[NYT] Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’

Shitty campaigning is why we have Trump in office. I'm not angry but has become a thing for people to talk about black turnout. It's a constant theme. Let's talk about Latino turnout or white independent turnout to save our asses from another nightmarish four years.

 

Why is every article that shows a less than flattering view of a candidate a hit piece?

And why do the people who claim an article is a hit piece ignore all of the positive articles about a candidate.

 

People talk about black turnout because it has a high bearing on who gets elected .

It is a powerful voting block.

I still have no idea why you claimed people were blaming anybody.

 

I didn't say anyone was being blamed. I said pundits continue to emphasize black voter turnout over other voting blocks.

 

I do think there are some midwestern soccer moms who would vote for Klobuchar where they wouldn't vote for HRC. I'm not saying hundreds of thousands, but the phenomenon would exist.

My guess is that she has a decent chance at a VP slot, pending who ends up at the head of the ticket.

 

....?

 

I dont see it that way I hear just as much talk about Independents, suburban females and swing voters as Black voters.

The question is self explanatory.

 

I remember random trivia and this event was about Dem leadership pressuring senator Obama not to run in 08, and that he had to "wait in line for his turn". He succeeded, then Hillary whined nonstop to the gatekeepers about the taboo of cutting...

Twelve years later, we have these grand and great-grandparents posing as frontrunners while the Dem vleadership positions in Congress are not that far apart.

Forget about lines and seniority...I find it sad the party hasn't been grooming for this moment, but when I look at the republican side during 16, they weren't doing better either.

Politicians have are a game of whack a mole (they're the moles) right up until the rules flip when it's time for them to get elected.

Isn't that one heartbeat...and two defib shocks away from the presidency?

Great odds to justify nonstop ass kissing, even if you're a meanie.

 

Because people fall in love and become protective of their preferred candidates.

 

Then don't give me two bad choices and expect me to support either of them.

Give me a good candidate … I'll vote for that person , give me Dumpster / Kamala / Sanders / Warren I wont vote for them , wont be party to picking between bad and bad. That's what has gotten us to the current situation where we really don't have a good choice. Make them give us a good candidate by voting for anyone but the D or R when they give us a choice between bad and worse.

The real problem is that so many have picked a side and are only going to vote for that side … That all but guarantee's a D or R wins most big elections. That ensures they continue to write the rules.

#stuckinthemiddle.

 

What's your favorite of the lot?

 

So, if your preferred candidate, whether Democrat, Republican, or Reptilian, is not the nominee, you sit it out? And you believe that is productive?

You seem to misunderstand the reality of our current political system. For better or worse, we have two viable parties. Let me know when there is another viable option.

I will applaud your organizational skills and join your new centrist party if they have an option that is better. Key word? Viable.

I've said it before, there is no candidate that can meet everyone's expectations. Might as well be a single issue voter.

 

Your point was difficult to follow because you’re asking two contradictory questions. Why would someone that’s seemingly biased towards a candidate ignore positive articles about said candidate? Doesn’t make any sense.

But, anyway, back to that example: she had 50+ current and former staffers refute that ‘omg she was mean to her staffers’ narrative that was being pushed. That and it was a long time ago. Nobody cares now.

 

Sure - if black voters turned out like 2008 or 2012, Clinton wins - that's not in doubt. But that's true of young people too. And lots of other demographics - that's the nature of a close election. But Dems won those states long before Obama-level black turnout. And you're not getting that kind of turnout in 2020. Those were two-off things from having Obama on the ballot. The practical reality, is that a ton of people who vote Democrat year-in and year-out voted for Trump - those are the low-hanging fruit. Keep in mind - Obama won Michigan by 9% in 2012 and 17% (!) in 2008. Black voters make up 14% and turnout dropped by about 10%, meaning that accounts for only 1.4% of the total vote. The problems in Michigan and the midwest in general for Hillary were far bigger than black turnout.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...rnout-may-have-cost-clinton-the-election.html

The researchers found that at 2012 levels of turnout among all racial groups, Clinton probably would have won the election with very narrow victories in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Those states are important outliers: “In 12 of the 15 battleground states this past election,” they write, “2012 turnout rates would have made no difference in who won.”

As many analysts have pointed out since the election, turnout only partly explains Clinton’s loss. It is clear that Trump managed to convert a significant number of Obama voters, especially among the white working class in the aforementioned swing states.

You're not getting Obama-level black turnout again, so you're better off focusing on the swing Obama-Trump voters voters.

 

Warren 2020

 

I think reporters want there to be a story but it's not a serious possibility.

 

That is NOT what I stated.

I simply stated don't give me Dumpster and Hildawg and expect me to vote for either of those two as both are piss poor choices.

I'm not voting for piss poor.

Viable in who's opinion ? …. In my opinion a good candidate is a viable one regardless of party affiliation.

If you'd vote for a lesser candidate because of party affiliation then you are part of the problem. You got us here.

 

Good question …. On policy probably Biden but I don't agree with any of them on everything.

At least in Biden , we'd like to think we know what we are getting - Obama V2.0 in terms of economic policy.

The big question for me is who his SCOTUS Nom's would be cause Ginsberg is just fighting to outlast Dumpster.
We don't need wingnuts in that regard either. Despite all the blowback , I think we got lucky with the two Dumpster appointments as they have both been swing votes going against their fellow conservatives on multiple occasions.

I don't want to imagine a 7-2 court.

 

Some people just don't understand that elections are won and lost in the middle - Both sides have their base that isn't going to budge …. its the people in the middle , independents and moderates that you have to sway.

Why do you all think Biden has been the front runner even before he entered the race ? Because he appeals to the center / independents / moderates of both parties.


You want a repeat of 2016 …. run Princess Wigwam or Bernie and those in the middle are going to either stay home or vote for someone else.


You cant beat Dumpster without the middle.

 

Michelle Obama wins in a LANDSLIDE.