle -aged Dems are afraid of loons like AOC taking over the party, so they will support a know commodity such as Biden over those they consider more radical ( unelectable). They feel that Biden is the only person who can defeat Trump, because he can appeal to the saner elements of America.

It's important for the Democrats to not discount moderate Republicans and independents who are sick of the Trump shit, because, in the long run, they will need the votes. The radical leftists will not vote for a moderate, so their votes have to be replaced.

R113, you are very right.

You never hear republicans or conservatives downplaying the importance of cultural issues to winning elections. In fact, their media, forums, platforms, fundraising is blaring out red meat culture warrior material 24/7, which keeps conservative super politically engaged.

The people to motivate are the people who thought that NOT voting would NOT lead to electing a Grand Dragon in Chief.

They must be shocked.

[quote]Yet most DL'ers choose to ignore all of this evidence and insist that that someone much further to the left who appeals to the Democratic base in bright blue states is our best choice.

That's for two reasons:

1. Biden has tried twice before and come up short both times. And he's not really starting out that well this time. He's running an uninspiring campaign so far and has committed several unforced errors. This does not bode well for a campaign that will continue for the next 16 months or so. People are (legitimately) worried whether Biden has what it takes to go the distance.

2. There is more than one path to the Presidency for Democrats. One path is to appeal more to the so-called "centrists." The other is to motivate the Democratic base everywhere, not just California and New York. Both are legitimate strategies; both, if properly executed, will result in a Democratic victory.

The thing to note about the poll at R105 and, in fact, most head-to-head polls, is that Trump's numbers don't change much. He remains in the 42 to 44% range. The reason that Biden is further ahead is that voters, at least for now, have made up their minds about him, so fewer undecided voters. There is reason to believe that the bulk of those undecided voters will move to the Democratic candidates as they become better known.

Given all this, people should feel free to pick whichever candidate they like, as all of them have what it takes to beat Trump. Note that I said that they *can* beat him, not that they necessarily *will*. We have a long way to go before anyone can make any firm predictions about the 2020 race.

[quote][R16]: When you poll individual issues, the American public goes for the liberal position. Student loan relief and universal health care help both the coasts and Middle America. And Warren is not a socialist, she's been clear about that. Either engage with the reality on the ground or don't bother.

Except public support for these things drop considerably when details are given like higher taxes, losing employer health insurance etc.

Warren and Bernie are the freebie fairies and are the closest to a socialist that you're going to get in this election.

Someone needs to explain to me how raising the taxes on people like Warren Buffett, that mercer scum, pedo Epstein, the orange traitor kkklan and the like is "bad". Because I think they should be taxed to hell and back.

Increase IRS enforcement capabilities. End pass through entities and if corporations are people, then TAX them like it at the individual rate. And no more carryback/carryforward losses (which they can do for ten fucking years)

These people and corps pay effectively ZERO tax. Stop acting like taxing these corporate welfare queens us a bad idea.

End corporate welfare.

R120 you can tax the wealthy and corporations at 100% and you would still not have enough money to pay for all the freebies. Smart people know that Warren and Bernie can't deliver without raising taxes on the middle class and adding a VAT like tax. People like me who is own a home and pay property and school taxes in addition to income taxes aren't looking forward to shelling out even more money.

[quote] There is more than one path to the Presidency for Democrats. One path is to appeal more to the so-called "centrists." The other is to motivate the Democratic base everywhere, not just California and New York.

That would be true if elections were decided by the popular vote. But we're stuck with the electoral college, where everything comes down to a handful of swing states. You seem to be saying that we can win the key swing states (like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan) by running someone who is very liberal who excites the liberal base in those states, motivating them to turn out in large numbers? Sorry, but I just don't see it. The problem with swing states is that they have large rural populations and they are NOT California and New York, so the same strategies don't work. There simply isn't a large enough liberal base in the swing states to outnumber the GOP base (who always seem to be fired up and turn out the vote) and the right-leaning moderates. If there was, they wouldn't be swing states. They would be blue states. The best hope for winning a purple swing state (or turning a red state blue) is to run someone fairly moderate, not to run someone far to the left.

R122, it's true even with the electoral college. The swing states swing Democratic when turnout is high. We saw that in 2018 and we saw it in Obama's two elections. If the turnout in 2020 matches that of 2018, Trump loses. Both paths are viable paths to the presidency.

R 122 is correct, so all of you AOC lovers can eat it.

Most voters in 2016 did NOT want Trump. They just wanted Hillary even LESS than him.

Oh, well that's a convincing argument, R124. Totally sold me.

It’s amazing to me how much people ignore human nature. The last two Democratic candidates for President were unquestionably risky. The Democratic base isn’t as willing to take a huge gamble this time around.

On top of that, it is very hard to unseat an incumbent President. The bases will be motivated to vote. No question. This election will come down to the centrists and independents. It would be a huge mistake to ignore the candidates who are most likely to pull in those people.

“Sorry, but I just don't see it. The problem with swing states is that they have large rural populations and they are NOT California and New York, so the same strategies don't work. There simply isn't a large enough liberal base in the swing states to outnumber the GOP base (who always seem to be fired up and turn out the vote) and the right-leaning moderates. If there was, they wouldn't be swing states. They would be blue states. The best hope for winning a purple swing state (or turning a red state blue) is to run someone fairly moderate, not to run someone far to the left.”

THIS. 👏🏽

Trump primarily won Michigan and some swing States because Hillary neglected them towards the end of the election. She does not know how to finish the race. Trump and his supporters was grinding it out especially those last four weeks prior to the election. I remember telling a few people that I was worried about two weeks before the election when I saw a huge increase in Trump signs in yards.

Hillary ran a terrible campaign in the swing states. She was too over-confident. And as Hecate said in " Macbeth,"... "Security is mortals' chieftest enemy."

[quote]This election will come down to the centrists and independents. It would be a huge mistake to ignore the candidates who are most likely to pull in those people.

This election will come to turnout. It would be a huge mistake to ignore the candidates who are most likely to inspire the base and get them to turn out.

[quote]Sorry, but I just don't see it. The problem with swing states is that they have large rural populations and they are NOT California and New York, so the same strategies don't work. There simply isn't a large enough liberal base in the swing states to outnumber the GOP base

Yes, actually there are. I would recommend you do more homework before you post again because you are factually incorrect about the "swing states."

[quote]Trump primarily won Michigan and some swing States because Hillary neglected them towards the end of the election. She does not know how to finish the race. Trump and his supporters was grinding it out especially those last four weeks prior to the election

This can’t be stated enough. Trump’s constant visits, appeals, and rallies those last few weeks all over Pennsylvania, and Michigan, and Wisconsin made a huge difference in the minds of people who were still on the fence and didn’t strongly like either candidate.

Meanwhile, Hillary was getting jiggy with Beyoncé and the likes in Hollywood. People in the swing states felt like she wasn’t going to do shit for them.

The next Democratic candidate can be a liberal, but they need to have a better strategy for these states and be able to visit and plead their case of why they’re the best choice.

[quote] Yes, actually there are. I would recommend you do more homework before you post again because you are factually incorrect about the "swing states."

Well, I see that you when quoting my post, you left out some important words to make it sound like I said something I didn't. I didn't say that there isn't a large enough liberal base in the swing states to outnumber the GOP base. Yes, some swing states have a larger liberal base than conservative base. But what I said is that there isn't a large enough liberal base in the swing states to outnumber the GOP base AND the right-leaning moderates. You don't win swing states simply by exciting the base. You also need to reach a fair number of the moderates or independents in the middle. You don't win a state like Wisconsin, for example, simply by firing up the liberals in Madison and Milwaukee, and you don't win a state like Pennsylvania simply by firing up the liberals in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

This is true, r134. More people in rural PA came out than was anticipated. It's what threw off the polling in PA. What was once a democratic stronghold and nicknamed "Murtha Country" has flipped solidly red in the last 10 years or so and it's not the only county that flipped. As Carville said about PA, it's Alabama in the middle.

1.5 more years of the "why oh why can't Democrats be Republicans??" handwringing. Oh fucking joy.

[quote]Trump and his supporters was grinding it out especially those last four weeks prior to the election.

You aware they had some "help" in those critical states, right? Manafort was telling the Russians what states to hit with disinformation.

[quote]You don't win swing states simply by exciting the base.

Yes, you really do. If Democrats turn out, they win. It's pretty much that simple.

The story of Hillary Clinton’s defeat, then, is not the Trump Movement erupting in the ballots, nor the fable that some “Reagan Democrats” flipped again from Obama to Trump. The story is altogether different, and very simple: the Democratic base did not turn out to vote as it did for Obama. Those sure-Democrats who stayed home handed the election to Trump.

Take Michigan for example. A state that Obama won in 2012 by 350,000 votes, Clinton lost by roughly 10,000. Why? She received 300,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. Detroit and Wayne County should kick themselves because of the 595,253 votes they gave Obama in 2012, only 518,000 voted for Clinton in 2016. More than 75,000 Motown Obama voters did not bother to vote for Clinton. They did not become Trump voters – Trump received only 10,000 votes more than Romney did in this county. They simply stayed at home. If even a fraction of these lethargic Democrats had turned out to vote, Michigan would have stayed blue.

Wisconsin tells the same numbers story, even more dramatically. Trump got no new votes. He received exactly the same number of votes in America’s Dairyland as Romney did in 2012. Both received 1,409,000 votes. But Clinton again could not spark many Obama voters to turn out for her: she tallied 230,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. This is how a 200,000-vote victory margin for Obama in the Badger State became a 30,000-vote defeat for Clinton.

R136i, I was one of three posters from PA who were posting here in 2016 that what we are seeing on the ground didn't match the polling. It wasn't Russians.

R67 - yes, dear, I understand the aging process, but you (perhaps intentionally) missed the point entirely. My comment(s) refer to the strategy of gaining new, younger voters (who will, as time goes by, age). Does that help your comprehension?

The funny thing about that, r140, is the young people you are defending don't seem to understand that they are aging.

[quote] More than 75,000 Motown Obama voters did not bother to vote for Clinton. They did not become Trump voters – Trump received only 10,000 votes more than Romney did in this county. They simply stayed at home.

[quote] But Clinton again could not spark many Obama voters to turn out for her: she tallied 230,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. This is how a 200,000-vote victory margin for Obama in the Badger State became a 30,000-vote defeat for Clinton.

Yes, of course, we all know that Hillary lost because a lot of Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 stayed home. And we need them to get off their asses and vote in 2020. But why do some posters on this thread assume that the best way to do this is by running an unabashedly liberal candidate? Let's not forget that Obama ran a centrist campaign and spoke of uniting people. He avoided getting too deep into sensitive discussions about race. He advocated incremental change rather than radical reform. And people turned out to vote for him, and he won. If we want the people who loved Obama and voted for him in 2008 and 2012 but sat out the 2016 election to come back to the polls in 2020, wouldn't the most sensible option be to nominate an "Obama-esque" candidate -- someone like Biden, a moderate who spent 8 years as Obama's right-hand man?

That’s a huge IF. We know Trump voters will Turn out bigly.

[quote] Take Michigan for example. A state that Obama won in 2012 by 350,000 votes, Clinton lost by roughly 10,000. Why? She received 300,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. Detroit and Wayne County should kick themselves because of the 595,253 votes they gave Obama in 2012, only 518,000 voted for Clinton in 2016. More than 75,000 Motown Obama voters did not bother to vote for Clinton. They did not become Trump voters – Trump received only 10,000 votes more than Romney did in this county. They simply stayed at home. If even a fraction of these lethargic Democrats had turned out to vote, Michigan would have stayed blue.

Thank you, r138. This is the entire story of 2016. Neither candidate excited voters in reliably blue territories in those Midwestern states. Most of them didn't vote because they didnt think Trump could win. Some did not vote because they could not distinguish HRC from Trump. The 2020 edition of HRC is Biden, not Harris or Warren. We need to get those 75,000 votes between three states (PA, MI and WI) and f*ck the rest of those red-state bastards.

Biden/Harris is the winning ticket.

[quote]But why do some posters on this thread assume that the best way to do this is by running an unabashedly liberal candidate?

Because, as repeatedly noted above, particularly in r118, there is more than one path to the Presidency. Why do you assume that this is not the case when the evidence clearly indicates that it is?

[quote]That’s a huge IF. We know Trump voters will Turn out bigly.

So did Democrats in 2018. Had Trump been on the ballot, he would have lost.

[quote]Biden/Harris is the winning ticket.

No, Biden/Harris is [bold]a[/bold] winning ticket; there are others.

R139, I can’t remember where, but someone on CNN or MSNBC last night said it (and I’m paraphrasing). She’s never been polled in her whole life. I’ve been a registered Democrat for 30 years, and I’ve never been polled. Actually I’m lying because I’ve had two local candidates’ campaigns text me to ask if I’d be voting for their candidate. Nothing official like Quinnipiac. And I’ve never heard anyone of my acquaintance say they have, either. No one’s ever approached me outside of my polling place in Manhattan, either, and I vote in every single election.

It’s just anecdotal, but I wonder who these polls are talking to.

[quote] there is more than one path to the Presidency.

That's a pretty obvious and meaningless statement. I'm not sure why you keep repeating it. There are ALWAYS multiple paths to the presidency. But if we want to be 100% certain to beat Trump, we need to find that BEST path -- the path that is the MOST LIKELY to be successful. That's what election strategy is always about -- not about choosing ANY candidate or ANY path, but choosing the BEST candidate and the BEST path. And I still maintain that the strategy that has the best chance of victory in swing states like Wisconsin, Pa., and Michigan is running a relatively moderate Democrat (or one who can win over the moderates). It worked for Bill Clinton both times, and it worked for Obama both times. Can we win by running someone quite liberal who excites the base but turns off the moderate middle? Maybe, given Trump's unpopularity. But I think that's a much riskier path.

[quote]I wonder who these polls are talking to

My guess is that national political polls today probably underestimate GOP support somewhat. I'd guess that 10 or 20 years ago, if Joe Deplorable in Flyoverville got a call from a polling firm, it probably made him feel important ("OMG! The polling people really care about my opinion! I'm special!") and he took the time to answer truthfully. Today, if Joe Deplorable gets a call from a polling firm, he probably assumes it's one of those "liberal, out-of-touch East Coast intellectuals" and either hangs up or says he's voting Democratic, because he assumes that's the answer the pollster is looking for.

[quote]It’s just anecdotal, but I wonder who these polls are talking to.

Your average national poll hits up, at most, a few thousand people out of 250,000,000 adults. Are you really surprised that you might not get polled very often?

[quote]That's a pretty obvious and meaningless statement. I'm not sure why you keep repeating it.

Because people keep denying that it's true.

[quote]But if we want to be 100% certain to beat Trump, we need to find that BEST path

There is no such thing. There are simply too many variables for anyone to be able to pretend that they can come up with such a thing.

[quote]My guess is that national political polls today probably underestimate GOP support somewhat.

If anything, the polls in the off-cycle elections and the 2018 election, tended to overestimate GOP support, other than in a couple of states, most notably Florida.

By the way, R147, when I previously made that statement, this was your response:

[quote]That would be true if elections were decided by the popular vote.

In other words, you said it wasn't true. So it wasn't true then but now it's "obvious?"

Trump has been consistently polled underwater in both Kansas and Arizona. Thanks to Democrats having a net gain in party registrations since 2016. The author knows shit about the Democratic base, the Democrats have to keep pounding the doors of Liberals in Arizona, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.

One thing I find interesting is that all of these people, mostly Republicans, are telling Democrats to "move to the middle" but nobody is writing these articles telling Trump to do that. Or telling Republican members of Congress to do that. Trump is moving right, getting more radical, more unhinged, doubling down on the racism, and his party is following right along with him.

It's like only one party has to move to the center while the other party gets to do whatever the fuck it wants. When that happens, the "Overton Window" shifts right. And then when you "meet in the middle," you're way off from where the true center really is.

Fuck that.

R148 You're spot on. I think a certain percentage of people are lying to the polling outfits. Explains how Biden can be polling ahead of Trump in Texas (not possible imho.)

The media is trying to give us a false sense of security, which is exactly what they did in 2016. I believe many Dems stayed home because the polls kept telling us Hillary would win by a landslide. However I'm very active on political Twitter, and I knew she didn't have it in the bag. I'll never trust polls again.

R155 They absolutely depressed turnout. Why bother voting if the election is already decided?

[quote] In other words, you said it wasn't true. So it wasn't true then but now it's "obvious?"

When I said "it wasn't true," I meant it wasn't true that "exciting the base" is a viable strategy to win. I still don't think it's a viable strategy (though I acknowledge it might theoretically be possible, given Trump's unpopularity). But I didn't mean to suggest that there is only one possible path to victory. I apologize if you interpreted it that way. Obviously, there are many combinations of states that will lead to 270 electoral votes.

When Reagan shoved US politics to the right, Democrats were told to move to the middle.

When GW Bush shoved US politics to the hard right, Democrats were told to push further to the middle.

And now with President Shithead, more of the same. And now opposing the incarceration of immigrant children is considered a hard left position.

You understand why "hi we're just like Republicans but we're not crazy!" isn't a terribly inspiring call to political action?

[quote] opposing the incarceration of immigrant children is considered a hard left position.

No, it's not.

[quote] we're just like Republicans

I don't think it's fair to say being a moderate Democrat = "just like Republicans."

Cocaine is a bitch.

[quote]No, it's not.

Yes it is.

[quote]I don't think it's fair to say being a moderate Democrat = "just like Republicans."

Reality doesn't give a crap what you think is fair, hon. It's true. Moderate Democrats = mid-70's Republicans.

R161 Not at all. You seem unfamiliar with other people's political viewpoints.

[quote][R161] Not at all. You seem unfamiliar with other people's political viewpoints.

I am familiar with moderate Democrats pushing the clinically insane notion that modern-day GOP will somehow reach across the aisle and compromise with them.

Re: north Carolina. The why is this happening podcast had Rev Barber on this week and he made some very good points about the trend of North Carolina from red to blue.

He said that is a direct result of grassroots activists going door to door and talking to people about voting, registering them to vote and filing lawsuits against gerrymandering. He also said that grassroots activists were going to the capitol and demanding more polling places, longer hours for the polls to stay open, more days of early voting, same day voter registration and the like.

He said it was a long, hard climb that still isn't over but they are winning the battle there.

It was an interesting podcast about activism and voting and I found his discussion about how they got out the vote in NC to be interesting.

We don't know how many people will be motivated to get rid of this traitor but I would bet more of us would be willing to crawl over broken glass to vote in 2020 than even in 2018.

Hillary's campaign sucked. End of story.

I would like to know if the number of Trump voters maximized in 2016, or if there are still additional people who can vote for him in 2020. Has any group trended more supportive of Trump since 2016? Evangelicals? White men? Rural voters? Southerners? Black men?

Check this out R166

From R167:

"The doubling down on identity politics among liberals since Donald Trump's election follows from something like this ambition to unify non-whites against the Republican Party and in favor of the Democrats. (At the same time, the left's growing emphasis on intersectionality, which sows division instead of unity by highlighting the distinctive, irreducible grievances suffered by the members of ever-narrower demographic sub-categories, adds a heavy dose of self-contradiction to the project.)

It would appear that the "emerging Democratic majority" requires anti-white identity politics as its midwife.

That would be inadvisable in civic terms even if demographic trends over the next half century favored non-whites more convincingly than they do. As it is, liberals risk actively antagonizing (and hence galvanizing against them) what will remain for some significant time to come the single-largest demographic group in the United States.

There may be more foolish electoral strategies out there, but I'm hard-pressed to think of one."

He summed that up beautifully. This is what I think of when I think of "progressive" Democrats. They create their own antagonists.

[quote]I am familiar with moderate Democrats pushing the clinically insane notion that modern-day GOP will somehow reach across the aisle and compromise with them.

And you think they're going to magically compromise with the far left? You should really look at what gets voted on now. There are bills being passed with the cooperation of both parties.

[quote]I believe many Dems stayed home because the polls kept telling us Hillary would win by a landslide.

The polls were not "telling us Hillary would win by a landslide." They told us that she would win the popular vote by a modest amount, which is exactly what happened.

[quote]I'll never trust polls again.

I'd suggest you do a little more homework.

[quote]I meant it wasn't true that "exciting the base" is a viable strategy to win.

*shrug* And yet that is precisely what the data show.

[quote]or if there are still additional people who can vote for him in 2020

Right now, no, which is just one of the reasons all of the pearl-clutching that has been going on here is unwarranted at this time.

",,,or if there are still additional people who can vote for him in 2020"

Sure there are. People named Boris, Natasha, Little Nikita, Fearless Leader, Tatiana Romanova, Yuri Komarov, Pavel Chekov, Anton Chekov, Anna Karenina, Ivan Drago, Natasha Romanoff ( represented by Scarlett Johannson who can play everybody),Uncle Vanya, and Gregor Mathers as The Beaver. Of course, they will all vote legitimately absentee from long distance.

For R166. This is from today's Electoral-Vote.com. From their question and answer section.

This is a follow-up question to the proposition that the Republicans may only have one or two electoral cycles where their current rural white and Christian fundamentalist focus will sustain them. You have posited this theory before, that the U.S. voting population is skewing more and more Democratic: in particular it was this conclusion—not just by yourselves—that led everyone to believe that Hillary Clinton would win the last presidential election handsomely. And we all saw how that turned out. Why are you so confident in this proposition now, when prior experience was so conclusively wrong? T.W., Norfolk, UK

Well, the underlying demographic changes are not theoretical, they are objective facts. There is ample evidence that the electorate is growing less rural, and less white, and less evangelical. The tenuous nature of the GOP coalition is more broadly indicated by the fact that the GOP has won a majority of the votes in just one of the last seven presidential elections (Bush 2004). They have been rescued twice by the Electoral College in that time, and in both of those "rescues" the Party squeezed by with a razor-thin margin, while in one of them they also needed a wonky ballot in Florida and some legal shenanigans on top of that. If just a few things had broken differently, the U.S. might easily have had a Democrat in the White House for 6 of those 7 terms (instead of just 4 of 7).

This is not to say that we are predicting the decline of the GOP as a national force, per se. The party will soon be at a crossroads, and it can choose one of two options. The first is to stick to their guns, and spend some time in the wilderness as the clear-cut minority party (as the Democrats did from the 1860s to the 1920s). The second is to re-calibrate, and rebuild themselves around a different kind of base (as the Democrats did in the 1930s). The one thing that is certain is that the current GOP coalition is not going to win them presidential elections for much longer.

My relatives are republicans. And of course they are Christians. They don't hate trump, but they don't love him. They say that Joe Biden is tolerable compared to the rest of the crazy democrats

They won't enjoy 4 years of Biden, but it's do-able. He'll be pretty middle of the road and won't be going super left

If the Dems want to win they need to stay middle of the road. Don't target the fringe groups.

If by "fringe groups," you mean the groups that actually make up the Democratic Party, I'm afraid that I don't think much of that advice.

Fuck a bunch of fundies with a dull chainsaw!

They can stay the fuck home if they don't like Harris it Warren or Pete or Julian, etc. They willingly ceeded their shithole hypocrite party to a goddam Nazi pig. They need to STFU and stay home or vote for Bill Weld.

Fucking talibangelicals all need to be rounded up and sent to re-education camps. Lock them all up! Send them all over to Saudi Arabia where they can fight it out with those disgusting fundies.