Even if that were true, do you think people are genuinely eager, excited and are chomping at the bit to implement Biden's agenda? Clinton might have been more energizing because there were those that did passionately support her because she represented a female who overcame all of the obstacles females faced for decades and earned the nomination. Biden doesn't even have that.
Right. 90% of what you mentioned was fabricated BS. The GOP and Trump aren't going to stop fabricating stories and scandals because the Dems nominate a moderate. No matter who the Dems nominate, Trump and the Republicans will still make up scandals about them.
I don’t think it’s any of those things necessarily. Hillary seems smart but not abundantly brilliant. She just wasn’t that exciting or likable either. Very dull candidate. Bernie was more extreme on the issues but he was exciting...I think he would’ve beaten Trump for that reason alone. This election cycle, Cory Booker embodies intelligence and eloquence. I think he would win easily. Biden has always been gritty and outspoken, I think he could win too but his age is a huge concern. Bernie is just as old and had a freaking heart attack recently. Warren is a snooze fest. These are the things that really matter. Trump won in 2016 because he was a new, exciting candidate who was outspoken. Someone’s position on healthcare or the environment will never win them an election. Mayor Pete has taken a lead in Iowa and New Hampshire because he’s new, young, and smart as hell
But that's the thing, some Independents/Moderates/Undecideds DO want extremes. Some Moderates are staunchly anti-immigration and get excited by the wall and kicking immigrants out. They were polled and some are not for immigration...but then you have some that are completely liberal towards immigration, the latter are not voting for Trump especially if they are passionate about that issue. I think the point of the data shows that there isn't one big voting block of moderates that all think the same thing or similar things, that they are all over the place politically so appealing to that is something difficult to do.
Also depends heavily on how you phrase the questions. Which leaves a ton of room for nuance in policy. Which pretty much defines a moderate.
I agree, but I have no idea how they phrased the questions, the poll makers are trustworthy and researchers so I give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't think it is that far fetched to believe that this group of moderates or independents or undecideds all agree on the same things. I think it should be obvious that some might lean this way or that way. So really, the question that should be asked is how can a candidate like Bernie appeal to the left-leaning moderates, not just moderates in general, but moderates that actually want to vote for a democrat and just need the motivation to get up and do so.
Unfortunately for Democrats, it comes down to this antiquated monster called the Electoral College. Meaning, all fantasies aside about resolving issues of substance, it's basically a given that certain states are going to go for a certain party's candidate, so long as that party's candidate has a pulse, and that states like VA, NC, PA and Michigan will likely decide the winner. To put it bluntly and be real with you all, if the Democrats nominate someone viewed as unsympathetic to African American causes, or too moderate, or maybe even too Asian, they risk not drawing African Americans to the polls, which will likely be critical in the states I mentioned. And if they go too liberal, too female, or too gay, they risk losing those states' blue-collar types, which could be swayed once again into believing, falsely, that Trump is their champion. Someone viewed as far-left could also alienate moderates that don't like Trump, but believe Republican and mainstream-media talking points about a so-called rosy economy. (This would probably be a good time to say that I'm strongly anti-Trump and not racist, homophobic or sexist; just trying to get my point across with as few words as possible.) I would love to see Warren or Yang, but I have my doubts that they would fare much better than Hillary did in those states' largest cities. Bernie might fare better but he's old (although he somehow seems to be in far better shape following his heart attack). Buttiigieg will be a distant memory after Iowa and New Hampshire, I believe. So that pretty much leaves Biden or Booker. ( I don't see Klobachar or the others I haven't mentioned lasting much longer, and that includes Bloomberg, although I could be wrong.) Booker can give a speech and fire up voters. Biden might be able to reach moderates if he can stick to his talking points and his teleprompter. The problem with Booker, aside from not polling well, is that he's not popular with his party's more liberal voters, he's been a poor debater, he doesn't really seem to have a message, and he's not well known like the front runners and can't really draw a crowd. Biden's also going to get bloodied over his son's role in Ukraine by a crooked Senate and Trump in the coming months. Can Biden defend himself, articulate his positions (or decide them), and drum up enthusiasm? I'll leave that to the rest of you to decide. Warren and Sanders, on the other hand, have droves of enthusiastic supporters already. In fact, they're basically running against their doppelganger in one another. It's unlikely either drops out ahead of Super Tuesday, but if either were to... whichever remains would inherit most of the other's support and surge in the polls. So, yes, my money would be on Warren or Sanders right now. Unfortunately Warren and Sanders must also worry about alienating down-ballot voters in more conservative states. I think Warren, Bernie, or Yang would stand up best against Trump in a debate (followed by Biden), but Trump's already indicating he would dodge the debates, and I'm undecided which Democrat would be best for the country as a whole right now. I know whoever wins the nomination better hope that their party unties behind them, and that their party's voters show them some love. If the Democrats put forth a candidate like Hillary Clinton, with little to no enthusiasm behind him or her, they can expect a repeat of 2016, this I'm sure of.
This thread explains exactly whats wrong with the Democrat party. On election day, they would rather stay home than compromise. Take a moment and count the reasons listed in this thread why Democrats struggle to win outside liberal strongholds. Trump has a single digit chance of winning the 2016 election. Its 2020, Trump has been largely a colossal failure, but yet the Democrats are struggling to challenge him in the next election. Sanders? Warren? Biden? Is this the best the party has to offer? 11 months to election day and there are 12 other clowns who have almost zero chance yet they are staying in the race. They are risky and may go off the reservation, so the DNC refuses to support them. What is worse? Blindly supporting your parties elected candidate, regardless how ridiculous he may be, -or- simply staying home because your ultra progressive candidate didnt make the cut?
I see a handful of really strong candidates actually. The fact that each candidate has passionate supporters, and that many people are undecided about which would be the best to face Trump, isn't a bad thing in my view. What would be worse is if none of the candidates had strong support, or if their was widespread disinterest. There is not.
This is exactly what people said about the GOP leading up to the 2016 election, like, exactly. That none of the GOP candidates had a shot at it and that especially included Trump. At the end of the day, I think the Democratic base is fired up enough that they will unite behind whoever wins like the GOP base did with Trump, right now though Democrats and left-leaning voters should be fighting and debating about their candidate. This is the moment to do so. This is how it should be done. But the DNCs job should be to stay out of the primary as much as possible, let the people decide, then when the people decide unite them behind that candidate. I'm not sure what they are supposed to do differently and I disagree that all of the candidates are clowns, you'd think that because you are right leaning, but people are genuinely excited about a few of these candidates.
A progressive agenda that delivers meaningful change for the 90%, but cloaked in the language of a moderate. Healthcare, (military) spending, providing a social safety net, the environment, gun safety, protection of minority rights - these are all areas where Dem policy aligns with public interest. We just keep losing the messaging battle. Frame healthcare, minority rights, and social welfare as living up to the Christian ideal of taking care of the poor and downtrodden. Talk about how Republican presidents regularly blow up the deficit. Advocate for common sense gun control policies. If you can frame progressive policies in a way that is palatable to moderates, to the Obama-Trump voters, to the people in the suburbs (where the 2018 midterms flipped the Dems’ way), you will win. And Pete’s the guy to do it
One argument that annoys me: in 2016 the Dems ran a moderate and “lost”. We need someone different that will excite people and get us votes! First of all, you’re ignoring the historical variables that affected the outcome of the election like the Comey Letter and Russian interference. Both of which single-handedly decided the election. Sure, Hillary had some campaign missteps, but those two outside variables were factors nobody could foreseen. And, my, were they costly. There’s a 448 page report detailing how the 2016 election was a trap for whomever the nominee was going to be. Don’t take my word for it. Minority voters in swing states getting text messages trying to trick them into “voting” with their phones. Massive smear jobs meant to sow discord and suppress voter turnout. What the Russians did was equally as impressive as it was disturbing. The point I’m making: don’t act as if the platform itself was the reason we “lost” in 2016. It wasn’t a level playing field and we had a lot of factors working against us. Hopefully, our eyes are open now. We won (notice: not in quotations) the popular vote decidedly yet “lost” due to 77,000 votes in three states. To say it was close would be the understatement of the decade. This isn’t some obvious “okay the moderate didn’t work, so let’s go far-left now” indicator like some would like to believe.
Independents / moderates / undecideds …. No , they don't want the extremes. I'm telling you as one of them. What we want is in the middle and that's why we don't affiliate with either party because for the most part they are on the opposite side of every argument …. solutions reside in the middle.
The thing is this argument is always brought up as a counter to "We need to run a moderate!" as if that alone is the answer. I mean, this is politics, the GOP isn't going to play fair and won't do so no matter who the Democrats run for 2020. The fact that people think, liberals at that, that Bernie and Warren are 'Far-Left' is evidence that the GOP plays this political game better than the DNC does. They have already apparently convinced plenty of liberal voters that Sanders and Warren and progressives are radical socialists
Okay, you're telling me as ONE of them, I was referring to polling data that polled more than one though. I really doubt you speak for every Independent, Moderate, or undecided voter. The polling data says you do not and says that this group of voters can be placed anywhere on the political spectrum. EDIT: I also think its wrong to think that solutions always reside in the middle. That's just not always the case, sometimes, one side is right and one side is wrong. There is a bevy of historical examples of this (For both parties) and if a side takes an extreme stance than compromise is actually losing.
You can't prove it is about race because it isn't for a majority of voters... maybe the far right it is, but largely people are against illegal immigration. This is a simple fact. Smart money uses that as an election issue. Especially since it affects people of various nationalities and not a race of people... oh and it involves enforcing laws that were created in the past by both parties and that politicians have been negligent to enforce it. Most decent countries stay decent because they have standards to enter for both physical and economic safety. This is not racist. It is common sense and long has been until a mass campaign was launched to get people to lower their guard out of fear of the R word.
I think we more or less agree but I think you’re a little too bullish on Sanders/Warren. Admittedly, Sanders has that “it” factor. I just don’t see it with Warren but she’s doing well in the polls so maybe I’m missing something. I think Biden can win but he absolutely has to balance his ticket out effectively. like you said, Booker hasn’t resonated with voters for whatever reason. I think it mostly has to do with low name recognition (but Pete is doing well and who knew about him previously?). I think a Biden-Booker or Biden-Pete ticket is pretty strong. 1) Biden-Booker 2) Biden-Pete/Kobluchar 3) Pete-Booker 4) Sanders-Booker 5) Sanders-Pete/Kobluchar Those would be my top 5 tickets, without considering VP choices outside of the current mix of course (Harris wouldn’t be bad).
Eh the VP should balance out the ticket. For one, Sanders and Warren would probably be disgruntled by losing out to Biden. Two, Biden-Sanders is a nightmare ticket because they’re both ancient and have different ideologies. I don’t foresee Sanders ever accepting a VP position. Biden needs to go with Pete Or Booker.
Speak to their self-interest. Hammer how the GOP has failed them economically, via trade, via the climate; how they lied to them wrt jobs magically returning that will never ever return; how they allowed and subsidized a homegrown drug epidemic under their watch; lay out a comprehensive immigration plan, comprehensive meaning the who and the why and the how, and how it should be done in a fiscally responsible manner; and then lay out a vision for the future that includes growing and making things that can be sold (pretty much just like it's always been), education opportunities, heathcare, heathcare, healthcare, etc.... Reality plus Hope. How you convince people to not believe the paranoia, that I can't answer.
