All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Kirby101]

(Never mind that you've got to buy into that the person who actually won the Democratic Party primary in some of those states would not have delivered any votes in those states during a general...)

Hillary won the PA primary, so that is just daft.

[Kirby101]

Then we get everything we deserve then.

So if we don't have progressive candidates that don't appeal to the middle swing voters, we lose? Again, how does that work.

[Kirby101]

If you didn't get BBB done after some of them actually voted for you?
.

Since you know all the answers, how do we get Machin and Simena to change their votes, exactly?

[numberthirty]

I don't know if Sanders asleep would have been better. I don't know if Sanders would have accepted the VP slot. And neither does anyone else. Though some here are sure how the Democrats can win, just have a candidate that believes exactly keep they do.

Politely, you've got that wrong.

To have a decent chance, at maybe, putting together some wins coming up?

Democrats need to, at the very least, assume that they may not have a foolproof plan...

This time out?

They will not have Trump fumbling a pandemic to put them into a position to have a better shot at winning.

Past that?

Any one of us could make a list of how things have not broke Dem's way in the last couple of years.

They need to run like that is indeed the case to even have shot.

(Barring Republicans making some incredibly dumb moves in the next few month. While I've got my doubts about that, stranger things have happened. Fingers crossed on them happening again. That said, Dems really need to run like that will not happen...)

[numberthirty]

Hillary won the PA primary, so that is just daft.

Seriously...

Ask yourself who won each of those states...

[Kirby101]

And it seems I need to point out that Hillary and the Democrats did convince 3 million more voters that she was the better choice, but our screwed up system messed things up for the second time in under 20 years. But oh, I hear, they needed to handicap for that. Sure, why can't the Democrats make sure they always win by 5 million votes. This is getting tiring.

[Mister Mets]

@ Mets

To save space I am not going to quote the whole post and I am too lazy to trim it down.

As for who feels that way? There was tons of talk during the election and even now about Joementia. He studders he is not a good public speaker, looks lost. Hell Fox News had a story an hour about that and even CNN did a couple. There were people who talked about how lifeless Biden was and how it effected how they would vote.

The dementia arguments are different from the arguments that he's boring.

Granted, it could be that if he had a different presence, less Americans would think he's senile.

I'll note that I don't think he's senile, and that much of this criticism from right-wingers who want it to be true.

Doesnt mean a canidate should just phone it in. Even if safe districts they need to be out there.

But are there really people out there that are saying they will not vote against Trump or Desantis or Cruz And Abbot or someone like Taylor Greene and Geatz because the Candidate is not exciting enough?

It could be that voters aren't going to be able to articulate their reasons for not supporting a boring candidate.

(Never mind that you've got to buy into that the person who actually won the Democratic Party primary in some of those states would not have delivered any votes in those states during a general...)

This may not matter all that much.

Trump lost the Wisconsin primary in 2016, and was able to flip the state.

Barack Obama lost New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana (!) to Hillary in 2008, and still won those states in the presidential election.

The point is that someone shouldn’t require motivation to do something that is in their best interest.

Voters won't always recognize what's in their best interest.

That can be a complex thing to figure out, especially with the other side pointing out the drawbacks of whatever you want to do. Most policies are going to have some tradeoffs.

I whole heartedly agree with you that the Dems share some of the blame.



Yes, I do think he won an election a generic Republican would have lost.

I'll be the first one to say that Hillary shot herself in the foot by not campaigning hard enough, and that she took for granted she was going to win, because HOW could America vote in Trump (we didn't, but that's a whole other rant about the Electoral College)? The thing is, Trump had the cult of celebrity behind him. He's been in the mainstream since the 80's in one form or another, from real estate, casinos, and hosting Wrestlemanias, to The Apprentice and all his media appearances. And John Q. Public has shown time and again that they will support a celebrity because they are a CELEBRITY. On top of that, Trump had a take no prisoners, own the Libs attitude that appealed to a lot of people.

As for the Supreme Court nominees- he didn't NEED to fight harder. The Republicans controlled the Senate. All he needed to do was nominate someone from a list provided to him by the Heritage Center, or McConnell, or BOTH, and McConnell would ram them through regardless of how man scandals they had or how unqualified they were. See Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

My own view is that Trump has consistently underperformed other Republicans, so I expect Hillary would have lost to most of the alternatives. I agree they would have gone with the same supreme court justices, and Mitch McConnell would have had the same approach when he has the votes.

I think there's a mistake to make this about Hillary VS Trump, when this has been a Republican VS Democrat issue. And this may cut to a problem in modern politics, where Democrats sometimes win with rock star candidates (JFK, Bill Clinton, Obama) which gets them to think about personalities as opposed to policy. They'll message about how Obama would be a great guy to have a beer with, which does absolutely nothing for downballot candidates or the next nominee.

[numberthirty]

Since you know all the answers, how do we get Machin and Simena to change their votes, exactly?

Simple...

The first thing you do is grasp the incredibly basic reality that the entire party will have to face the consequences of that they did not.

Getting hung up on "How could we have got them to change their votes?..."

It's a really good way to wind up losing.

You need to seriously consider how you can win even though you did not deliver.

[numberthirty]

And it seems I need to point out that Hillary and the Democrats did convince 3 million more voters that she was the better choice, but our screwed up system messed things up for the second time in under 20 years. But oh, I hear, they needed to handicap for that. Sure, why can't the Democrats make sure they always win by 5 million votes. This is getting tiring.

Unless 2016 was a year that yards and not points would win you a football game?

You don't need to point out anything. What you are describing is a literal non-issue.

Talking about how a game should have been scored?

It won't put a "W..." in the column where a "L..." actually wound up.

[numberthirty]

...

This may not matter all that much.

Trump lost the Wisconsin primary in 2016, and was able to flip the state.

Barack Obama lost New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana (!) to Hillary in 2008, and still won those states in the presidential election.

...

Short and sweet?

HRC ain't no Obama...

[Emperor-of-Dragons]

So if we don't have progressive candidates that don't appeal to the middle swing voters, we lose? Again, how does that work.

You can't keep complaining about the system this, and the establishment that when you keep voting in those EXACT types of people. It don't work that way lol. If we keep the status quo things will never get better. Do you think desegregation was popular? There's been plenty of "swing voters" and "moderates" who didn't like civil rights proposals. Remember what doctor king said about moderates?

Point being, there's more options worth fighting for.

[Mister Mets]

What do you want? What would motivate you? Back in 2016 people were down on their knees begging everyone not to let the GOP back in power because they were afraid Republicans would kill us all, and that's exactly what they've been doing. So what do you want? If people begging for their lives isn't enough to motivate you not to side with their murderers, what will?

I know this question was asked of someone well to my left, but this is one of the most important questions in politics right now: What should Democrats be doing to maximize their chances of winning?

My answers are going to be different than his.

I am self-aware enough to recognize that my views can be weird in an American political context. The swing voter is more socially conservative than I am, and more fiscally liberal. But Democratic operatives should keep in mind the way their policy preferences differ from median voters in Iowa or Ohio, and consider that in messaging and priorities.

Given how inept and immoral Trump was, there was a golden opportunity for Democrats to win big if they could just appeal to more voters. Many of them just refuse to do the compromises that get big wins, because they prefer being able to go further left with occasional narrow wins.

One major change would be much stricter messaging discipline. Candidates can be progressive, but they shouldn't be obnoxious about it. If someone's far-left and rude, a Sister Souljah moment is in order.

It would be hard but one smart move would be to create some kind of system of accountability for basic factual stuff. Use this as a way to differentiate from the party of Trump. Years ago, the party was ready to cut off campaign vendors who worked for anyone willing to challenge incumbents in a primary.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/03/30...crat-committee

That was the wrong approach, as there's nothing immoral about primary challenges.

But this could be a way to signal what kind of behavior is beyond the pale. This could be done with candidates who are jerks or liars (ideally, the standards would be established in advance.)

This has some drawbacks. It might alienate people in divisive primaries if one candidate is penalized even if the decision were justified. It would be hard to stick to this standard at a time when it may be costly (IE- doing anything to draw attention to a mistake made by a candidate in an important, close race.) It does require consistency as any deviation would be held to a higher standard than in ordinary political races. But if anyone could pull it off, they'll win more elections, or force the other guys to compete for the high ground.

[Mister Mets]

Short and sweet?

HRC ain't no Obama...

Fair.

What I know for a fact is that she lost them running the show her own way...

So, yeah...

I'm missing where there is any sort of a legitimate argument for that another course of action would not have been a sensible course of action.

(Barring you having some manner of conclusive proof that running a unity ticket with Sanders would have made no actual difference...)

Apparently a unity ticket was considered.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/u...wikileaks.html

I'm not sure it would've worked. It could make Hillary look shameless, or taint her with Sanders' negatives (but not his positives.)

As for the idea that we know for sure Hillary's approach wouldn't work because it's the one she lost with, that's not going to be evidence that an unconventional tactic would have succeeded.

Granted, the campaign made many mistakes.

Tim Kaine was a safe pick for Veep, but I don't think he really helped. To his credit, he would avoid serious mistakes which could have led to a greater loss.

Looking back, her best bet would've been Beto O'Rourke given how well he handled the national spotlight as a candidate for Senate in Texas two years later. It astonishes me that there was no one in the party aware of an obvious political talent, recognizing that potential match.

[CSTowle]

Your overestimating how smart the general populace is, also don't forget for as many people who correctly called how dangerous a Trump win would be, there was just as many that thought no way that clown had a chance in hell of even winning.

Many did call out how dangerous a Trump would be. But it's also true that of the many who didn't think he could win (more people than you might think) you can include both the Clinton and Trump campaigns. There was a reason neither candidate was ready to give the speeches they had to make, or in Hillary's case release a statement later. And what many here seem to forget, as they blame those who didn't vote for Hillary in 2016, is how toxic the Democratic establishment and Hillary backers were in 2016 and how they gleefully did victory laps and had the attitude of basically "suck it up, and get on board".

There was zero outreach or apology, and a strong attitude of "what are you going to do, vote for the other guy?" And a handful did, and many more just said f##k all of it and did sit out. A mature response? Obviously not. But neither was the prevailing attitude among Hillary backers, after trying to paint more progressive voters as sexist and racist and either basement dwellers or frat brothers. You all hold some blame, but again nobody's the villain of their own stories. While you may forget though, not everyone has.

Do you really think Hillary Clinton would have won in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio or Pennsylvania if she had picked Bernie Sanders as her running mate?

No idea. I have a pretty good idea Tim Kaine did f##k-all for her chances, though. A Warren, a Biden convinced he was needed, any black candidate at all, hell any white male with an ounce of f##king charisma who sure might take a moment of spotlight from "Her Time" might have actually done something. It's possible Sanders would have been just as much of a detriment in the general as he would be a help in a Democratic-only election. But it'd have been trying something. It would have been outreach to the base at least. Instead we got exactly the kind of middle-of-the-road non-choice I would have expected from the Hillary campaign.

And it seems I need to point out that Hillary and the Democrats did convince 3 million more voters that she was the better choice, but our screwed up system messed things up for the second time in under 20 years. But oh, I hear, they needed to handicap for that. Sure, why can't the Democrats make sure they always win by 5 million votes. This is getting tiring.

She did get many more votes. But she's not a first timer who thinks that matters. We know (and she knew) the system favors land over human beings, and rural votes over urban ones. And as long as rural means white, christian, and Republican that's likely not changing. I don't need to go over how their strategy failed, it's been done before. We know it failed, and trying not to relive that is all that matters. We can't count on Republicans f##king up royally as they did in '08 and '20 every time, and we know historically Democratic voters don't show up in the midterms like Republican voters do.

You might feel as if Democracy itself is at stake (and I'm not disagreeing with you) but clearly the public at large doesn't. That's the blessing and curse of democracy, you're one of 300 plus million. If you want more people on your side, even if you think it's self-evident they ought to be (and keeping in mind most people on the other side feel the same) you need to do some work to get them there because things like gas prices, food prices, coming up this fall with the elections will be oil prices do matter and impact everyone on a day-to-day basis. Sadly the old Clinton line of "It's the economy, stupid" is still the answer. And it's a good chunk of the reason we're not looking at a second Trump term (yet).

[CSTowle]

Didn't want to quote and respond Mets, but what's with the Beto-mania with certain folks? I see nothing there at all. Not even that kind of slimy/phony charm you get from the Edwards/Mayor Pete/Gavin Newsom types. I ask honestly, he's done nothing to offend me or make me want to not vote for him. I just look at the guy and honestly can't tell why he's a thing. It's like seeing Jeremy Renner in a hundred mega-blockbusters, but not seeing him adding an ounce to them beyond what your average sitcom actor could have done in his place. What's the appeal?