therearedozensofus.gif
People vote for two reasons, A., Because they like the person they are voting for. or B. Because they hate the other person. Often it is a combination of the two.
I was with my sister, BIL and their best friends during the election. They live north of Seattle, upper middle class, recently retired, and live long Republicans. all voted for Trump, fairly informed. They watch more Good Morning America and local news than Fox news
My sister says she cringes every time Trump speaks
My BIL called Trump the biggest narcissist ever
My sister friend said the Trump was an awful role model for her children and was glad her grandchildren were too young to understand.
Her hubby agreed he was was awful, but hey at least the economy was doing well.
If it was Trump vs Hillary again, I’m sure they’d still vote for him in heartbeat.
Same thing with Pelosi, or Sanders
Elizabeth Warren, Kamela Harris, probably but I’n not certain.
Tammy Duckworth or Joe Biden. I’d imagine that at least the women would consider leaving the President ballot ballots because they think Joe is a nice guy, and men as Vietnam vets would respect Tammy’s background.
It’s true, some people lack morality. Still not going to let the GOP determine which candidates the Democrats put forward.
If you’re not a minority non-binary veteran unicorn, GTFO.
I love Bernie, I love Warren, but we can’t put up another 70+ year old candidate. Hillary really failed to energize youth voters. I think Bernie is better for some reason, but I don’t see Elizabeth Warren (HBO Ballers aficionado) will connect with the 18-28 year olds. I think the anti-trumpism seen in the polls in 2018 will help in 2020, but the democratic candidate needs to be night and day different from Trump, so the choice between the 2 is clear. One old racist windbag vs a young hopeful energetic candidate. Worked wonders for Obama.
(not saying they are the same, but we have to think about the people who are 16-20 now, and to them all people over 60 are the same, to some degree)
And if this might be right, but if that’s the decision, it’s a decision not based on what boogeyman spiel the GOP concocts. I also don’t think we should remove anyone from the table until we see who is at the table and how they perform. If Warren wants to throw herself into the ring, fine, do it. If there are better candidates, then again they will move ahead of her based on their merits not some oh god, whatever will we do if the GOP continues to make shit up about everyone they don’t like mantra.
The electability matters. To paraphrase the old Republican slogan, Democrats should nominate the most liberal candidate that will beat Trump.
Beto is charismatic and gets voters excited. I’d love to picky about experience and policy but I’m not sure anything else matters. 2016 destroyed me. I just want Trump to lose to anyone.
Beto would also be a highly sought-after VP pick, though, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see him sit it out and try to angle for that. Gillum too. And Abrams.
I mean, the other stuff matters. It can matter a lot.
But it also only matters if you get elected.
And, really, given how things went Obama could have done with more experience too. His lack did hamper his impact at times.
He did not debate well. He has time to learn though if he dedicates himself to it.
What ideas and positions does she hold that make her an ultra liberal? What makes anyone ultra liberal? I see that a lot on this board and elsewhere, but I have yet to read or hear what exactly she is advocating that makes her ultra liberal. (I mean, I can tell you what ideas makes a person ultra-liberal, as I myself have them, but I can assure there isn’t a national Democratic politician in this country that would agree with any of those ideas.)
Note: I am not saying accusing someone is too liberal in this country isn’t sufficient to polarize a politician, people on this board do the same thing; but neither Timex before you, and now you, can say what it is that make her or those from “her wing” so scarily liberal. From my point of view, “too liberal” is some vague, ill-defined slur* that has no actual basis in objective reality. (But, because this is America, vague, ill-defined accusations are all that’s all that it takes to sully a politician, especially if that politician is a woman.)
'*To be clear, I’m not accusing you of this, rather just making a general observation.
Amen.
I hear people talking about how EWarren is so unappealing or unelectable and it is just baffling to me, utterly baffling. She’s extremely intelligent, hard working, knowledgeable, and passionate. Her proposed policies are objectively correct, and she has a solid history of accomplishment at the national level which genuinely improves the lives of everyday people. Her Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is absolutely hated by Republicans, which is a reliable indication of how much good it is doing to help Americans. She is actually draining the swamp and working against corruption, white collar crime, and extreme inequality. And the best attack on her that the Republicans have is “Pocahontas”, e.g. that she might have lied on an application form 40 years ago. Your average Republican pol commits more malfeasance than that before breakfast.
She has a (D) after her name, which automatically makes her anathema to probably 27% of the voting public just due to the crazification factor. The above, since it includes the wrong kind of people - you know Cadillac-owning welfare queens and strapping young bucks wink (thanks Reagan!) - no doubt adds several points as well.
Elizabeth Warren does good work. I applaud her CFPB work. She is always a reasoned voice for good government for all citizens.
I want her to be on my team but I don’t want her to be my presidential candidate. I believe we need someone who isn’t a geriatric to be our candidate. That’s all.
I don’t disagree that because of her age I’d rather she not run or be the nominee. My main issue - and it’s been a peeve I’ve mine for a long time now - is that whenever Warren’s name is brought up, it’s usually in conjunction with “too liberal”, “too far left” but no one has ever bothered to state what exactly makes her too far left/too liberal. Like ever. (The closest anyone has ever come is ShivaX because of Warren’s position on guns, but she is not outside the Democratic mainstream.)
Look, the GOP built their entire message on bringing in a non “Washington Insider” I love Warren and think her accomplishments are amazing. But she will be 70, and has been in Washington for over 5 years.
Also, as seriously stupid and fucked up the DNA test thing was, it is still the first thing you find when you google search her. And it is dumb that it is still a thing in the press, but it makes her look bad.
This feels like the emails all over again.
Never again with that shit. Warren runs in 2020, Trump starts an investigation of the DNA ancestry company Warren used in Oct. 2020, turns out that ancestry DNA is kind of BS, and they call her a liar. It is bad. Even if it is some bullshit (like but her emails) it still sticks, because the undecided voter is an idiot.
And while I love that U.S. Grant quote from the Civil War it doesn’t really apply, and while it is a good sound bite, it is a completely different situation than what the 2020 election strategy will be.
That U.S. Grant quote is interesting, because it speaks more about the issue that the troops had with his relatively new command over Union army in the Virginia campaign. The men were spooked by Lee’s ability to seemingly thwart their every move. This was due to the many setbacks that lead to retreat under former generals, and forced retreat after retreat. The quote is less about “don’t worry about the enemy’s strategy, worry about our own” and more “shut up and let me lead this army, I will make the decisions, you will follow my orders”. Rather than retreat, U.S. Grant forced the Army forward, took heavy casualties and continue to march to Richmond.
He knew he was forcing his good men into the buzzsaw that was Lee’s army on their home turf, and it was important to keep the army moving forward, not second guessing all of their decision making like MacClellan did previously.
So yes, I think that it is important to worry about your own strategy, but there is a reason the CIA exists, why we have recon units, and intelligence is integral how you effectively fight a modern war.
This is where I am as well. I can see every debate, every rally replacing “Crooked Hillary” with “Pocohonatas” complete with fake Indian cheers. She will be another Clinton with good policies but can’t sell them.
The 2020 election is going to be schoolyard brawl. It will be ugly, and the Dems need someone who can respond to every Trump attack with: I know what you are, but what am i? Which is why I think Biden or Beto might be a good chance. I’m not a fan of Biden’s age, but can look past it.
The fact is the GOP will be 100% in on ratfucking whoever the candidate is; it doesn’t matter what factual basis there might be. They’ll make shit up out of whole cloth and their tribe will believe it. Worrying about the fact that the GOP will ratfuck is pointless.
The other most-likely fact is that no matter who the candidates are, mainstream media will be 100% in on bothsiderism and false balance to avoid appearing biased. Worrying about which pointless non-scandal they’ll obsess about is also pointless.
Focus on picking qualified candidates that the non-crazy people will vote for.
This is the key, IMHO. I think that a good chunk of the moderate/independent voters in the midwest states that swung the election to Trump ended up sitting at home or voting for a third party because they hated both candidates. Give them someone to get behind on the Democratic side, and things could be different.