2020 Democratic Nominee

[horncyclist 1391]

Having strange thoughts today, that if it's not Liz, I could get behind Bloomberg.He prob has no limit on spending, would double Trump in TV and social. His not being depend on big money donors is appealing too. Obviously grassroots funding is better.

[6th Street 6702]

1 minute ago, horncyclist said:

Having strange thoughts today, that if it's not Liz, I could get behind Bloomberg.He prob has no limit on spending, would double Trump in TV and social. His not being depend on big money donors is appealing too. Obviously grassroots funding is better.

He's also polling at like 5%

[JustBecause 112]

1 hour ago, troph said:

 

Suburban voters in 2018 turned on the GOP. If the anyone but Hillary vote worked for Trump the anyone but Trump vote can work for Dems.

He won by 70,000 votes in a couple of states that historically go Dem.

Here’s 538 analysis on 2020 based on statewide results in 2018:






https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-2018-map-looked-a-lot-like-2012-and-that-got-me-thinking-about-2020/amp/

 

You know the above is wishful thinking.  Trump wasn’t PHYSICALLY on the ballot in 2018 and he is for 2020.  Trump will be re-elected and possibly get back the House and maybe add a Senate seat. Apples and Oranges. 

[Zonahorn 8079]

7 minutes ago, JustBecause said:

You know the above is wishful thinking.  Trump wasn’t PHYSICALLY on the ballot in 2018 and he is for 2020.  Trump will be re-elected and possibly get back the House and maybe add a Senate seat. Apples and Oranges. 

I see you enjoy huffing paint chips

[JimmyJames 12271]

13 minutes ago, JustBecause said:

You know the above is wishful thinking.  Trump wasn’t PHYSICALLY on the ballot in 2018 and he is for 2020.  Trump will be re-elected and possibly get back the House and maybe add a Senate seat. Apples and Oranges. 

The only way trump can win is by stealing the election. He has zero shot otherwise. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, 6th Street said:

I agree those states that historically vote Dem are winnable - but not by a 1) a self proclaimed socialist, 2) a gay mayor of a Podunk town, or 3) the field of clowns (Biden/Warren/Klob).

As long as the dems don’t nominate Hillary then trump loses Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania which means he cannot win the election. The dems could nominate Kermit the frog and he’d beat trump. It doesn’t matter.

[JustBecause 112]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The only way trump can win is by stealing the election. He has zero shot otherwise. 

How will he steal the election.  Not made up stuff but real ways he would do it.  He ain’t LBJ btw. 

[horncyclist 1391]

18 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

He's also polling at like 5%

More like 10 nationally and he'll benefit a lot from Biden's collapse. 

[bad_teammate 13568]

Pete took Joe's voters and Joe wants them back.

(those under-bridge lights look cool)

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I absolutely am angry that Donald Trump became president. I am also angry that the response of the white professional class who gave us Trump is, "We should still be the center of the universe."

Why don't these things make you angry?

Mid-term elections and presidential elections are different animals. They will come home because their class interests are more important to them than anything else. That wasn't under threat in 2018.

Your prediction sure sounds like an argument unfavorable to your guy.  Weird, and I assume unintentional.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

 

[TexEx15 17959]

6 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

Who is this guy and why does anyone give a damn about what he thinks?  I mean that applies for all Internet forums in general but you posted a random tweet like it was some kind of fact.

[Huckleberry 34749]

This thread is incredible and I thank everyone participating. 

Now while I know nobody cares, actually maybe it's specifically because nobody cares, I thought I would throw my "independent" opinion into the fray. I've already mentioned around here that I'm just waiting to see who the Democrats nominate and then that person will get my vote in November. Haven't actually entered a non-Libertarian vote for President since, I think, 1996. 

So here is the single data point y'all should extrapolate from AND BASE YOUR ENTIRE NATIONAL STRATEGY AROUND: The only candidate I would even consider not voting for in November if nominated by your party is Bloomberg. Now I'm not saying I would vote for Trump because that's never going to happen, but I'm not sure I'd vote for Bloomberg either. Don't fucking do it, guys. Thanks in advance.

[HRSchenker 2341]

@troph made a great point that if "anyone but Hillary" can work for the GOP then "anyone but Trump" can work for the Dems. But do the Democrats have that candidate? I really don't think a Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio pulls what Trump did in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Who is going to be the Trump out of the current field (yikes, hate wording it like that but you know what I mean)? I'd have to say Bernie would be that guy but how well does he perform with the people who voted Trump in 2016 that are willing to switch their votes? My in laws voted Trump but won't do it again in 2020 or so they say. The only candidate they said that would put them back to Trump is Bernie.

n=1 but I'd like to see more polling data come out.

[Pancho 46372]

54 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

He's also polling at like 5%

Bloomberg's RCP average is lilke 10%, which is good enough for 4th. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Why don't these things make you angry?

Because I'm not you?

I found that I was getting angry; it made my BP rise, it also was a despairing depressing anger at the sad nature of humanity. Brisket's posts kinda tapped into that but I can't really blame him, only myself. I run with the crowd to which you refer. I've fought with them in the schools and the community. They have power and money and they know how to use it. But I also work and volunteer with folks who don't. I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm going to keep reaching out one at a time, getting folks in my community signed up to vote (our community has low turnout #s but we are working on that) and let them know about the Democratic candidates so they can see beyond what the media wants them to see. Am I biased toward Warren? You bet, but I don't shy away from the positives that other candidates such as Sanders, etc have to offer. This forum has been helpful in that regard because of the discussions that have highlighted some of the best ways to do that.

 

[TexEx15 17959]

For a lot of people Bernie is to the Democrats as Trump is to the Republicans.  His policies are more extreme than most Americans care for whether bt will admit it or not.  Now I still trust Bernie more than Trump and Bernie clearly is not a whining fucking child like Trump.  His supporters however do share similarities with Trump supporters in their vitriol for anyone who dare support anyone other than their chosen one.

[washparkhorn 9974]

10 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

Who is this guy and why does anyone give a damn about what he thinks?  I mean that applies for all Internet forums in general but you posted a random tweet like it was some kind of fact.

A bit OT, but I will be your Huckleberry - when to quote a Tweet: 

The tweet is a self-contained moment and developed fully. It is representative of the thing that you need to evidence. 

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

16 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

Who is this guy and why does anyone give a damn about what he thinks?  I mean that applies for all Internet forums in general but you posted a random tweet like it was some kind of fact.

 

 

[HenryJames 67468]

19 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

Who is this guy and why does anyone give a damn about what he thinks?  I mean that applies for all Internet forums in general but you posted a random tweet like it was some kind of fact.

One of the Chapo douches.

[troph 25248]

Your prediction sure sounds like an argument unfavorable to your guy.  Weird, and I assume unintentional.

I read it the same way you did.

[washparkhorn 9974]

3 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

For a lot of people Bernie is to the Democrats as Trump is to the Republicans.  His policies are more extreme than most Americans care for whether bt will admit it or not.  Now I still trust Bernie more than Trump and Bernie clearly is not a whining fucking child like Trump.  His supporters however do share similarities with Trump supporters in their vitriol for anyone who dare support anyone other than their chosen one.

A "lot of people" are not shallow enough to equate Sanders with Trump. Some may be talking their own bank accounts (but I doubt there are that many billionaires out there). Some just like the status quo and don't want a future of poor people invading their safe spaces, like Starbucks. That leaves them ignorant and low information voters - easily scooped up by fear-mongers.

Many so-called educated voters are quite uneducated on basic terms - like "mixed economy" and socialism. Most didn't realize we have been a mixed market economy (capitalism and socialism) since FDR (and even further back). Socialism became a scare word in the 50's. We all have our favorite socialist programs in the US of A. Some just don't understand the concept. Most don't argue against socialism for the wealthy and corporations. Why? Power propels media narratives.

What socialist programs currently in place in America are you willing to give up? Medicare? Farming subsidies? Regressive tax policy on  income from asset bubbles?

The world has changed. For some, they remain in an 80's to 90's mindset of a world that has vanished. That is hard to stomach for some. But it does not change reality. It is not your fault. You were dumped into a comfortable media silo that insulated you from the world. There is an easy cure. Read more. 

 

[6th Street 6702]

29 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This thread is incredible and I thank everyone participating. 

Now while I know nobody cares, actually maybe it's specifically because nobody cares, I thought I would throw my "independent" opinion into the fray. I've already mentioned around here that I'm just waiting to see who the Democrats nominate and then that person will get my vote in November. Haven't actually entered a non-Libertarian vote for President since, I think, 1996. 

So here is the single data point y'all should extrapolate from AND BASE YOUR ENTIRE NATIONAL STRATEGY AROUND: The only candidate I would even consider not voting for in November if nominated by your party is Bloomberg. Now I'm not saying I would vote for Trump because that's never going to happen, but I'm not sure I'd vote for Bloomberg either. Don't fucking do it, guys. Thanks in advance.

Counter point. I sit in front of a Bloomberg terminal all day at work. It's wonderful investing tool and would happily vote for him if he had any shot at the nomination. Which he doesn't. 

[troph 25248]

[mention=93]troph[/mention] made a great point that if "anyone but Hillary" can work for the GOP then "anyone but Trump" can work for the Dems. But do the Democrats have that candidate? I really don't think a Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio pulls what Trump did in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Who is going to be the Trump out of the current field (yikes, hate wording it like that but you know what I mean)? I'd have to say Bernie would be that guy but how well does he perform with the people who voted Trump in 2016 that are willing to switch their votes? My in laws voted Trump but won't do it again in 2020 or so they say. The only candidate they said that would put them back to Trump is Bernie.

n=1 but I'd like to see more polling data come out.

 

The anyone but trump angle goes differently.

The dems could put it the worst piece of trash and they would win because anyone but Trump.

 

Trump was the worse piece of trash and he won because anyone but Hillary.

 

I think every dem candidate is more appealing than Hillary. I think the dems can be ok.

 

The 2018 mid terms showed in state wide and congressional elections that even less objectionable republicans were in the chopping block.

 

Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Pennsylvania are all highly highly questionable and all are very much a part of the Trump strategy and that assumes Ohio and Florida are Red.

 

He’s far from re-elected. Formidable yes.

 

Economic arguments weigh heavily in favor for him among elites that rank their economics first and in favor for him among the non elites because I have no idea why. See no first term president has lost if the economy is “good”. I think most of this is people don’t realize how squeezed the middle class really is. Wealth inequality is esoteric to most.

 

But he’s got another thing coming if he thinks those states are going for him as an automatic.

[washparkhorn 9974]

21 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Because I'm not you?

I found that I was getting angry; it made my BP rise, it also was a despairing depressing anger at the sad nature of humanity. Brisket's posts kinda tapped into that but I can't really blame him, only myself. I run with the crowd to which you refer. I've fought with them in the schools and the community. They have power and money and they know how to use it. But I also work and volunteer with folks who don't. I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm going to keep reaching out one at a time, getting folks in my community signed up to vote (our community has low turnout #s but we are working on that) and let them know about the Democratic candidates so they can see beyond what the media wants them to see. Am I biased toward Warren? You bet, but I don't shy away from the positives that other candidates such as Sanders, etc have to offer. This forum has been helpful in that regard because of the discussions that have highlighted some of the best ways to do that.

 

A very productive use of anger, in my humble opinion Mrs. Whiggins. Cheers. 

[Huckleberry 34749]

1 minute ago, 6th Street said:

Counter point. I sit in front of a Bloomberg terminal all day at work. It's wonderful investing tool and would happily vote for him if he had any shot at the nomination. Which he doesn't. 

That sounds like a fantastic reason to vote for a Presidential candidate.

I would vote for Bill Gates because of Excel, but then I would not vote for him because of Word. Such a tough decision.

[washparkhorn 9974]

I liked Volkswagens back in the day . . .  oopsie. 

[triplehorn 2664]

9 minutes ago, troph said:

I read it the same way you did.

If you're boosting Sanders like a meth addled monkey on a keyboard while admitting voters will "will come home because their class interests are more important to them than anything else", what does that make you? Just sayin'.

The phenomenon we continue to witness is that Trump/GOP disinformation, propaganda, and racism pumping creates the illusion for those in need that they are somehow winning and maintaining some kind of superiority that is threatened by "socialism."  We all know the scam by now.  It can be argued both ways, but having a moderate nominee is a relative antidote to the military grade psy-ops campaign that's fire-hosing us..

[Pasken 1312]

20 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

He would also absorb support from Buttigieg.   Buttigieg is not a real candidate long term.  He’s a placeholder for more moderate voters, not someone anyone really expects to be President.   And he’s running even with Bernie in Iowa and New Hampshire in spite of that.

I expect him to be president.

[NWBuck 8630]

37 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

 

To be fair, if he deep throated it the way most people do, there'd be a very specific type of critique. Particularly if he inadvertently got some icing on his mouth.

[bad_teammate 13568]

27 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Your prediction sure sounds like an argument unfavorable to your guy.  Weird, and I assume unintentional.

Unfavorable in what sense?

 

Trump is going to bring the white base home in 2020 regardless of whatever moderate the Democrats put up against him. He was just impeached and a member of his own party voted to remove him and white people still favor him more than not.

So we can do the Hillary move in 2020, we can say "fuck you" to minority voters and rural voters and working class voters to chase the suburbs. We get 2-3% more whites and minorities stay on the sidelines. That's a strategy.

Can that strategy win? Sure it can. Is it likely to? I don't think it is, especially if what you're putting up there is Pete or Bloomberg.

Or we can actually direct our appeal straight to the tens of millions of potential voters who (1) are our natural fit, (2) will not go to Trump at all, and (3) are just waiting for someone to come and tell them SPECIFIC THINGS WE CAN DO FOR THEM.

Non-voters are why Trump won. We need to get them.

Quote

If you're boosting Sanders like a meth addled monkey on a keyboard while admitting voters will "will come home because their class interests are more important to them than anything else", what does that make you? Just sayin'.

Someone who realizes that we need to go after and activate the classes that are not Trump's natural voting base. Someone with a shred of common sense who can look at 2016 and learn a basic lesson.

Quote

It can be argued both ways, but having a moderate nominee is a relative antidote to the military grade psy-ops campaign that's fire-hosing us..

Who is "us"? Be specific. Who are you pretending to speak for?

2 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Lulz at pointing at the programs we already have as proof that Bernie’s platform is totally not controversial and won’t upset the apple cart at all, and then saying everyone who is skeptical of him is a stupid low information voter who just doesn’t understand.

Medicare for All is broadly popular.  (70% approval in this poll)

Minimum wage increase is also broadly popular.

Quote

Just as one single example, his proposal to ban fracking would devastate the economy in this entire region.  And he could effectively do it with the executive branch bureaucracy even if he doesn’t have Congress on board.  There would be lawsuits, etc., but he could definitely gum up the works for the leading industry in this state to a very large extent on his own.   But people who would be affected by that just don’t understand the economics, I’m sure.

Banning domestic fracking would destroy my company. I would be fine, but the disruption would be astonishing.

But our planet is fucking dying, so it is what it is. I'm a minority in the industry, I realize that, but most people don't even know what fracking is much less give a shit about saving it.

33 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Because I'm not you?

OK, so what was your point in telling me I'm angry?

[F250 29205]

6 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

To be fair, if he deep throated it the way most people do, there'd be a very specific type of critique. Particularly if he inadvertently got some icing on his mouth.

I figured this is the reason he doesn't use the Rick Perry method when eating in public.

 

[bad_teammate 13568]

And even if you win with Pete, what did you actually win.

Watch this exchange.

First attempt: He completely dodges the question; started talking about the fucking opioid crisis.
Second attempt: He says the increased arrests for drug offenses is a tool he used to combat gang violence using racial profiling.

When he started in 2012, South Bend's murder rate was 603 per 100k. 
By 2018, South Bend's murder rate was 1039 per 100k.

What are we actually winning here by telling the minority voters we need to go fuck themselves and beg cloistered white centrists to pat us on our heads?

[triplehorn 2664]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

I figured this is the reason he doesn't use the Rick Perry method when eating in public.

 

incredulous lady in blue: "how does he take the length?'

[troph 25248]

Good lord man. He needs to learn how not to lead with the teeth. Surely his bro supporters will let him know.

[troph 25248]

Does bad teammate have another job besides posting here ? He’s almost as prolific as brisket.

 

[bad_teammate 13568]

 

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

Fuck ‘em up Joe

 

[henrygandorf 29229]

30 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And even if you win with Pete, what did you actually win.

Watch this exchange.

First attempt: He completely dodges the question; started talking about the fucking opioid crisis.
Second attempt: He says the increased arrests for drug offenses is a tool he used to combat gang violence using racial profiling.

When he started in 2012, South Bend's murder rate was 603 per 100k. 
By 2018, South Bend's murder rate was 1039 per 100k.

What are we actually winning here by telling the minority voters we need to go fuck themselves and beg cloistered white centrists to pat us on our heads?

you've convinced me.  it's always that 7000th post that wins the argument.

[triplehorn 2664]

37 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Unfavorable in what sense?

 

Trump is going to bring the white base home in 2020 regardless of whatever moderate the Democrats put up against him. He was just impeached and a member of his own party voted to remove him and white people still favor him more than not.

So we can do the Hillary move in 2020, we can say "fuck you" to minority voters and rural voters and working class voters to chase the suburbs. We get 2-3% more whites and minorities stay on the sidelines. That's a strategy.

Can that strategy win? Sure it can. Is it likely to? I don't think it is, especially if what you're putting up there is Pete or Bloomberg.

Or we can actually direct our appeal straight to the tens of millions of potential voters who (1) are our natural fit, (2) will not go to Trump at all, and (3) are just waiting for someone to come and tell them SPECIFIC THINGS WE CAN DO FOR THEM.

Non-voters are why Trump won. We need to get them.

 

With an eye on the battleground states MI/OH/WI/PA, especially those where the margin was razor thin, you get 2016 non-voting and 2016 disillusioned Trump voting whites to vote for a moderate Dem candidate.  The non-voting demographic will always tilt towards minorities.  That doesn't mean you gift Trump non-voting whites with either their votes or no-shows in 2020 by serving up a made to order boogeyman to amplify their disinfo and psyops.  Even if minority turnout remains the same in 2020 it's a win.

 

Note while Biden is perceived as least extreme, Pete is about equidistant with Trump.  Also note the point made about Trump campaigning against "elites" where countless got conned.  Now we're hearing "billionaires for buttigieg."  Sanders like to tout his small donor base but PACs are a different source of campaign cash.  Pete has 1 PAC.  Sanders has, what 5 PAC's ?  sound familiar ?

[washparkhorn 9974]

2 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Fuck ‘em up Joe

 

That is one hell of an ad by Biden. 

[washparkhorn 9974]

Just now, triplehorn said:

With an eye on the battleground states MI/OH/WI/PA, especially those where the margin was razor thin, you get 2016 non-voting and 2016 disillusioned Trump voting whites to vote for a moderate Dem candidate.  The non-voting demographic will always tilt towards minorities.  That doesn't mean you gift Trump non-voting whites with either their votes or no-shows in 2020 by serving up a made to order boogeyman to amplify their disinfo and psyops.  Even if minority turnout remains the same in 2020 it's a win.

 

Note while Biden is perceived as least extreme, Pete is about equidistant with Trump.  Also note the point made about Trump campaigning against "elites" where countless got conned.  Now we're hearing "billionaires for buttigieg."  Sanders like to tout his small donor base but PACs are a different source of campaign cash.  Pete has 1 PAC.  Sanders has, what 5 PAC's ?  sound familiar ?

Sounds like another 2016 disaster is what you want. Are you blue no matter who - or can we give up on that pretense when it comes to some suburbanites? 
 

some are gettable votes. some are not. it doesn’t mean we won’t be working for your interests as well. Us not Me. 

[mchookem 16784]

11 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Fuck ‘em up Joe

 

that's actually a very clever and effective ad. Joe's not going quietly into the night lol

[bad_teammate 13568]

With an eye on the battleground states MI/OH/WI/PA, especially those where the margin was razor thin, you get 2016 non-voting and 2016 disillusioned Trump voting whites to vote for a moderate Dem candidate.

Who won Michigan and Wisconsin in the 2016 Democratic primary?

Which candidate appeals to the non-voter demographics?

What evidence do you have that these people care about a "moderate"? Did they stay home because Hillary is a Marxist? Did they vote for Trump because he's so centrist?

Sanders wins by bringing in non-voters and boosting the youth vote (which he did on Iowa) and attracting working class voters who want someone to promise them a better life (like Trump did).

[Biff Tannen 46205]

4 hours ago, Calihorn said:

I see you enjoy huffing paint chips

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Who won Michigan and Wisconsin in the 2016 Democratic primary?

Which candidate appeals to the non-voter demographics?

What evidence do you have that these people care about a "moderate"? Did they stay home because Hillary is a Marxist? Did they vote for Trump because he's so centrist?

Sanders wins by bringing in non-voters and boosting the youth vote (which he did on Iowa) and attracting working class voters who want someone to promise them a better life (like Trump did).

 

Who won 2016 Dem primaries in Ohio and Pennsylvania by large margins ?

It's a virtual law of physics that it's easier to get somebody stay home and do nothing than it is to motivate them to expend energy.  That is voter suppression versus positive shift in GOTV.  Realize also that in 2016, Clinton was the singular target of Russian Internet Research Agency interference.  Apart from Trump, Sanders was the sole beneficiary of Russian IRA boosting.  Between 2016 and 2020, we have yet to see the effects of the full brunt of foreign interference targeting "The Socialist."  I don't want to see it, especially considering virtually NOTHING has been done to counter it.

I think the wheelhouse is those active battleground voters who know how to - and do - vote, are undecided, and are susceptible to psychographic suppression.  The minority vote turnout against Trump should increase if anything because of his now well established record of overt racist sentiment and behavior ranging from Charlottesville, to migrant child separation, and prolonged time in caged detention for misdemeanors.  It's a survival response more so than than a drive from a belief you'll actually get something for your minority vote.

[bad_teammate 13568]

22 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Who won 2016 Dem primaries in Ohio and Pennsylvania by large margins ?

Hillary, a candidate who isn't running and who has no analogue in the 2020 race.

I answered yours, now you answer mine: Who won Wisconsin and Michigan?

Ohio is irrelevant if you have Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. You get those 3 states, you get the White House.

Quote

It's a virtual law of physics that it's easier to get somebody stay home and do nothing than it is to motivate them to expend energy.  That is voter suppression versus positive shift in GOTV.  Realize also that in 2016, Clinton was the singular target of Russian Internet Research Agency interference.  Apart from Trump, Sanders was the sole beneficiary of Russian IRA boosting.  Between 2016 and 2020, we have yet to see the effects of the full brunt of foreign interference targeting "The Socialist."  I don't want to see it, especially considering virtually NOTHING has been done to counter it.

What are you even saying here?

Quote

I think the wheelhouse is those active battleground voters who know how to - and do - vote, are undecided, and are susceptible to psychographic suppression.  The minority vote turnout against Trump should increase if anything because of his now well established record of overt racist sentiment and behavior ranging from Charlottesville, to migrant child separation, and prolonged time in caged detention for misdemeanors.  It's a survival response more so than than a drive from a belief you'll actually get something for your minority vote.

So the minorities, in your mind, are pretty much animals?

 

[RayDog 682]

Most voters are already decided. There is a reason why a 2019 CNN poll had 74% of voters extremely or very enthusiastic. That compares to 58% in 2015. People want to vote for or against Trump. It was 80% for Republicans and 78% for Democrats, a virtual tie.

Democrats do not need to do anything special to have huge turnout except to not screw it up by upsetting parts of their base.

Historically more people have voted then were very enthusiastic or better in the poll. If 74% vote that  will be 156 million  or at least 34 million who did not vote in 2016. They will mostly come from non-voting groups, the young and minorities. Those are the people Democrats need to make sure they don't  piss them off.

[gmr548 16704]

His big advantage (not saying this is right) is that he comes across as not too old and senile (Biden), not a woman (Warren/Klobuchar), not a socialist (Bernie) and not gay (Buttigieg).  If people can get past the Jew thing (they won't) he could beat Trump.  Sadly, I think they all lose to Trump.  The Democrats just had to find a moderate that could win some of the states like MI, WI, PA, FL, AZ, NC.  I can't believe their stable of politicians throughout the country doesn't have someone that is a male, mid 50's somewhat charismatic and moderate.  I personally have no problem with any of the current Dem candidates being President and I will vote for whomever they put forth but too much of this country will have problems with a women President or a gay President or a Jewish President.  I know Obama won two terms but I think the racism in this country has been amped up to the point that it would be tough for a candidate that is black/Hispanic/Asian/middle eastern to win nationally in this climate.  They could have just nominated Tom Hanks and he would win in a landslide is my guess.  I hope I am wrong.

You are wrong that it requires a moderate to win the key Midwestern states, which is still the path of least resistance for Ds. On balance, Bernie Sanders out performed Hillary Clinton in those states and most indications are that if Bernie Sanders was the nominee in 2016, we have President Sanders.

Trump appealed to those voters with populist message. All obvious bullshit, but people bought it. The progressive populist approach plays well up there.

[gmr548 16704]

 

People who think like that aren’t going to vote for a democrat when push comes to shove.

 

Can vote for Bernie, he’s a “socialist”.

 

Can’t vote for Warren, she’s a woman.

 

Can’t vote for Joe, he’s “corrupt like Obama”.

 

Can’t vote for Yang, he’s “oriental”.

 

Seriously, I do NOT like Pete but this handwringing that “moderate olds” might not vote for him because of his sexuality is bullshit because anyone who that would be an issue for is NEVER VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAT NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY IN PUBLIC.

 

Democrats weird need to try and be all things to all people - even shitty people - needs to stop.

 

Stop trying to convert the unconvertable. Stop trying to persuade the unpersuadeable.

 

We aren’t going to win by bending over backwards for these mythical moderate boomers.

 

We win by turning non-voters into voters.

 

Fuck the “moderates who are sick of Trump”. If they haven’t already quit the Republican Party in disgust then guess what? THEY ARE NOT REALLY MODERATES AND THEY AREN’T REALLY SICK OF TRUMP.

 

And there’s like, 5,000 of those mythical people anyway so they aren’t worth the bother.

 

There the same type of people as posters who drive by post here and say “Oh you Democrats aren’t going to nominate who I like so you’re forcing me to vote for Trump again”!

 

Those people are lying. There’s no one Democrats can nominate to convert them - they just say that to justify their support of a fascist shithead.

 

This this this. The mythical moderate independent is a very small part of the electorate. Democrats are much better served by trying to turn out more in the lower turnout groups - namy minority votets and young voters - that overwhelmingly support them. The pool of votes to be had is much bigger there.