How do you defeat Trump?

[Zardnaar]

Run on healthcare and tie Trump to the 1%ers and imply the 99% are the real Americans.

 

[Berzerker]

I don't think this will work.

I should have added clever to polite and classy. Gotta subtly poke him enough to trigger his immature outbursts.

Sure it will. People who back Trump are secretly yearning for someone polite and classy to out polite and classy him. Everyone can see that.

You're not trying to get them, you want to win the middle and behaving like him just leaves people shaking their heads in disgust at choosing between a giant douche and turd sandwich.

This cherished "moral high ground" is a bunch of utter nonsense in any case. Trying to take the "moral high ground" against the fascists and other assorted scum who comprise today's GOP is rather like a peacock attempting to use its display to scare off a viper.

The real moral high ground is ideological. It's about refusing to cede to plutocrats, refusing to accept the corrupt system that produced Trump. Everything else is performative crap (exhibit one is Nancy tearing up Trump's speech after having voted for his border enforcement, military bill, etc.).

Peacocks eat snakes. It would be a mistake for the Dems to think they had the moral high ground vs Trump in 2016, that competition was between 2 vipers.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're not trying to get them, you want to win the middle and behaving like him just leaves people shaking their heads in disgust at choosing between a giant douche and turd sandwich.

There is no middle. Hasn't been for a long time. There are people who may get dragged or pushed across the line. Contending for those people isn't done by "one side plays this way and the other side plays a different way." If you want to kill a sewer rat you can't sit on an upper class balcony looking at pictures.

 

[Rashiminos]

Every time I say this, I'm yelled down by those that say the Dems did that in 2016 with Hillary and lost so they think a different strategy is necessary while ignoring just how bad a candidate Hillary was.

Hillary was a centrist consensus candidate. That's not going to work with the Berner element of the amalgam.

***
Fred Beeman is going to be the smuggest, most progressive President-elect to date. America needs to evolve outside of its 19th century nostalgia and partner with a world of diversity. We can't be kept down by the dog-faced pony soldiers in flyover country when we need to catch up with the real leaders on sustainable economic development and the everlasting security of universal human rights. Diehard deplorables will just have to say no to the opiates of whiteness.

 

[amadeus]

I'm more interested in actual policies that would set them apart from the competition.

I agree in principle, but the discussion is about winning.

Just be Hillary with a little more charisma and without her baggage of corruption and warmongering (that leaves you out, Joe), go campaign in the rust belt and appeal to the middle. Be polite and classy in debates and let him look like an immature child on a schoolyard. Trump lucked out in 2016, minor tweaks are all thats needed. And for god's sake, dont stick yer neck out trying to be woke.

Nobody in the party fits that description. I think Al Gore would actually make the best dark horse candidate, but he’s not going to run now.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not if the headlines are something they don't give a rats ass about.

Huh, okay. I guess we disagree. I think the constant headlines leading up to the election had an effect. They are what saved Trump after the debates and Access Hollywood

The trick about constantly pimping the S&P is that Boomers are now terrified it will drop. A loss is twice as painful as a gain.

Good luck explaining to the youth that the purchasing power of a fraction of retired people skyrocketing while they were in school is going to disadvantage the modern worker and their poorer loved ones.

 

[IglooDame]

The trick about constantly pimping the S&P is that Boomers are now terrified it will drop. A loss is twice as painful as a gain.

Good luck explaining to the youth that the purchasing power of a fraction of retired skyrocketing is going to disadvantage the modern worker and their poorer loved ones.

"Ok boomer" indeed.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Errr, in the last four years have you ever glanced at something called the news? Donald Trump will just make crap up. Hillary Clinton, for all of her many flaws, tried pushing against Trump during the debates on facts and policy, but Trump just repeated crap or made it up.

I do my best to avoid mainstream media, who lie only somewhat less than the candidates. But unfortunately yes, I've seen news.

He can and would make stuff up. Being capable of calling him out on that (rather than avoiding that to avoid being called out oneself) would be a useful piece of an argument for why someone is better.

I have no good honest answer to this thread's question. The US is broken. If you get the youth vote out the consequence of failing the next four years is going to be devastating. Honestly it might be better to keep losing until the GOP complete it complete destruction of the administrative state so the nation can learn what that actually looks like.

That depends whether it is easier to create something resembling a healthy governance/policy system from that vs where we are now. I'm not terribly optimistic either way, but I'd take a solution. Vague accelerationism wouldn't be my odds-on bet though!

 

[Lexicus]

He can and would make stuff up. Being capable of calling him out on that (rather than avoiding that to avoid being called out oneself) would be a useful piece of an argument for why someone is better.

The problem is that the media is generally full of people who are not smart enough to evaluate claims of fact properly. Instead of the story being "Trump lied" the story will be "x claims Trump lied". Then of course you have the right-wing mediasphere, where the story will inevitably be "x is a lying traitor and Trump is telling the truth" so basically the situation is bad

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The problem is that the media is generally full of people who are not smart enough to evaluate claims of fact properly. Instead of the story being "Trump lied" the story will be "x claims Trump lied". Then of course you have the right-wing mediasphere, where the story will inevitably be "x is a lying traitor and Trump is telling the truth" so basically the situation is bad

I don't think "not smart enough" is the problem. I think "not allowed the time to do so" is probably closer to the truth. And yeah, the right wing side has abandoned even the pretense of effort in that regard and fully embraced being a propaganda machine.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think "not smart enough" is the problem. I think "not allowed the time to do so" is probably closer to the truth. And yeah, the right wing side has abandoned even the pretense of effort in that regard and fully embraced being a propaganda machine.

"Not sufficiently educated in the necessary subjects to evaluate claims of fact" is closer to correct than "not smart enough"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"Not sufficiently educated in the necessary subjects to evaluate claims of fact" is closer to correct than "not smart enough"

Yes, it is. It still leaves out the point that journalists have never been expected to be universally educated such that they could provide an instant authentication service on all issues. In the past they were expected to research and authenticate. Now it is all about "breaking news." Here's some pictures, here's what some directly involved so undoubtedly biased people are saying, draw your own conclusions and good luck was never considered journalism before, but it is pretty much all we have now.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The problem is that the media is generally full of people who are not smart enough to evaluate claims of fact properly. Instead of the story being "Trump lied" the story will be "x claims Trump lied". Then of course you have the right-wing mediasphere, where the story will inevitably be "x is a lying traitor and Trump is telling the truth" so basically the situation is bad

You have a lot more news outlets calling Trump a liar than not. People watching the debate might be moved one way or the other.

Besides the question is how to beat Trump, not how to change the minds of a % of party base that has never changed their minds in the past lifetime. There are people who always will vote party line no matter what, but it does not appear necessary to alter their behavior just to win an election.

 

[Lexicus]

In the past they were expected to research and authenticate.

I'm saying they're insufficiently educated to do this in many cases.

Now, I agree with your larger point insofar as I think the 24-hour news cycle is ultimately responsible for this.

 

[Socrates99]

Since when?

The lies the GOP has been riding for decades have always been easily debunked by minimal application of actual facts, yet they are now so widely accepted as truth that even most Democrats will look at you funny if you express disbelief. Trump's lie mechanism is in overdrive, but there is no indication that plausibility in any form is, or ever has been, a requirement.

Those kind work for the base. They do. I don't think they work for the greater electorate. You'll even see interviews with the MAGA crowd where people will say "I wish he hadn't said X." And the MAGA crowd alone won't re elect him. He was an unknown in 2016. That luxury doesn't exist now.

 

[Lexicus]

The right has spent decades refining their "messaging" to find what works and spread it.

And the MAGA crowd alone won't re elect him.

The Republicans (may have?) have gotten good enough at minority rule that "the MAGA crowd alone" very well could reelect him...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Those kind work for the base. They do. I don't think they work for the greater electorate. You'll even see interviews with the MAGA crowd where people will say "I wish he hadn't said X." And the MAGA crowd alone won't re elect him. He was an unknown in 2016. That luxury doesn't exist now.

I've heard Democrats acknowledge "the truth" about their party, as created by the GOP, and then go on to defend it as "but that isn't really a bad thing." To suggest that such lies only work on the base is wildly inaccurate. Trump's latest wild takes may only work on the base, but the GOP is far more insidious.

I'm saying they're insufficiently educated to do this in many cases.

Now, I agree with your larger point insofar as I think the 24-hour news cycle is ultimately responsible for this.

Teaching or learning the basic skills of actual journalism is a dead end.

 

[Lexicus]

I've heard Democrats acknowledge "the truth" about their party, as created by the GOP, and then go on to defend it as "but that isn't really a bad thing." To suggest that such lies only work on the base is wildly inaccurate. Trump's latest wild takes may only work on the base, but the GOP is far more insidious.

The GOP, plus Fox News, and the whole profusion of right-wing think tanks and policy outfits and PR consultants and on and on...all combined it is a highly refined machine for polluting the discourse with right-wing lies in ways that produce exactly this kind of outcome. The right almost always controls the terms on which the issue is discussed.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The GOP, plus Fox News, and the whole profusion of right-wing think tanks and policy outfits and PR consultants and on and on...all combined it is a highly refined machine for polluting the discourse with right-wing lies in ways that produce exactly this kind of outcome. The right almost always controls the terms on which the issue is discussed.

Consistency helps too. The GOP has been telling certain core lies since before I was born.

 

[Hrothbern]

The GOP, plus Fox News, and the whole profusion of right-wing think tanks and policy outfits and PR consultants and on and on...all combined it is a highly refined machine for polluting the discourse with right-wing lies in ways that produce exactly this kind of outcome. The right almost always controls the terms on which the issue is discussed.

What do we learn from that ?

How actionable is what we can learn from that ?