Harry has presumably seen these numbers already, being CNN’s polling data guy…
2016 wasn’t about people flipping their vote from 2012; it was about different people voting; this was true even in “swing counties”. Getting a different result in 2020 will require a different mix of voters, which is probably easier than changing the minds of people who voted for Trump in 2016.
Timex
3519
This is just what the hyper partisans say now… it wasn’t always the way it was done. Folks like Clinton got elected by appealing to the middle, not the far left of the party.
And in 2020, a base-only strategy is not the best play.
At this point, you have the GOP that has retreated into their far right base. The democrats should see this as an opportunity to mobilize the middle, which I feel is ripe for the picking. Trump’s approval ratings are constantly in the toilet. The middle is there to be grabbed by the Democrats, if they can mobilize that disgust and fatigue that’s felt by normal americans.
I don’t want the Democrats to become Republicans, especially after what the Republicans have become under Trump. I also do agree that they need an inspiring (read charismatic candidate). But I what the Democrat to avoid doing is nominating somebody with ideas that are so progressive that turn off moderate Democrat in swing states, and/or scare Republicans who would normally be content to stay home, to go out an vote against the Democratic candidate. I know a lot of Republican who explicitly voted against Hillary rather than voted for Trump. AFAIK none of the leading Democrats have anywhere near Hillary’s baggage. But her policies also weren’t as progressive as I saw in the debates.
Menzo
3521
LOL, if you’re suggesting that Hillary Clinton’s progressive ideas were a reason (not THE reason, but one of the reasons) she lost the election then you are, in fact, telling Democrats that they need to become Republicans in order to win.
They don’t have anywhere near Hillary’s baggage yet. I think the Republicans have this down to a science now. In 2020, there will be a lot of baggage for whoever the candidate is. If it’s Warren, there will be a lot of Pocahontes talk, if it’s Buttigieg there will be a lot of homophobic fear-mongering, etc.
Of course, if we had a rational electorate, “not Trump” would justify a landslide win.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know…
Banzai
3525
Moving in the right direction, but not there yet.
I’m saying the exact opposite. Hillary had very mainstream Democrat views on social/economic issues (and her foreign policy was even more mainstream). She lost because of baggage/personality, I believe if Hillary had adopted Bernie policy positions, she would have lost the popular vote also.
I think Biden is in super-big trouble. His two biggest arguments that put him at the top of the field initially:
- People like him. (They still do, but not as much.)
- People had this vague notion that he could beat Trump.
As those two things start to fade, his numbers are finally going to tumble.
For comparison, CNN had Biden at 39% right after he announced in the end of April. Sanders was at 15% then (so no change for him) and Warren and Harris were in single digits.
From 39% to 22% in two months is pretty steep, but hardly unexpected. Name recognition was driving Biden’s high numbers. Most people were barely familiar with the other candidates until the first debate, so they went with the guy they knew. Now they have meaningful choices, and are picking new favorites.
I thing you are right Biden decline was no real surprise. Harris had a great performance and deserve the bump. I’m disappointed that Mayor Pete who had been polling ~10% dropped to 4. But I remind myself is is super early, margin of error etc.
Timex
3530
Yeah, I think you’ve got it right here… And a big reason why folks thought he could beat trump? Simply because tons of folks, when asked, literally didn’t know who anyone else was other than maybe Bernie, who was seen as unelectable by a ton of mainstream Democrats.
As folks start to actually learn who these other folks are? I think that folks are gonna say, “This person is just as electable as Biden.”
So, to recap.
- You claimed that something like 20% of voters have voted for both Republican and Democratic presidents in the past. That claim is here:
-
I doubt that claim, so I said that I doubted it, and gave you a link to research which says it isn’t true.
-
You mocked the link I offered, on grounds that are still not at all clear to me. You implied that the results of the 2016 election invalidated it (they don’t), and you pointed to data in the survey you imply support your claim (they don’t), and then you offered to make a bet.
-
I asked you to produce evidence for your claim. You didn’t.
So, I think you pulled it out of your ass.
I think the best way to understand voters in general is to imagine how people are caught up in movements. If and when the North Korean regime falls it will simply evaporate like it never existed. A few people on top might be arrested, there might be a couple of deaths, and then the cloud will be lifted and people will simply shake the dust of history off.
That’s basically how to “save” America from this kind of self-serving, hypocritical, infotainment driven conservatism that has allowed the Father Caughlins of the modern age to run the party and country. Once Fox News has been shut down, the news media reestablished along BBC lines, once dozens of Republicans arrested for corruption and manipulating elections, no one is going to get “revenge” on Republican voters. In fact Republican voters will just go along with the new way of the world with a shrug and an “obviously we knew it was horrible!” and then going about their lives.
Blacks don’t like the Buttiman :(
This is true, but in hindsight many Democrats look at the (Bill) Clinton administration and wonder what the point was. Bill won by appealing to ‘moderates’, which means in practice he disparaged the left and adopted talking points from the right. And then, in office, he governed like (at best) a moderate Republican. From Clinton we got RBG and Breyer (which is good), but we also got a huge weakening of the social safety net, and huge losses for LBGT rights, and the end of effective banking regulation, and a thousand other Reagan-lite things.
So, it’s not surprising that Democrats want a candidate who is a Democrat. They want a candidate who is left of center, not right of center. They want a candidate who is going to advance Democratic causes, not one who is going to retrench them. And it is not surprising that Republicans and conservatives — like you — want Democrats to instead nominate a moderate Republican, to minimize the damage of a likely Trump defeat in 2020.
The thing that is surprising is that you expect us to take it seriously.
I think even academics forget about the Overton Window effect sometimes.
