Timex
5226
There’s no way this is the real world anymore.
Tim_N
5227
Corn pop is a great name for soda in the US.
ShivaX
5228
He was a man ahead of his time, that’s for sure.
SlyFrog
5230
I look forward to a deep fake of Joe Biden in The Wire.
MikeJ
5233
The admin of a rural hospital has a lot less pricing power in the market than a federal government spending trillions each year. If 95% of patients are insured by the government, at some point it is take the government rate, retire, or find another line of work.
SlyFrog
5234
If Biden starts talking about getting inside information from Fuzzy Dunlop, I’m out. :)
Hey, Fuzzy was a better information source than either of the idiots who used him!
Sure is looking more and more like a Biden/Warren race:
Indeed.
WKHE spills a ton of outstanding knowledge in this segment:
Alstein
5238
I can easily see the end results dividing among racial lines, with most blacks supporting Biden , and whites supporting Warren, resulting in a very split convention, with sour feelings among the losers.
I think Biden is more likely to have busters than Warren. I just can’t see black voters busting over Warren, but I can see young voters busting over Biden easily. Criticize folks for busting all you like, but it’s not going to stop them busting.
I have no idea what busting is, but you managed to get some form of that word into the final two sentences you typed five times. So it must be awesome.
Sharpe
5240
“Bernie or bust” is what he means I believe or “my candidate or I go take my ball and go home”.
Exit polls that get analyzed the night of elections have become one of the great myth-makers in American politics. I think Nate Cohn at the Times pointed out that the mis-read on election night 2012 STILL fuels incorrect political tactics and strategy in 2016 and on into 2020.
And one of those myths is that key segments of the Democratic coalition that elected Obama “stayed home” in 2016. They didn’t. They came out and they voted. BUT…Democrats failed to hold onto white working class persuadable voters and got absolutely swamped by those groups.
And the other thing we know about 2016 is that we had almost 7% vote cast on someone who wasn’t Trump or Clinton. We know from history that when we see a big bulge in that number (and 7% is HUGE), we get counter-move the next election or two. We’re likely to see <2.5% go to a non Republican or Democrat in 2020.
No one’s going to “bust”. It’s not a thing, other than a tactic people use to try to scare people into voting for the candidate who aligns with their personal ideology.
In fact – and I didn’t post it here, because frankly I lack the energy to defend some pretty decent analysis done by someone else – but Dave Wasserman made a great point in a twitter thread on Monday. Actually, he made a bunch of great points.
- Democrats will win the White House if they can just put a stop on the erosion of white working class voters from them. However they have to do it, if they can even just stop the erosion, they have a good shot. Democrats don’t need to WIN this demographic by any means. They just need to avoid getting utterly wiped out like they were in 2016.
That obliteration is what caused so much consternation on Election Night 2016. Voter models expected Clinton to at least be within a decent range of Obama in some of the Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin exurbs. And instead, she just got blown away, and those numbers swamped the urban vote in those states.
-
Stopping the erosion can mean a lot of things. “You mean watered-down centrist policies!” is what most eye-rolling responses to Wasserman’s data brought. (Seriously, when someone has the receipts, snide responses just seem so dumb.) As others put it, it’s more about framing Progressive policy in a way that takes the definitions of those initiatives away from Fox News and makes them something that voters want.
-
There are a ton of persuadable voters out there. There is scant evidence that “energizing the base” wins elections. In 2008, 2012, and 2016 at least, the election was decided by persuadable voters.
The big exit poll error that was caught in final analysis in 2012 was the sheer number of white voters out there. Turns out, there’s tons of them! Lots and lots! And though those numbers were corrected when all tabulations were made in the next week, the narrative remained about how whites would someday soon be a voting minority. It now simply seems unlikely within the lifespan of anyone reading this message here in 2019.
Texas is getting within reach, but probably isn’t there yet. Ditto Georgia, and perhaps North Carolina. They may be purple/blue soon enough, but in the meantime, Democrats cannot cede away Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Oh, and here’s Wasserman’s thread. Take your pitchforks and torches to engage him on twitter. ;)
But bring data, not feelings or anecdote.
(Hint: it’s Texas.)
Sharpe
5244
I think the key here is to focus on accomplishing this by means of getting out the true message that Dems will be good for them, but without compromising on core policies or principles. I continue to feel that focusing on health care reform with Medicare-buy-in, comprehensive immigration reform including a strict employer-level crackdown, and green jobs is the right set of core message principles that can appeal to the persuadables while still protecting core Dem values.
Yes, absolutely.
But realize that you’re going to have to do that while convincing these voters that:
- It isn’t socialism, or
- If it is socialism, that socialism is pretty awesome.
Fucking Hitler really did a goddamn number on that word.
Sharpe
5246
That’s one of the big reasons that Medicare-buy-in is a better message than Medicare-for-all, even though in the long run they lead to the same or similar places.
