2020 Election Thread!!!!!!!!!

[VicRatlhead5199]

Democrats going with one of the "oldies but goodies" = Trump reelection
Democrats need to drive up turnout period not just black turnout. Democrats focusing on wooing one demographic (rust-belt white males) failed in 2016 and it will fail in 2020 if they make the same mistake.

I thought ignoring Rustbelt white males lost Democrats the election. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan. Those three states were extremely close and could have swung her way if Democrats had a message that appealed to wcwm in Rustbelt states.

 

[onejayhawk]

I thought ignoring Rustbelt white males lost Democrats the election. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan. Those three states were extremely close and could have swung her way if Democrats had a message that appealed to wcwm in Rustbelt states.

That's the common assumption which is not exactly accurate. The relevant move is rural vs urban. Republicans have long done well in rural areas, but Trump was topping 70% in much of the Midwest.

J

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

That's the common assumption which is not exactly accurate. The relevant move is rural vs urban. Republicans have long done well in rural areas, but Trump was topping 70% in much of the Midwest.

J

Has there been a mass exodus from cities I don't know about? I'm talking about States Obama won that Trump pulled. Rural v Urban is kind of a constant. Its the messaging and who the candidates appeal to that makes the difference. Trump said he'd bring back manufacturing jobs, Clinton said we're already great. That's a pretty clear difference especially in western PA, Ohio and Eastern MI.

Democrats need to be more forceful about pointing out jobs that green energy has created and has the potential to create. Locally both Dow Chemical and Dow Corning had a small boom under Obama because of his green initiatives. Corning produces the raw materials that go into solar panels and Chemical paired with Kokam to build a massive battery plant.

Trump can promise theoretical benefits from trickle down and rolling back safety and environmental regs. Dems could point at the actual proven growth in manufacturing, installing and maintaining solar, wind and hydro energy.

I sound like an eco nut. I'm not. This phony bs about pulling away from fossil fuels destroying the economy needs to go. It will actually create jobs and opportunities.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I thought ignoring Rustbelt white males lost Democrats the election. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan. Those three states were extremely close and could have swung her way if Democrats had a message that appealed to wcwm in Rustbelt states.

Two words... Tim Kaine

The problem wasn't that she ignored them. The problem was that they weren't buying what she was selling... meanwhile she ignored the people who actually were inclined to vote for her, and so they didn't turn out.

 

[onejayhawk]

Has there been a mass exodus from cities I don't know about? I'm talking about States Obama won that Trump pulled. Rural v Urban is kind of a constant. Its the messaging and who the candidates appeal to that makes the difference. Trump said he'd bring back manufacturing jobs, Clinton said we're already great. That's a pretty clear difference especially in western PA, Ohio and Eastern MI.

Democrats need to be more forceful about pointing out jobs that green energy has created and has the potential to create. Locally both Dow Chemical and Dow Corning had a small boom under Obama because of his green initiatives. Corning produces the raw materials that go into solar panels and Chemical paired with Kokam to build a massive battery plant.

Trump can promise theoretical benefits from trickle down and rolling back safety and environmental regs. Dems could point at the actual proven growth in manufacturing, installing and maintaining solar, wind and hydro energy.

I sound like an eco nut. I'm not. This phony bs about pulling away from fossil fuels destroying the economy needs to go. It will actually create jobs and opportunities.

Look at the map, which is by county (or equivalent) not state.

J

 

[danjuno]

I'd still support Tulsi. At least she seems interested in ending regime change wars. The more I look at that Syria mess the less clear who the "good guys" are. If we want to oppose the Kremlin we're far better off doing it in the Ukraine where its more justified. Gabbard just wants more definitive proof that we're in the right fighting Assad before we enter a proxy war.

The problem wasn't that she ignored them. The problem was that they weren't buying what she was selling...

They might have if she had found Veep more congruent with the region. Rick Nolan, a solid progressive, was re-elected in a district that went to DJT by double-digits.

 

[Camikaze]

Democrats going with one of the "oldies but goodies" = Trump reelection

I really don't think this is actually true. I agree with the sentiment that a candidate from a newer era, probably a progressive, would have a better chance, but there seems to be quite a leap from 'Clinton lost' to 'of course Clinton lost, and no-one similar to Clinton could possibly win in future'. Trump lost the popular vote and remains deeply unpopular. It would only take a marginal improvement on last year's results to beat him, even assuming Trump could command the same vote again. Someone like Biden would be perfectly capable of bettering Clinton's result. Even Clinton would be perfectly capable of bettering Clinton's result.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Even Clinton would be perfectly capable of bettering Clinton's result.

If she can double money on the campaign as she is doubling the lies...

 

[onejayhawk]

That is just wrong.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

I really don't think this is actually true. I agree with the sentiment that a candidate from a newer era, probably a progressive, would have a better chance, but there seems to be quite a leap from 'Clinton lost' to 'of course Clinton lost, and no-one similar to Clinton could possibly win in future'. Trump lost the popular vote and remains deeply unpopular. It would only take a marginal improvement on last year's results to beat him, even assuming Trump could command the same vote again. Someone like Biden would be perfectly capable of bettering Clinton's result. Even Clinton would be perfectly capable of bettering Clinton's result.

You know I was thinking about this today... Reflecting back to early-on in the 2016 cycle, I was chatting about the election with a colleague at work... Middle aged, Jewish male, Graduate degree, white collar Professional, liberal, North-easterner-by-way-of California. This guy was hopelessly Democrat-by-demographics, right? But he unflinchingly expressed his utter contempt for Hillary, and even moreso because his wife was a Hillary die-hard fan. He hated Hillary, and even though he would never declare for Trump, he often took a sort of guilty-pleasure posture in defending Trump, from a devil's advocate position or otherwise... I could tell that Hillary losing was about as important to him as the Democrats winning.

In retrospect, I should have realized then that Hillary was going to have a tough time winning, but I think I just convinced myself that guys like him would just "get over it" and support her. I didn't realize that his attitude was a symptom of a much larger problem. People just don't like her or what she was about. The folks she was after/courting despised her and the folks who didn't despise her were being ignored/taken for granted. So yes... Clinton lost, of course Clinton lost, and no-one similar to Clinton could possibly win in the (near) future. Joe Biden represents exactly the kind of strategy that failed, and will fail... focusing on Rust-belt white males instead of trying to boost core-Democrats turnout.

 

[Lexicus]

So yes... Clinton lost, of course Clinton lost, and no-one similar to Clinton could possibly win in the (near) future.

I dunno, I think Clinton could have won if she'd made some different decisions, the question is whether she could have made those decisions and still be Hillary Clinton, so to speak.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I dunno, I think Clinton could have won if she'd made some different decisions, the question is whether she could have made those decisions and still be Hillary Clinton, so to speak.

I know what you mean... I think the environmentalist firebrand Al Gore 2.0 that you see in An Inconvenient Truth, etc., would have won in 2000, on pure passion and personality which Al Gore 1.0 sorely lacked.

But the Hillary we got is the only Hillary there was... If Hillary was Obama for example, then yes, she would have won ... sadly, she's not Obama, she's Hillary... so she lost... When she picked Kaine for example instead of Sanders, (or literally anybody good), my first thought was "Doh!" *facepalm* ... But my next thought was... "What did you expect? Of course she picked this guy... It's Hillary."

 

[metalhead]

It's really remarkable to me how much of the Hillary "hate" seems to stem from the torrent of (actual) fake news that circulated on social media about her. I'm quite serious about that - the number of times you'd talk to a Hillary hater and get a bunch of riffs of fake news as the reason why was head-smackingly high. It's a bit of a chicken-egg problem, because maybe they hated Hillary anyways and weren't going to vote for her and just had those reasons handy, but I really don't know.

However, the real lesson of 2016 ought to be - pick the right candidate for the times. That requires an honest accounting of how various peoples are faring, a true listening to their concerns and fears in picking candidates and crafting messages. To take back what I said upthread a bit - I don't know that Joe Biden is the right candidate for 2020. It feels like a very large possibility that 4 years of Trump will usher in a renewed desire for technocratic leadership, but I don't know if that will be true. Or if Joe Biden is even the best fit for that bill. The unfortunate reality is that the job of picking candidates tends to happen before it's really clear what mood the electorate is going to be in.

 

[onejayhawk]

However, the real lesson of 2016 ought to be - pick the right candidate for the times. That requires an honest accounting of how various peoples are faring, a true listening to their concerns and fears in picking candidates and crafting messages. To take back what I said upthread a bit - I don't know that Joe Biden is the right candidate for 2020. It feels like a very large possibility that 4 years of Trump will usher in a renewed desire for technocratic leadership, but I don't know if that will be true. Or if Joe Biden is even the best fit for that bill. The unfortunate reality is that the job of picking candidates tends to happen before it's really clear what mood the electorate is going to be in.

On this we agree. Neither side did it. Instead, we get Trump.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

Neither side did it. Instead, we get Trump.

I disagree. The Republicans picked the right guy to win for sure. I said many times during the 2016 cycle that Trump was the one Republican that could beat Hillary... the others were not popular enough, for many of the same reasons Hillary was unpopular.

As an aside, there was no "gratuitous insult" in that post

 

[metalhead]

I think J's point was that he wasn't the choice of the party elites the way Hillary was. Which is true. They ended up not really choosing anyone, though I'm not at all sure that even the full weight of the GOP establishment behind Rubio from the start would have been able to vanquish Trump. The GOP is probably too fractured.

 

[Lexicus]

It feels like a very large possibility that 4 years of Trump will usher in a renewed desire for technocratic leadership,

I really doubt it. What's needed is more a bold articulation of the vision of the kind of country the Democrats want.

I disagree. The Republicans picked the right guy to win for sure. I said many times during the 2016 cycle that Trump was the one Republican that could beat Hillary... the others were not popular enough, for many of the same reasons Hillary was unpopular.

I thought Rubio would have given Clinton a run for her money, too, but still ultimately lost. I never thought Trump would win.

 

[Camikaze]

So yes... Clinton lost, of course Clinton lost, and no-one similar to Clinton could possibly win in the (near) future. Joe Biden represents exactly the kind of strategy that failed, and will fail... focusing on Rust-belt white males instead of trying to boost core-Democrats turnout.

Until this line I thought your post was agreeing with me, by pointing out that it was Clinton personally who was the problem, not any sort of strategy, and that someone exactly like Clinton but without the baggage would've been perfectly fine. It doesn't follow logically from the argument you've presented that Biden would fare the same as Clinton.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think J's point was that he wasn't the choice of the party elites the way Hillary was. Which is true. They ended up not really choosing anyone, though I'm not at all sure that even the full weight of the GOP establishment behind Rubio from the start would have been able to vanquish Trump. The GOP is probably too fractured.

That was supposed to be plan A, but the establishment, Rubio, and The FOX mucked it up. The establishment, by putting splitting the loyalty with Jeb!, and then allowing too much pressure on Rubio to cave on immigration... which was supposed to be their golden ticket to the Hispanic vote. Rubio, by caving on immigration... once he did that, he was basically an empty suit/ empty vessel, which then created fertile ground for the damning Rubio-bot critique that Christie landed in such epic fashion. Finally, FOX hobbled the Rubio anointment, by tying the debate seeding to national poll rankings, basically ensuring Trump, as the most well known, would be a permanent fixture front and center.

The real question is whether Rubio recovers to fight another day.

Until this line I thought your post was agreeing with me, by pointing out that it was Clinton personally who was the problem, not any sort of strategy, and that someone exactly like Clinton but without the baggage would've been perfectly fine. It doesn't follow logically from the argument you've presented that Biden would fare the same as Clinton.

I am agreeing with you. I just think your argument supports my totally unscientific gut-instinct that establishment oldies = death for the Democrats.

People don't just despise Hillary because she has an annoying voice. People despise her because she's an Avatar of the establishment. Joe Biden is more personable, but he has the same problem. So yes Hillary was personally a bad choice for the candidate. Like metalhead said, people were already dead-set against her. But I think it was in part that they were against the idea of another typical establishment candidate. In fact, one of the more common refrains I heard from the colleague I mentioned was quote "Ugh, she's just the same old same-old, I can't stand her."

I think that those factors are linked.... the personal dislike and the establishment dislike.

 

[onejayhawk]

I think J's point was that he wasn't the choice of the party elites the way Hillary was. Which is true. They ended up not really choosing anyone, though I'm not at all sure that even the full weight of the GOP establishment behind Rubio from the start would have been able to vanquish Trump. The GOP is probably too fractured.

Not bad. Trump was a 3rd party candidate in all but name.

They could have easily defeated Trump by forcing Rubio to withdraw. That would have let Cruz focus on only one opponent. Of course, the party elites disliked Cruz too much to act with any alacrity.

J