I'm just skimming this thread but I have to strongly disagree with this. Moderates Democrats have done very well in the Midwest especially in suburban districts. In 2018 in Minnesota moderate Democrats, flipped two previously held Republican Districts. Tony Evers finally flipped Wisconsin's governorship, Cindy Axne and Abby Finkenaur flipped two seats and Steve King almost lost to Scholten in Iowa. Scharice Davids won in Kansas of all places. And for her trouble the Squad has criticized her. Let's not forget moderate Democrats like Conor Lamb, Doug Jones, and Krysten Sinema. The Squad gets a lot of attention but without the moderates Pelosi wouldn't be speaker now. This idea that Democrats have to have someone very progressive to win I don't think is valid. Especially when to win they have flip a few of those Midwest states that went to Trump while defending a state like MN which narrowly went blue.
The moderates rode the blue wave, too. But in the Midwest, the further left rode it better. I don't want to leave the election up for grabs again by nominating another milquetoast Hillarycrat. P. S. Why are you bringing up Alabama, Kansas, Iowa, and Arizona (traditionally conservative states) as if moderate Democrats there are unusual? Minnesota isn't part of the equation either.
I often find Friedman insufferable but he's absolutely right. Trump could be the first President to not win the popular vote twice and still be President. Trump could theoretically lose the popular vote by 10% and still win.. As I said in in another thread this battle isn't just state by state but will be decided in the suburbs. I doubt Ilhan Omar could win a statewide election in MN. I highly doubt she could the 3rd District of the suburban Twin Cities currently held by a moderate Democrat who flipped it. AOC probably couldn't even win Staten Island let alone upstate NY. They are the ones making most noise but are only one part of the party. If the Democrats decide that the way to go is to allow the far Left of the party dictate things we might as well start planning Trump's victory parade and hand the gavel to Kevin McCarthy.
I'm sorry Donny but the facts don't support your argument. Ilhan Omar replaced an already liberal Keith Ellison. Granted Ellison won AG which was a surprise to many, but he won it by actually tacking to the right on a few issues. IN fact he got criticized by some liberals. I followed, donated too and helped with some of these campaigns. I know first hand what the message was. It wasn't just riding the Blue wave but understanding your district. Considering Clinton won MN by 1.5%, the closest any Republican has come in decades, shows that MN is in play. Trump won Iowa soundly yet now 3 out of 4 reps are Democrats puts it in play. Arizona was close and is very much in play. Not to mention just electing a Democrat for president isn't enough. To undo the damage the Presidency has done Congress and many state houses need to flip too. That you write off so many states states is exactly the mindset that will cost the Democrats.
I The most likely scenario in 2020, based on what we know right now, is that in whoever wins 3 out of 4 of these states (OH, PA, MI, WI) will win the election. Granted there are a handful of other "in play" states, but that is where the Democrats need to and will be focusing on the most. It's also where the most voters jumped from Obama to Trump, so it's fertile campaign grounds. You can call it a write off, but it's just playing the best odds.
I am not in the trucking business but we definitely rely on trucking to move our products, raw materials, and packaging supplies.
I read the other day that those key states in particular have uniquely been seeing the least amount of demographic changes in the past 5 years of any states. At least from a Demographic standpoint, they’ve actually become more Trumpy. Democrats need to stop trying to live on top of each other all the damn time and Texas cannot become Democrat fast enough. The gerrymandering ruling from SCOTUS was a lifeline to the Republicans keeping Texas a little while longer. Based on everything we know it looks like the perfect storm of 2016 looks to be brewing enough again to get Trump elected in 20 with an even greater divide in the popular vote. If Trump loses the popular vote by 5 mil+ and still squeaks out 270 electoral college seats it’ll tear this country apart. The Dems need to spend all their time on these 4 states as much as it sucks that so little of the country has so much power. Biden was correct in his calculations to go ahead and run on securing Obamacare, and Harris & Buttigieg would be smart to follow suit and pivot off of Medicare for all if they still have any chance of winning the nomination. Healthcare security, jobs building infrastructure, and economic anxiety. In a perfect world you’d take Biden on healthcare, Warren on economics, and Harris on electability/stage presence.
I agree that is the most likely scenario but not the only one. Obama won Iowa and there are many counties in Iowa that voted for both Obama and Trump. It is a state that can be flipped. Arizona's demographics have been shifting for decades. Also with Mark Kelly running for Flake's seat it is a chance to pick up Senate seat. Even if it does come down to those three states the Democrats have to make the GOP play defense in other states, and vice versa. Also as said before this isn't just about the Presidency but taking Congress too. Even if it is those four states a very Left candidate isn't going to carry them.
Don't be so sure Obamacare reinforcement is a winning idea. That is steadily polling 50/50, still. https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...mericans-support-medicare-for-all-health-care Q: Would you support or oppose providing Medicare to every American? Midwest Response Strongly Support - 41% Somewhat Support - 30% Somewhat Oppose - 15% Strongly Oppose - 14%
The good news is that the furthest left candidate we have isn't exactly unpopular, and the further center candidate (at least a major one) we have isn't going to be nearly as much of a liability as Clinton was. There's a litany of candidates that sit somewhere between Biden and Bernie on the spectrum. So we have options. This should be an even bigger layup than 2016 was, however, the left still needs to be inspired to come out.
I think you run on "Secure & Expand".."Secure & Expand"... rinse repeat, and highlight Trump's insistence on taking away ACA provisions like pre-existing conditions. You run a risk hugging the title "Obamacare" as the gold standard, but I think most mid-west type of blue collar voters just want to see in the next 4 years that there wont be a major dismantling on their day to day lives & they can sleep peacefully knowing that someone has their back & is governing like a responsible adult. Most people are in the preservation mind frame & expansion of Medicaid to cover more people is palatable & doesn't have a multi-trillion dollar price tag. I think Secure & Expand is simple, easy, and it separates your stance clearly from Trump's.
I don’t like the usage of perfect storm, as if it’s up to luck. Clinton was pretty bad in her strategy then add to that, she did get unlucky in the last weeks with the fbi bomb. But I would argue that it probably didn’t matter -the gop coming home, hold their nose and voted for trump was going to happen regardless. The progressive and black voters were not that energized to start with. The independent care more about their pocket issues and not so much about character of either candidates. The nation was polarized in 2016. It’s even more so today. There isn’t likely a run away winner in presidential election in 2020. There is some independent up for grab but that’s even a smaller slice today than in the past. You can go after the independent. You can go after energizing your base, or both. But it’s a scale —- as you go more after your base you will alienate some independent and as you go more after the independent, you will de-energize some of your base. What you can’t do is what Clinton did - try to win both and end up at an effective low sum of the two. My gut feeling is you want to go more after your base and will have a larger net gain with that. But I can also see the other path, going after more of the independent... it’s really a dynamic situation that need carefully crafted strategy and feedback to tune for the maximum net gain...
If I've learned anything its to just nominate someone more than anything that is popular & exciting. You can't win on Progressive base politics alone, and you can't win by being a bore middle of the road candidate. That's why Obama was such a great candidate. More than anything he was a popular character who could check all the boxes. I like Biden's policy agenda for providing policy that appeals to the masses, but I just don't think he has that excitement factor to turn out. It's a real conundrum. We can't sit around waiting for another Obama but there needs to be at least a recognition of what allowed him to get elected so we can at least have a coherent strategy. To me, the obvious answer if I was a major donor, or with the DNC would be to try and throw every asset I could behind Kamala. Get her the best in the business & come out with messaging, messaging, and more messaging to go with a solid ground game in Iowa along with the best social media director money could buy. FYI- I used to live in freaking Iowa 4 months out of the year for work, and I absolutely hate that Iowa gets the attention it does, but its unfortunately necessary.
It’s unfortunately that more than half of the nation is by default a don’t care in presidential election. But it’s the game you have to play. I agree with “popularity” as the first criteria you must pass. I define that as someone that can articulate effectively for the masses, looks sincere, attacks and defend effectively. The messaging is a team game that get horned to the battle ground states in the general election, but it wither away without someone that can deliver and defend it. Biden looks too old and slow to me, unfortunately. Kamala - strong but not sold on authenticity yet. I personally like Buttigieg the most but he got a big problem with the black vote. We will just have to see. Still very early.
Well said. Biden’s “charisma” reminds of John Kerry. I agree that Biden’s political strategy is shrewd, although I’m more of a moderate liberal. I don’t know how I feel about Harris yet, she definitely can turn on the “charisma”.
I have 6 candidates right now I'm willing to vote for. If its anyone other than those, I will abstain. I refuse to be coerced into supporting a candidate by something more resembling a hostage negotiation than a campaign (again). Either the Democrats nominate someone who represents my values, or I'm out. If they lose, it will serve as yet another reminder that they need to course correct. Given I'm in a battleground state this actually has weight to it, too.
Bill Clinton was definitely charismatic, so was Obama. Trump is charismatic to his followers as well. None of the current Democratic candidates are really charismatic IMO. Eliot Spitzer would have been a very good candidate if he could have kept his pecker in his pants.
