Don't assume the mood of the electorate too soon
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:18:01 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Don't assume the mood of the electorate too soon
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Don't assume the mood of the electorate too soon  (Read 539 times)
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 14, 2016, 09:51:38 AM »
« edited: November 14, 2016, 09:53:59 AM by Dereich »

I see a lot of people pre-crowning Bernie or Warren everywhere and it strikes me as trying to re-fight 2016 in advance. Do you really think this is going to happen? Think about the next four years: we will have to watch Trump flinging himself against the system constantly. We will see him (probably) replacing insiders with inexperienced firebrands and family members. We will see him create whatever mess he can imagine in foreign and trade policy.

Is it really guaranteed that after all that the electorate will want someone angry who will shake up the system? I think its just as possible that after four years of THAT the winning pitch will be something like "I am a NORMAL person who will actually achieve things by using the system, unlike this guy." I'm not sure who our Hollande would be, but I think Democrats are making a mistake in automatically assuming the same kind of anger in the future electorate. What are the justifications for making that assumption?
Logged
RaphaelDLG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,688
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2016, 01:13:01 PM »

Well said.  for one counterpoint, millennials will make up a larger share of the electorate in 2020 than they did in 2016, and they vastly preferred sanders to clinton.  I'm sure their mood will change but idk if their tastes will dramatically change.
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2016, 01:50:00 PM »

I see a lot of people pre-crowning Bernie or Warren everywhere and it strikes me as trying to re-fight 2016 in advance. Do you really think this is going to happen? Think about the next four years: we will have to watch Trump flinging himself against the system constantly. We will see him (probably) replacing insiders with inexperienced firebrands and family members. We will see him create whatever mess he can imagine in foreign and trade policy.

Is it really guaranteed that after all that the electorate will want someone angry who will shake up the system? I think its just as possible that after four years of THAT the winning pitch will be something like "I am a NORMAL person who will actually achieve things by using the system, unlike this guy." I'm not sure who our Hollande would be, but I think Democrats are making a mistake in automatically assuming the same kind of anger in the future electorate. What are the justifications for making that assumption?

Trump isn't going to replace insiders with inexperienced firebrands, whatever that means.  Trump is an insider himself, who was able to fool a lot of people.
Bernie's success had nothing to do with anger.  He actually had a plan, an agenda, and that's why people liked him.  The Clintons on the other hand were only in it for themselves and that's why the people rejected them.  What the Democrats need is a plan, not ambitious politicians like Hillary, Cuomo, Newsom etc.
Logged
coloradocowboi
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,621
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2016, 03:59:21 PM »

I see a lot of people pre-crowning Bernie or Warren everywhere and it strikes me as trying to re-fight 2016 in advance. Do you really think this is going to happen? Think about the next four years: we will have to watch Trump flinging himself against the system constantly. We will see him (probably) replacing insiders with inexperienced firebrands and family members. We will see him create whatever mess he can imagine in foreign and trade policy.

Is it really guaranteed that after all that the electorate will want someone angry who will shake up the system? I think its just as possible that after four years of THAT the winning pitch will be something like "I am a NORMAL person who will actually achieve things by using the system, unlike this guy." I'm not sure who our Hollande would be, but I think Democrats are making a mistake in automatically assuming the same kind of anger in the future electorate. What are the justifications for making that assumption?

This is the problem. It's not about anger, it's about authenticity. People didn't like Sanders because he's grumpy, they liked him because he is relatable.
Logged
pikachu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,179
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2016, 10:19:29 PM »

I think the forum sometimes forgets that we have 4 years of events to go through. There might be a recession, the Trump administration might be in the midst of a nasty corruption scandal, a bad terrorist attack might happen, there might be ground troops put somewhere... Speculation's a lot of fun, but we really don't know what the mood of the electorate's going to be in 4 years, and what we're going to be talking about.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2016, 10:37:50 PM »

Anger is almost always the changer now. That's just how polarization, negative ads, media blitzes make things turn out.

2000: Anger at Clinton for "muh Lewinksy" (if that weren't so, Gore would've actually used him and curbstomped Bush)

2004: Anger at terrorists and conspiracy theorists who think civil liberties undermine beating terrorists (hence why Kerry, an actual 'Nam veteran, lost)

2008: Anger at Bush and recession (hence Obama getting pretty far on just comparing McCain to Bush)

2012: Anger at recession and people that escaped it. (hence the 47% remark sinking Romney)

2016: Anger at recovery not being perfect (hence a bunch of people believing one catchy slogan instead someone objectively better qualified)

Makes plenty of sense then that 2020 should be defined by anger.
Logged
pikachu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,179
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2016, 12:26:06 AM »

Anger is almost always the changer now. That's just how polarization, negative ads, media blitzes make things turn out.

2000: Anger at Clinton for "muh Lewinksy" (if that weren't so, Gore would've actually used him and curbstomped Bush)

2004: Anger at terrorists and conspiracy theorists who think civil liberties undermine beating terrorists (hence why Kerry, an actual 'Nam veteran, lost)

2008: Anger at Bush and recession (hence Obama getting pretty far on just comparing McCain to Bush)

2012: Anger at recession and people that escaped it. (hence the 47% remark sinking Romney)

2016: Anger at recovery not being perfect (hence a bunch of people believing one catchy slogan instead someone objectively better qualified)

Makes plenty of sense then that 2020 should be defined by anger.


But anger at what in 2020? Anger at a bad economy? Anger at an immoral president? Anger at massive corruption? Depending on what it is, that changes the election significantly.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 12 queries.