Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 19, 2017, 09:17:45 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter, TJ in Wisco)
| | |-+  Democrats who can unite the Country
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print
Author Topic: Democrats who can unite the Country  (Read 2566 times)
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3911
View Profile
« Reply #75 on: August 19, 2017, 04:21:34 am »
Ignore

Given that Clinton very publically targeted suburban Republicans (without much success), it seems more a case of her dragging down the whole party.

Isn't that always the question though? Did somebody win because they were a good candidate vs. winning because they ran against a poor candidate.

There were other tests we saw in 2016 that showed either progressives didn't show up or weren't a large segment. California's prop 61 failed, as did single payer in Colorado and a noted progressive in Feingold lost in Wisconsin of all places (even losing the 18-24 year olds to his republican opponent).

If Clinton brought down turnout among progressives because she spent too much time and energy courting moderate republicans then it kind of goes to show that the GOP have an advantage with ginning up turnout. The GOP didn't need a good candidate to save their senate and house majorities (as evidenced by swing state senators and he House GOP outperforming Trump)  whereas the Democrats do apparently need a good candidate to gin up turnout for both their down-ballot measures and candidates.

Again context is important. You can't pick & chose data here. Minimum Wages hike won huge in ballot measures. Marijuana won big in ballot measures. Coloradocare failed because close to half of the party (Clinton/Obama wing) didn't want to abandon the ACA (The Gov, Senator came out against it, they were Dems). And it was worded poorly & financing was also not done well. There were some taxes on seniors & so on. I know many diehard Bernie supporters who opposed Coloradocare in its present form. And state wide Single payer is probably harder to implement for a smaller state especially when Dems are campaigning on ACA.

Prof 61 got 45% odd votes which is good considering Pharma spend 120M $ on negative ads & it was an insurgency campaign. None of the Dem establishment came out for it big. The Bernie wing was reeling under the loss & Sanders was everywhere, campaigning for multiple issues. Our-Revolution was not even born. 45% with little support from Dems was a good result. Next time, it possibly would win.

Change never comes in 1 day. The Tea party didn't win 1 fine day. Slowly establishment GOP embraced them. A large chunk of establishment Dems will also have to embrace the left wing ideology (Today 75% of the Dem caucus support a 15$ Min Wage as an example). Feingold didn't tun a great campaign but the DSCC pulled ads when they saw him leading big while he was up against 100M $. Clinton never campaigned for him. He won more counties than Clinton did but never had some of the high margins in core Dem counties of Clinton (those voters didn't bother & turn out to vote for him).

Progressives haven't swept the slate but I don't think they will either. It will be a gradual process & by 4 years, the Dem party will be a LOT different compared to 2016 (& it already is to a large extent). You have to judge for a longer duration.
Logged

uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1160


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: August 19, 2017, 10:26:45 am »
Ignore

We can't even agree on reality or what a "fact" is for Christ's sake. How is one suppose to unite the country with a clear mandate absent a national crisis in this kind of environment? It does not happen.

I didn't say the Democrats would unite the country in 2020. I just said even a major crisis isn't likely to unite the country in that way. After all, look at the Civil War. It was a major crisis if there ever was one, one side had a decisive victory if there ever was one, yet.... here we are, still debating Confederate statues 150 years later.

The last very polarizing era in American politics was the 1960s. How did that end? Well, it just sort of fizzled out. The center retook control in the early 1970s and the radicals were ridiculed into oblivion. All that's needed is for centrism to reassert itself.

True, though unfortunately we appear to be headed more towards internal conflict ala 1860 rather than having an external enemy to rally behind and to defeat (1941 and 1776). That's a very somber path to be headed down given that the national mood and fallout of the civil war was much more detrimental than the other two crises we had as a country.

Centrism will not reassert itself. The GOP lost control on that front by 2016 and the center-left Democrats are about to be taken over by the left. One could argue that one of these forces will win out and unite the country gradually but I highly doubt that the losing side will just cede defeat without putting up a nasty backlash. Trump could be that final backlash; or he could be the beginning of something nastier. I guess we'll see but I don't think Charlottesville will be a mea culpa for a lot of Americans.

Now do you understand why I suggested that Hillary should've won in 2016? She should've beaten a normal republican, while Trump would've made his voice heard akin to Fillmore '56 or Roosevelt '12 as a third party candidate. Then, come 2020, you would've had a unifying GOP candidate similar to someone like Cotton who would've capitulated to some Trumpian positions on trade, immigration and some centrist positions on healthcare.

1. The House GOP won the popular vote last year - Trump did not.

2. Virtually every single GOP swing state senator outran Trump last year be they Burr in NC, Johnson in Wisconsin, Portman in Ohio, Rubio in Florida, whoeverthef**k in Iowa, etc. Only Ayotte and Toomey ran the same margins as Trump.

So given the above I'm HIGHLY skeptical of this notion that Trump's centrism secured him the win when in reality "normal" Republicans did far better than he did at the state and congressional level in 2016. Who exactly does Rubio lose the general election? Even if he falls short in PA and MI he would've won Wisconsin since A. It came within a fraction of voting for Bush and twice and B. Has been Scott Walker Tea Partified into GOP hegemony. And he likely wouldn't have done so piss poor with Hispanics and could've snatched Nevada as well.

He lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, he got defeated by the same standard margin w/ non-cuban latinos GOP normally gets (lost by two-thirds). Even in the primary, he couldn't even win NV hispanic republicans, he lost them to Trump of all people. As has been pointed out by others, Hillary purposely implemented a GOP outreach strategy her own DNC warned against, on top of that, in the states she targeted like TX and AZ she was effective in improving margins, which suggests that had she focused on WI instead, she could've held it. Hillary normalized Paul Ryan w/ her strategy.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3684


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: August 19, 2017, 10:39:02 am »
Ignore

We can't even agree on reality or what a "fact" is for Christ's sake. How is one suppose to unite the country with a clear mandate absent a national crisis in this kind of environment? It does not happen.

I didn't say the Democrats would unite the country in 2020. I just said even a major crisis isn't likely to unite the country in that way. After all, look at the Civil War. It was a major crisis if there ever was one, one side had a decisive victory if there ever was one, yet.... here we are, still debating Confederate statues 150 years later.

The last very polarizing era in American politics was the 1960s. How did that end? Well, it just sort of fizzled out. The center retook control in the early 1970s and the radicals were ridiculed into oblivion. All that's needed is for centrism to reassert itself.

True, though unfortunately we appear to be headed more towards internal conflict ala 1860 rather than having an external enemy to rally behind and to defeat (1941 and 1776). That's a very somber path to be headed down given that the national mood and fallout of the civil war was much more detrimental than the other two crises we had as a country.

Centrism will not reassert itself. The GOP lost control on that front by 2016 and the center-left Democrats are about to be taken over by the left. One could argue that one of these forces will win out and unite the country gradually but I highly doubt that the losing side will just cede defeat without putting up a nasty backlash. Trump could be that final backlash; or he could be the beginning of something nastier. I guess we'll see but I don't think Charlottesville will be a mea culpa for a lot of Americans.

Now do you understand why I suggested that Hillary should've won in 2016? She should've beaten a normal republican, while Trump would've made his voice heard akin to Fillmore '56 or Roosevelt '12 as a third party candidate. Then, come 2020, you would've had a unifying GOP candidate similar to someone like Cotton who would've capitulated to some Trumpian positions on trade, immigration and some centrist positions on healthcare.

1. The House GOP won the popular vote last year - Trump did not.

2. Virtually every single GOP swing state senator outran Trump last year be they Burr in NC, Johnson in Wisconsin, Portman in Ohio, Rubio in Florida, whoeverthef**k in Iowa, etc. Only Ayotte and Toomey ran the same margins as Trump.

So given the above I'm HIGHLY skeptical of this notion that Trump's centrism secured him the win when in reality "normal" Republicans did far better than he did at the state and congressional level in 2016. Who exactly does Rubio lose the general election? Even if he falls short in PA and MI he would've won Wisconsin since A. It came within a fraction of voting for Bush and twice and B. Has been Scott Walker Tea Partified into GOP hegemony. And he likely wouldn't have done so piss poor with Hispanics and could've snatched Nevada as well.

He lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, he got defeated by the same standard margin w/ non-cuban latinos GOP normally gets (lost by two-thirds). Even in the primary, he couldn't even win NV hispanic republicans, he lost them to Trump of all people. As has been pointed out by others, Hillary purposely implemented a GOP outreach strategy her own DNC warned against, on top of that, in the states she targeted like TX and AZ she was effective in improving margins, which suggests that had she focused on WI instead, she could've held it. Hillary normalized Paul Ryan w/ her strategy.

Yeah because running as a progressive helped Russ Feingold soooo much in Wisconsin.

So good to see that "If only she ran more progressive she wouldve won!" Narrative being screamed 24/7 while the Democrats were already on the verge of being in the weakest position they've been in at the local, state, and federal going into 2016 since the 1920's.

Such a great realigning President Obama was wasn't he? Putting his Party in an ungodly weak position not seen in 4 generations. Jesus Christ at least Reagan had southern Democrats who were friendly towards 80-90% of his agenda. Democrats don't have jack sh*t and are relying overwhelmingly on Trump's scandals and unpopularity to maintain the bits and pieces of his legacy.

2008 will never be a consideted a realigning election.
Logged

Orange County Suburbanite

uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1160


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: August 19, 2017, 10:59:03 am »
Ignore

We can't even agree on reality or what a "fact" is for Christ's sake. How is one suppose to unite the country with a clear mandate absent a national crisis in this kind of environment? It does not happen.

I didn't say the Democrats would unite the country in 2020. I just said even a major crisis isn't likely to unite the country in that way. After all, look at the Civil War. It was a major crisis if there ever was one, one side had a decisive victory if there ever was one, yet.... here we are, still debating Confederate statues 150 years later.

The last very polarizing era in American politics was the 1960s. How did that end? Well, it just sort of fizzled out. The center retook control in the early 1970s and the radicals were ridiculed into oblivion. All that's needed is for centrism to reassert itself.

True, though unfortunately we appear to be headed more towards internal conflict ala 1860 rather than having an external enemy to rally behind and to defeat (1941 and 1776). That's a very somber path to be headed down given that the national mood and fallout of the civil war was much more detrimental than the other two crises we had as a country.

Centrism will not reassert itself. The GOP lost control on that front by 2016 and the center-left Democrats are about to be taken over by the left. One could argue that one of these forces will win out and unite the country gradually but I highly doubt that the losing side will just cede defeat without putting up a nasty backlash. Trump could be that final backlash; or he could be the beginning of something nastier. I guess we'll see but I don't think Charlottesville will be a mea culpa for a lot of Americans.

Now do you understand why I suggested that Hillary should've won in 2016? She should've beaten a normal republican, while Trump would've made his voice heard akin to Fillmore '56 or Roosevelt '12 as a third party candidate. Then, come 2020, you would've had a unifying GOP candidate similar to someone like Cotton who would've capitulated to some Trumpian positions on trade, immigration and some centrist positions on healthcare.

1. The House GOP won the popular vote last year - Trump did not.

2. Virtually every single GOP swing state senator outran Trump last year be they Burr in NC, Johnson in Wisconsin, Portman in Ohio, Rubio in Florida, whoeverthef**k in Iowa, etc. Only Ayotte and Toomey ran the same margins as Trump.

So given the above I'm HIGHLY skeptical of this notion that Trump's centrism secured him the win when in reality "normal" Republicans did far better than he did at the state and congressional level in 2016. Who exactly does Rubio lose the general election? Even if he falls short in PA and MI he would've won Wisconsin since A. It came within a fraction of voting for Bush and twice and B. Has been Scott Walker Tea Partified into GOP hegemony. And he likely wouldn't have done so piss poor with Hispanics and could've snatched Nevada as well.

He lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, he got defeated by the same standard margin w/ non-cuban latinos GOP normally gets (lost by two-thirds). Even in the primary, he couldn't even win NV hispanic republicans, he lost them to Trump of all people. As has been pointed out by others, Hillary purposely implemented a GOP outreach strategy her own DNC warned against, on top of that, in the states she targeted like TX and AZ she was effective in improving margins, which suggests that had she focused on WI instead, she could've held it. Hillary normalized Paul Ryan w/ her strategy.

Yeah because running as a progressive helped Russ Feingold soooo much in Wisconsin.

So good to see that "If only she ran more progressive she wouldve won!" Narrative being screamed 24/7 while the Democrats were already on the verge of being in the weakest position they've been in at the local, state, and federal going into 2016 since the 1920's.

Such a great realigning President Obama was wasn't he? Putting his Party in an ungodly weak position not seen in 4 generations. Jesus Christ at least Reagan had southern Democrats who were friendly towards 80-90% of his agenda. Democrats don't have jack sh*t and are relying overwhelmingly on Trump's scandals and unpopularity to maintain the bits and pieces of his legacy.

2008 will never be a consideted a realigning election.

Actually, Trump is willing to sign any GOP bill, the problem is that the GOP itself can't send any such bill to him since the GOP is effectually unable to govern due to the internal contradictions in the party, which if anything, suggests that they were not supposed to placed in a position of governance to begin with.

I'm sure you have taken a look at the actual post-election data.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html

There have been a number of studies that have concluded the median swing voter to essentially be economically liberal + culturally conservative. The GOP establishment plan for 2016 was to run the opposite platform, Kasich was the only candidate who tried to rehabilitate compassionate conservatism and appeal to centrism.

The GOP establishment model was to run a hardcore Ryanite platform on economic issues, and then run to the cultural left on immigration + political correctness/police brutality issues, etc.

So yes, running as a progressive on econ issues is preferable to praising paul ryan and rehabilitating ryanism, actually.

Maybe you should look at how the GOP actually won 1920-1932, they won by appealing to hardcore nativism, which no GOP candidate was wiling to do besides Trump. The Southern Strategy actually started in the 1920s.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3684


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: August 19, 2017, 01:42:54 pm »
Ignore

We can't even agree on reality or what a "fact" is for Christ's sake. How is one suppose to unite the country with a clear mandate absent a national crisis in this kind of environment? It does not happen.

I didn't say the Democrats would unite the country in 2020. I just said even a major crisis isn't likely to unite the country in that way. After all, look at the Civil War. It was a major crisis if there ever was one, one side had a decisive victory if there ever was one, yet.... here we are, still debating Confederate statues 150 years later.

The last very polarizing era in American politics was the 1960s. How did that end? Well, it just sort of fizzled out. The center retook control in the early 1970s and the radicals were ridiculed into oblivion. All that's needed is for centrism to reassert itself.

True, though unfortunately we appear to be headed more towards internal conflict ala 1860 rather than having an external enemy to rally behind and to defeat (1941 and 1776). That's a very somber path to be headed down given that the national mood and fallout of the civil war was much more detrimental than the other two crises we had as a country.

Centrism will not reassert itself. The GOP lost control on that front by 2016 and the center-left Democrats are about to be taken over by the left. One could argue that one of these forces will win out and unite the country gradually but I highly doubt that the losing side will just cede defeat without putting up a nasty backlash. Trump could be that final backlash; or he could be the beginning of something nastier. I guess we'll see but I don't think Charlottesville will be a mea culpa for a lot of Americans.

Now do you understand why I suggested that Hillary should've won in 2016? She should've beaten a normal republican, while Trump would've made his voice heard akin to Fillmore '56 or Roosevelt '12 as a third party candidate. Then, come 2020, you would've had a unifying GOP candidate similar to someone like Cotton who would've capitulated to some Trumpian positions on trade, immigration and some centrist positions on healthcare.

1. The House GOP won the popular vote last year - Trump did not.

2. Virtually every single GOP swing state senator outran Trump last year be they Burr in NC, Johnson in Wisconsin, Portman in Ohio, Rubio in Florida, whoeverthef**k in Iowa, etc. Only Ayotte and Toomey ran the same margins as Trump.

So given the above I'm HIGHLY skeptical of this notion that Trump's centrism secured him the win when in reality "normal" Republicans did far better than he did at the state and congressional level in 2016. Who exactly does Rubio lose the general election? Even if he falls short in PA and MI he would've won Wisconsin since A. It came within a fraction of voting for Bush and twice and B. Has been Scott Walker Tea Partified into GOP hegemony. And he likely wouldn't have done so piss poor with Hispanics and could've snatched Nevada as well.

He lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, he got defeated by the same standard margin w/ non-cuban latinos GOP normally gets (lost by two-thirds). Even in the primary, he couldn't even win NV hispanic republicans, he lost them to Trump of all people. As has been pointed out by others, Hillary purposely implemented a GOP outreach strategy her own DNC warned against, on top of that, in the states she targeted like TX and AZ she was effective in improving margins, which suggests that had she focused on WI instead, she could've held it. Hillary normalized Paul Ryan w/ her strategy.

Yeah because running as a progressive helped Russ Feingold soooo much in Wisconsin.

So good to see that "If only she ran more progressive she wouldve won!" Narrative being screamed 24/7 while the Democrats were already on the verge of being in the weakest position they've been in at the local, state, and federal going into 2016 since the 1920's.

Such a great realigning President Obama was wasn't he? Putting his Party in an ungodly weak position not seen in 4 generations. Jesus Christ at least Reagan had southern Democrats who were friendly towards 80-90% of his agenda. Democrats don't have jack sh*t and are relying overwhelmingly on Trump's scandals and unpopularity to maintain the bits and pieces of his legacy.

2008 will never be a consideted a realigning election.

Actually, Trump is willing to sign any GOP bill, the problem is that the GOP itself can't send any such bill to him since the GOP is effectually unable to govern due to the internal contradictions in the party, which if anything, suggests that they were not supposed to placed in a position of governance to begin with.

I'm sure you have taken a look at the actual post-election data.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html

There have been a number of studies that have concluded the median swing voter to essentially be economically liberal + culturally conservative. The GOP establishment plan for 2016 was to run the opposite platform, Kasich was the only candidate who tried to rehabilitate compassionate conservatism and appeal to centrism.

The GOP establishment model was to run a hardcore Ryanite platform on economic issues, and then run to the cultural left on immigration + political correctness/police brutality issues, etc.

So yes, running as a progressive on econ issues is preferable to praising paul ryan and rehabilitating ryanism, actually.

Maybe you should look at how the GOP actually won 1920-1932, they won by appealing to hardcore nativism, which no GOP candidate was wiling to do besides Trump. The Southern Strategy actually started in the 1920s.

Man running progressives was all the Democrats needed all along? I guess that makes sense if you ignore 2010, 2014, and 2016 entirely.

Also you never even bother to address that a noted progressive in Feingold lost in Wisconsin, the House GOP winning the popular vote last year, or the fact that virtually every single "Ryanite" (whatever the hell that means) senator outran Trump in the swing states.

But sure if we're gonna live in make believe land where the Democrats don't get relegated into the smallest minority they haven't seen since he 1920's, Trump loses in 2016, the GOP don't make big gains in 2010 and 2014, and the fact that normal Republicans far outperformed Trump in almost every swing state then sure...Obama in those circumstances did realign the country.

But in reality he did not. Your insinuation that 2008 was a realignment is complete and utter garbage when looking at the state of the Party itself.

Trump can't sign laws? Dems can't do sh*t so wow such accomplishment for the realigning majority party huh?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 01:44:47 pm by Technocracy Timmy »Logged

Orange County Suburbanite

uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1160


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: August 19, 2017, 02:17:43 pm »
Ignore

We can't even agree on reality or what a "fact" is for Christ's sake. How is one suppose to unite the country with a clear mandate absent a national crisis in this kind of environment? It does not happen.

I didn't say the Democrats would unite the country in 2020. I just said even a major crisis isn't likely to unite the country in that way. After all, look at the Civil War. It was a major crisis if there ever was one, one side had a decisive victory if there ever was one, yet.... here we are, still debating Confederate statues 150 years later.

The last very polarizing era in American politics was the 1960s. How did that end? Well, it just sort of fizzled out. The center retook control in the early 1970s and the radicals were ridiculed into oblivion. All that's needed is for centrism to reassert itself.

True, though unfortunately we appear to be headed more towards internal conflict ala 1860 rather than having an external enemy to rally behind and to defeat (1941 and 1776). That's a very somber path to be headed down given that the national mood and fallout of the civil war was much more detrimental than the other two crises we had as a country.

Centrism will not reassert itself. The GOP lost control on that front by 2016 and the center-left Democrats are about to be taken over by the left. One could argue that one of these forces will win out and unite the country gradually but I highly doubt that the losing side will just cede defeat without putting up a nasty backlash. Trump could be that final backlash; or he could be the beginning of something nastier. I guess we'll see but I don't think Charlottesville will be a mea culpa for a lot of Americans.

Now do you understand why I suggested that Hillary should've won in 2016? She should've beaten a normal republican, while Trump would've made his voice heard akin to Fillmore '56 or Roosevelt '12 as a third party candidate. Then, come 2020, you would've had a unifying GOP candidate similar to someone like Cotton who would've capitulated to some Trumpian positions on trade, immigration and some centrist positions on healthcare.

1. The House GOP won the popular vote last year - Trump did not.

2. Virtually every single GOP swing state senator outran Trump last year be they Burr in NC, Johnson in Wisconsin, Portman in Ohio, Rubio in Florida, whoeverthef**k in Iowa, etc. Only Ayotte and Toomey ran the same margins as Trump.

So given the above I'm HIGHLY skeptical of this notion that Trump's centrism secured him the win when in reality "normal" Republicans did far better than he did at the state and congressional level in 2016. Who exactly does Rubio lose the general election? Even if he falls short in PA and MI he would've won Wisconsin since A. It came within a fraction of voting for Bush and twice and B. Has been Scott Walker Tea Partified into GOP hegemony. And he likely wouldn't have done so piss poor with Hispanics and could've snatched Nevada as well.

He lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, he got defeated by the same standard margin w/ non-cuban latinos GOP normally gets (lost by two-thirds). Even in the primary, he couldn't even win NV hispanic republicans, he lost them to Trump of all people. As has been pointed out by others, Hillary purposely implemented a GOP outreach strategy her own DNC warned against, on top of that, in the states she targeted like TX and AZ she was effective in improving margins, which suggests that had she focused on WI instead, she could've held it. Hillary normalized Paul Ryan w/ her strategy.

Yeah because running as a progressive helped Russ Feingold soooo much in Wisconsin.

So good to see that "If only she ran more progressive she wouldve won!" Narrative being screamed 24/7 while the Democrats were already on the verge of being in the weakest position they've been in at the local, state, and federal going into 2016 since the 1920's.

Such a great realigning President Obama was wasn't he? Putting his Party in an ungodly weak position not seen in 4 generations. Jesus Christ at least Reagan had southern Democrats who were friendly towards 80-90% of his agenda. Democrats don't have jack sh*t and are relying overwhelmingly on Trump's scandals and unpopularity to maintain the bits and pieces of his legacy.

2008 will never be a consideted a realigning election.

Actually, Trump is willing to sign any GOP bill, the problem is that the GOP itself can't send any such bill to him since the GOP is effectually unable to govern due to the internal contradictions in the party, which if anything, suggests that they were not supposed to placed in a position of governance to begin with.

I'm sure you have taken a look at the actual post-election data.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html

There have been a number of studies that have concluded the median swing voter to essentially be economically liberal + culturally conservative. The GOP establishment plan for 2016 was to run the opposite platform, Kasich was the only candidate who tried to rehabilitate compassionate conservatism and appeal to centrism.

The GOP establishment model was to run a hardcore Ryanite platform on economic issues, and then run to the cultural left on immigration + political correctness/police brutality issues, etc.

So yes, running as a progressive on econ issues is preferable to praising paul ryan and rehabilitating ryanism, actually.

Maybe you should look at how the GOP actually won 1920-1932, they won by appealing to hardcore nativism, which no GOP candidate was wiling to do besides Trump. The Southern Strategy actually started in the 1920s.

Man running progressives was all the Democrats needed all along? I guess that makes sense if you ignore 2010, 2014, and 2016 entirely.

Also you never even bother to address that a noted progressive in Feingold lost in Wisconsin, the House GOP winning the popular vote last year, or the fact that virtually every single "Ryanite" (whatever the hell that means) senator outran Trump in the swing states.

But sure if we're gonna live in make believe land where the Democrats don't get relegated into the smallest minority they haven't seen since he 1920's, Trump loses in 2016, the GOP don't make big gains in 2010 and 2014, and the fact that normal Republicans far outperformed Trump in almost every swing state then sure...Obama in those circumstances did realign the country.

But in reality he did not. Your insinuation that 2008 was a realignment is complete and utter garbage when looking at the state of the Party itself.

Trump can't sign laws? Dems can't do sh*t so wow such accomplishment for the realigning majority party huh?

Those seats lost during 2010 and 2014 were mostly blue dog seats, and guess what? They were replaced by Tea Partyers. Why would seats held formerly by moderate democrats go to the hardest of right republicans? It's because the motivation for voting for those Tea Party candidates was never about their economic positions, it was about their cultural positions.

If you praise Republicans as a campaign strategy to distance them for their nominee, does that not rationally suggest that such a strategy would have outsized impact on the downballot? Why was the DNC so concerned about Hillary trying to distance Trump from the GOP?
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1160


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: August 19, 2017, 02:30:05 pm »
Ignore

^
Wasnt there a study that said alot of people voted for Congressional GOP candidates because they all figured Hillary would win.

Also, Hillary has under-preformed every election she ran in. It was like Conway vs Bevin on the Federal level.

This was a campaign refrain used in GOP congressional campaigns, and it was further emboldened by the Clinton campaign itself which suggested that 'normal republicans' were good, and that Trump was a unique evil.
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1160


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: August 19, 2017, 03:38:11 pm »
Ignore

^
Wasnt there a study that said alot of people voted for Congressional GOP candidates because they all figured Hillary would win.

Also, Hillary has under-preformed every election she ran in. It was like Conway vs Bevin on the Federal level.

This was a campaign refrain used in GOP congressional campaigns, and it was further emboldened by the Clinton campaign itself which suggested that 'normal republicans' were good, and that Trump was a unique evil.

If anything, I'd say 2016 was a one off. First, Hillary was a lousy candidate who depressed Democratic turnout but was a source of never vitriolic hatred among the GOP voters. I cant think of a single Dem that could of been run that year that would have motivated the hysterical hatred among Republicans. Hillary was walking red meat. Second, the primary obviously damaged Hillary and left half the party hating her. Third,  according to Demographic experts, the following state legislative victories showed that 2016 was a one off because quite alot of +30% to +40% Trump districts flipped Dem. This means no realignment happened.

My guess is that while Trump will never lose his cult like followers, those people only compromise 60% of the GOP and that's not alot of people. Trump has pretty much been a miserable failure at governing (along with the GOP) so nothing will really get done in the end. On top of this, there is an almost 100% chance of a recession in his term. By 2018, America will have gone its longest period in history of not having a recession and were due for one. Trump is too stupid to legislate effectively to stop the recession and the GOP is too useless. So all signs point to Trump being a one termer and no amount of race baiting is going to help him

To be fair, Obama inspired even more or at least just as much hysterical hatred.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3684


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: August 19, 2017, 05:36:22 pm »
Ignore

Those seats lost during 2010 and 2014 were mostly blue dog seats, and guess what? They were replaced by Tea Partyers. Why would seats held formerly by moderate democrats go to the hardest of right republicans? It's because the motivation for voting for those Tea Party candidates was never about their economic positions, it was about their cultural positions.

If you praise Republicans as a campaign strategy to distance them for their nominee, does that not rationally suggest that such a strategy would have outsized impact on the downballot? Why was the DNC so concerned about Hillary trying to distance Trump from the GOP?

Of course Democrats in the most vulnerable seats ended up losing those seats in 2010 and 2014. That's not groundbreaking stuff. Was the supposed Obama 2008 realignment only powerful enough to keep already deep blue seats safe in 2010 while losing swing districts? Because that's not impressive and is quite a letdown.

It's a fact that normal Republicans outperformed Trump at the congressional and senate swing state level by running as Reaganite Republicans who often times distanced themselves from the populist in Trump. Your "2008 realignment" theory has no way of reconciling that. How did Obama end the Reaganite era when Reaganite Republicans are so powerful right when he leaves office? Why was Obama's signature accomplishment a centrist healthcare plan that was crafted as a conservative alternative to single payer/a public option? Where's the Reagan/Rooseveltin style agenda that revolutionized our politics?

Is this what Obama realigned us into? Being more polarized, more unequal as a country in terms of inequality/income, banks bigger than prior to 2008, etc. Is this the Obama realignment? Because if so it's really pathetic and looks a lot more like Reagan's vision of the country than any self respecting progressive's vision.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 05:54:34 pm by Technocracy Timmy »Logged

Orange County Suburbanite

uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1160


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: August 19, 2017, 06:47:46 pm »
Ignore

Those seats lost during 2010 and 2014 were mostly blue dog seats, and guess what? They were replaced by Tea Partyers. Why would seats held formerly by moderate democrats go to the hardest of right republicans? It's because the motivation for voting for those Tea Party candidates was never about their economic positions, it was about their cultural positions.

If you praise Republicans as a campaign strategy to distance them for their nominee, does that not rationally suggest that such a strategy would have outsized impact on the downballot? Why was the DNC so concerned about Hillary trying to distance Trump from the GOP?

Of course Democrats in the most vulnerable seats ended up losing those seats in 2010 and 2014. That's not groundbreaking stuff. Was the supposed Obama 2008 realignment only powerful enough to keep already deep blue seats safe in 2010 while losing swing districts? Because that's not impressive and is quite a letdown.

It's a fact that normal Republicans outperformed Trump at the congressional and senate swing state level by running as Reaganite Republicans who often times distanced themselves from the populist in Trump. Your "2008 realignment" theory has no way of reconciling that. How did Obama end the Reaganite era when Reaganite Republicans are so powerful right when he leaves office? Why was Obama's signature accomplishment a centrist healthcare plan that was crafted as a conservative alternative to single payer/a public option? Where's the Reagan/Rooseveltin style agenda that revolutionized our politics?

Is this what Obama realigned us into? Being more polarized, more unequal as a country in terms of inequality/income, banks bigger than prior to 2008, etc. Is this the Obama realignment? Because if so it's really pathetic and looks a lot more like Reagan's vision of the country than any self respecting progressive's vision.

He ran as a progressive populist - after he abandoned that agenda, the GOP responded with the populist Tea Party movement. You had a ton of Koch-bankrolled candidates pretending to be populists as a response. This contradiction exists to be exploited (like it was by Obama who was relatively more economically populist than his opponent) because the establishment/Kochs refused to give concessions on economic issues.
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1160


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: August 19, 2017, 07:02:52 pm »
Ignore

^ By the way, in 1920, Mcadoo was the progressive running, Cox ran as as conservative dem who distanced himself from Wilson and we know Davis in 1924 was a conservative as well. In contrast, Hillary was basically running as an extension of Obama, she had fully embraced his platform.

Making comparisons to 1920 doesn't work because Hillary didn't run on her '08 platform, she ran as an extension of Obama.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3684


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: August 19, 2017, 07:03:29 pm »
Ignore

Those seats lost during 2010 and 2014 were mostly blue dog seats, and guess what? They were replaced by Tea Partyers. Why would seats held formerly by moderate democrats go to the hardest of right republicans? It's because the motivation for voting for those Tea Party candidates was never about their economic positions, it was about their cultural positions.

If you praise Republicans as a campaign strategy to distance them for their nominee, does that not rationally suggest that such a strategy would have outsized impact on the downballot? Why was the DNC so concerned about Hillary trying to distance Trump from the GOP?

Of course Democrats in the most vulnerable seats ended up losing those seats in 2010 and 2014. That's not groundbreaking stuff. Was the supposed Obama 2008 realignment only powerful enough to keep already deep blue seats safe in 2010 while losing swing districts? Because that's not impressive and is quite a letdown.

It's a fact that normal Republicans outperformed Trump at the congressional and senate swing state level by running as Reaganite Republicans who often times distanced themselves from the populist in Trump. Your "2008 realignment" theory has no way of reconciling that. How did Obama end the Reaganite era when Reaganite Republicans are so powerful right when he leaves office? Why was Obama's signature accomplishment a centrist healthcare plan that was crafted as a conservative alternative to single payer/a public option? Where's the Reagan/Rooseveltin style agenda that revolutionized our politics?

Is this what Obama realigned us into? Being more polarized, more unequal as a country in terms of inequality/income, banks bigger than prior to 2008, etc. Is this the Obama realignment? Because if so it's really pathetic and looks a lot more like Reagan's vision of the country than any self respecting progressive's vision.

He ran as a progressive populist - after he abandoned that agenda, the GOP responded with the populist Tea Party movement. You had a ton of Koch-bankrolled candidates pretending to be populists as a response. This contradiction exists to be exploited (like it was by Obama who was relatively more economically populist than his opponent) because the establishment/Kochs refused to give concessions on economic issues.

Glad to see that Economic PopulismTM in action these past 8 years. Banks bigger than ever, more income and wealth inequality than before the crisis, an economic recovery that saw the workforce participation rate rise while virtually all income gains went to the top 10% of the income distribution, etc. Man oh man what a realignment to behold.

It's cool though. We got Romney/Gringrich/Grassley/Nixon style healthcare so Obama deserves to be up there right with Reagan and Roosevelt as a transformative President. Smiley
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 07:05:56 pm by Technocracy Timmy »Logged

Orange County Suburbanite

Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3684


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: August 19, 2017, 07:04:54 pm »
Ignore

I have to ask at this point are you being paid by Obama or some Democratic Party official to justify why Obama and Clinton were secretly these totally awesome political figures who revolutionized politics? Are you just here to defend the carnage the Democrats experienced the last 6 years?
Logged

Orange County Suburbanite

uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1160


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: August 19, 2017, 07:40:01 pm »
Ignore

I have to ask at this point are you being paid by Obama or some Democratic Party official to justify why Obama and Clinton were secretly these totally awesome political figures who revolutionized politics? Are you just here to defend the carnage the Democrats experienced the last 6 years?

What I'm saying is that relative to who they would be against, they would be well-positioned. They would struggle against even centrist-adjacent republicans like Huntsman/Kasich, and Obama's team was particularly worried about Huntsman in 2012, but relative to the crop of right-wing tea party republicans, their positioning is easier to take.
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1160


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: August 19, 2017, 07:42:32 pm »
Ignore

^ That's why pre-Lehman Brothers, Mccain polled much better swing state wise than Romney ever did.
Logged
houseonaboat
Full Member
***
Posts: 219
View Profile
« Reply #90 on: August 19, 2017, 08:10:29 pm »
Ignore

I think any notion of "uniting the country" has to come with the understanding that the primary electorate does not equal the general electorate, and that most Americans aren't a.) all that passionate about politics or b.) particularly ideological. Someone like Booker, at least in terms of messaging, would do extremely well with a general electorate and fare poorly with an activist base, whereas Sanders/Warren would do extremely well with the Democratic base but poorly with the general electorate.

I'll chip in and say that I think Sasse (not a Democrat, obviously) would do extremely well in a general election, particularly with people who don't vote.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 08:13:00 pm by houseonaboat »Logged
Medal506
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 366
United States


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: August 22, 2017, 07:17:58 pm »
Ignore

Someone like Sherrod Brown or Tammy Baldwin. Midwestern progressives with establishment connections. Cory Booker has no chance with the activist base (Despite the borderline Republican beliefs of Blue Dog Moderate, who seems fine with Democrats being right-wingers). Same goes for people like Manchin (who's nomination WILL trigger a left-wing third party challenge).

But even then, it'd be an uphill battle for them. There are always going to be unsatisfied people.
"Borderline Republican" lmao that actually made me laugh. I didn't know I pissed you off that much that you have to follow me around and take a piss on Cory Booker (who many sensible Democrats can support) but Joe Manchin at the Presidential Level? Sorry for not blindly subscribing to Sanders' """revolution"""" that appeals to a very small, but loud, political minority in the Democratic Party.

Bernie Sanders it the base of the Democratic party. He has 80%+ favorability & 80%+ of the base agrees with his issues. And most of the them are sensible common sense issues implemented in major Western countries around the world.

You however are an extremist. You were hailing Steve Bannon & wanted him to tame his social views & join the Democratic Bandwagon. Forget Big Pharma sellout Cory Booker (who can appeal to Moderates) but supporting a Climate Change denier like Joe Manchin automatically makes you a radical extremist. Future generations would look at such people the way they look at Ann Coulter or Donald Trump.

@ Topic - No-one. There is too much ideological, racial, cultural polarization. No Democrat or Republican has united the country in almost 30 years. And it is just not possible now. Perhaps in 2024 with a Sanders like personality, but not anytime soon.


If Bernie Sanders has an 80% approval rating (which he doesn't) why did he lose to a woman (Hillary Clinton) who had a 57 percent disapproval rating who then went on to lose to a guy (Donald Trump) who had in June of 2016 a 70 percent dissaproval rating?
Logged
Medal506
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 366
United States


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: August 22, 2017, 07:23:07 pm »
Ignore

Given that Clinton very publically targeted suburban Republicans (without much success), it seems more a case of her dragging down the whole party.

Isn't that always the question though? Did somebody win because they were a good candidate vs. winning because they ran against a poor candidate.

There were other tests we saw in 2016 that showed either progressives didn't show up or weren't a large segment. California's prop 61 failed, as did single payer in Colorado and a noted progressive in Feingold lost in Wisconsin of all places (even losing the 18-24 year olds to his republican opponent).

If Clinton brought down turnout among progressives because she spent too much time and energy courting moderate republicans then it kind of goes to show that the GOP have an advantage with ginning up turnout. The GOP didn't need a good candidate to save their senate and house majorities (as evidenced by swing state senators and he House GOP outperforming Trump)  whereas the Democrats do apparently need a good candidate to gin up turnout for both their down-ballot measures and candidates.

Again context is important. You can't pick & chose data here. Minimum Wages hike won huge in ballot measures. Marijuana won big in ballot measures. Coloradocare failed because close to half of the party (Clinton/Obama wing) didn't want to abandon the ACA (The Gov, Senator came out against it, they were Dems). And it was worded poorly & financing was also not done well. There were some taxes on seniors & so on. I know many diehard Bernie supporters who opposed Coloradocare in its present form. And state wide Single payer is probably harder to implement for a smaller state especially when Dems are campaigning on ACA.

Prof 61 got 45% odd votes which is good considering Pharma spend 120M $ on negative ads & it was an insurgency campaign. None of the Dem establishment came out for it big. The Bernie wing was reeling under the loss & Sanders was everywhere, campaigning for multiple issues. Our-Revolution was not even born. 45% with little support from Dems was a good result. Next time, it possibly would win.

Change never comes in 1 day. The Tea party didn't win 1 fine day. Slowly establishment GOP embraced them. A large chunk of establishment Dems will also have to embrace the left wing ideology (Today 75% of the Dem caucus support a 15$ Min Wage as an example). Feingold didn't tun a great campaign but the DSCC pulled ads when they saw him leading big while he was up against 100M $. Clinton never campaigned for him. He won more counties than Clinton did but never had some of the high margins in core Dem counties of Clinton (those voters didn't bother & turn out to vote for him).

Progressives haven't swept the slate but I don't think they will either. It will be a gradual process & by 4 years, the Dem party will be a LOT different compared to 2016 (& it already is to a large extent). You have to judge for a longer duration.



That's a complete flat out lie! The establishment GOP has never once embraced the tea party! The establishment Republicans hate the tea party and always have.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4276
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: August 23, 2017, 04:48:14 am »
Ignore

Agree with everyone who says that the country can not be united in its present state by any figure from any party.  As to which Democrat can appeal to the electorate, there are perhaps a few out there (Brown, maybe Hickenlooper), but they have not been "out in front" of the political scene, they don't have serious name recognition.  Apart from Sanders, who I don't think can win a general election, the Dems effectively have an empty bench at the moment.  Obama could only manage to use whatever political capital he gained for himself, and the decks were mostly cleared for Clinton in 2016, and now there is just a vacuum.  At the moment, I'm not the least bit optimistic for Dem general election prospects in 2020.
Logged

"Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."  Frederick Douglass
Fuzzy Bear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5195


View Profile WWW
« Reply #94 on: August 26, 2017, 10:10:20 am »
Ignore

Oh, and by the way, this whole rise in ideological purity perpetrated by people like that Australian guy is what cost the GOP their strongholds on New Jersey, Connecticut, and other moderate suburban areas back during Gingrich's """revolution""" with his ideological purity.
Somewhat true.  Although back in the early 90s, there was a group of moderate Republicans called the "92 group" that were strongly behind Gingrich.  This was not so much because of Gingrich's ideological purity as the fact that these folks did not accept the concept of the Pemanent (Democratic) Congress and sought to win.  This group was made of Republicans who had actually governed; who had been part of majorities in their state legislatures and state houses, and who had experience being "bi-partisan" to get mundane things done that make government work because they would be held responsible if those mundane things didn't work.

The issue that really pushed the suburbs and the Northeast to the Democrats was the religious conservatism that became a GOP power base in the 1990s.  The GOP was able to win over Evangelicals to the GOP up and down the ballot, but this alliance cost them the support of secular Republicans who were conservative on economics, but socially liberal.  Even New Hampshire, a state that has always been fertile grounds for tax revolts, trends Democratic these days. 
Logged

"The family cannot be constituted like the liberal state, nor can it be governed entirely by that state's principles. Yet the family serves as the seedbed for the virtues required by a liberal state. The family is responsible for teaching lessons of independence, self-restraint, responsibility, and right conduct, which are essential to a free, democratic society. If the family fails in these tasks, then the entire experiment in democratic self-rule is jeopardized."-Barbara Dafoe Whitehead
Deblano
EdgarAllenYOLO
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1560
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: -6.96

View Profile
« Reply #95 on: August 26, 2017, 10:54:21 am »
Ignore

That's putting the cart before the horse.  Politicians don't create or drive anxiety, they are products of anxiety and the prevailing background culture that existed before them. 

Trump or no Trump, current anxiety isn't going to just disappear.  It was there before him, it'll be there after him.  Only in a certain climate could a Trump-like figure even appear in the first place.  If it wasn't Trump himself, it would've been someone else that emerged out of the woodwork.

There will be no "uniter."  I said it before and will say it again- this is a structural problem in society that no one man can fix.  There won't be some "Nixon figure," that just appears on the scene, snaps his fingers, and like a deus ex machina- all this polarization disappears.

Thinking such is incredibly naive.  Sorry, but that's the simple truth, whether you choose to accept it or not.



Thank you.

There are so many people on the web who think that Trump was the problem, rather than the symptom, and that if he was never elected we would have had ZERO tensions in the United States.
Logged

"I do not like broccoli. And I haven't liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it. And I'm President of the United States and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli." - George H. W. Bush

"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.'" - Saint Anthony The Great
McGovernForPrez
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 737


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: August 27, 2017, 07:49:39 am »
Ignore

I think any notion of "uniting the country" has to come with the understanding that the primary electorate does not equal the general electorate, and that most Americans aren't a.) all that passionate about politics or b.) particularly ideological. Someone like Booker, at least in terms of messaging, would do extremely well with a general electorate and fare poorly with an activist base, whereas Sanders/Warren would do extremely well with the Democratic base but poorly with the general electorate.

I'll chip in and say that I think Sasse (not a Democrat, obviously) would do extremely well in a general election, particularly with people who don't vote.
Why can't you be popular with both? Obama certainly was popular with activists and average Joe's alike. On the flip side you can be neither. Hillary wasn't popular with activists nor was she very popular amongst average Americans either. I think Booker would fall much more the way of Hillary than Obama. Nothing about Cory Booker yells average American to me.

Firstly he's black so that automatically makes it a challenge for him to connect to the broader electorate. Obama did it, but even he struggled. Obama spent his entire career crafting an image which made him popular with working class whites. His success in downstate Illinois in his 2004 Senate race translated into his success with the WWC nationally. Do you really think Booker will have the same image as Obama had? Booker isn't from Illinois he's from New Jersey. New Jersey is a stereotypical coastal elite type of state. It's very wealthy and urban making it rather difficult for him to have the same image as Obama. Let's also not forget that Obama was a once in a generation speaker, and that also helped him have broad national appeal.

Just because Cory Booker is "fiscally moderate" doesn't mean he automatically dips into this magical pool of "moderate" voters. Electoral politics is more complicated than a simple battle of being more left leaning or more right leaning. Cory Booker has serious image problems which would prevent him from ever being capable of being a nationally uniting candidate. He's a wealthy technocrat and most Americans can't identify with him. There are certainly ways to change that image. Donald Trump managed to break loose from it, but it took a long time of careful planning and imaging. Cory Booker could try and shake of his image problems but I don't see him doing that anytime soon.
Logged

Endorsements:
2020 President: Steve Bullock, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown
MA Governor: Robert Massey (D), Charlie Baker (R)
Boston Mayor: Tito Jackson
VA Governor: Ralph Northam
MA-07 Primary: Mike Capuano
slightlyburnttoast
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 305
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -5.43

P
View Profile
« Reply #97 on: August 27, 2017, 10:01:50 am »
Ignore

Someone like Sherrod Brown or Tammy Baldwin. Midwestern progressives with establishment connections. Cory Booker has no chance with the activist base (Despite the borderline Republican beliefs of Blue Dog Moderate, who seems fine with Democrats being right-wingers). Same goes for people like Manchin (who's nomination WILL trigger a left-wing third party challenge).

But even then, it'd be an uphill battle for them. There are always going to be unsatisfied people.

This sounds about right to me.

I think a Brown or Baldwin type would be the perfect nominee in 2020 for the Democrats, and I've been saying that for a while. Harris also mostly fits the bill (although she's not from the Midwest, so she could still get the brunt of "coastal elite" criticism) of "progressive with establishment connections".
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 10:03:46 am by slightlyburnttoast »Logged

Endorsements:

'18 MI Gov: Gretchen Whitmer (D)
'18 MI Sen: Debbie Stabenow (D, inc.)
'18 MI 12th: Debbie Dingell (D, inc.)

'17 NJ Gov: Phil Murphy (D) Smiley
'17 VA Gov: Ralph Northam (D) Smiley
'17 AL Sen: Doug Jones (D)


Current 2020 Favorites: Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)
whitesox130
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3034
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 2.26


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: August 27, 2017, 11:39:41 am »
Ignore

I think any notion of "uniting the country" has to come with the understanding that the primary electorate does not equal the general electorate, and that most Americans aren't a.) all that passionate about politics or b.) particularly ideological. Someone like Booker, at least in terms of messaging, would do extremely well with a general electorate and fare poorly with an activist base, whereas Sanders/Warren would do extremely well with the Democratic base but poorly with the general electorate.

I'll chip in and say that I think Sasse (not a Democrat, obviously) would do extremely well in a general election, particularly with people who don't vote.
Why can't you be popular with both? Obama certainly was popular with activists and average Joe's alike. On the flip side you can be neither. Hillary wasn't popular with activists nor was she very popular amongst average Americans either. I think Booker would fall much more the way of Hillary than Obama. Nothing about Cory Booker yells average American to me.

Firstly he's black so that automatically makes it a challenge for him to connect to the broader electorate. Obama did it, but even he struggled. Obama spent his entire career crafting an image which made him popular with working class whites. His success in downstate Illinois in his 2004 Senate race translated into his success with the WWC nationally. Do you really think Booker will have the same image as Obama had? Booker isn't from Illinois he's from New Jersey. New Jersey is a stereotypical coastal elite type of state. It's very wealthy and urban making it rather difficult for him to have the same image as Obama. Let's also not forget that Obama was a once in a generation speaker, and that also helped him have broad national appeal.

Just because Cory Booker is "fiscally moderate" doesn't mean he automatically dips into this magical pool of "moderate" voters. Electoral politics is more complicated than a simple battle of being more left leaning or more right leaning. Cory Booker has serious image problems which would prevent him from ever being capable of being a nationally uniting candidate. He's a wealthy technocrat and most Americans can't identify with him. There are certainly ways to change that image. Donald Trump managed to break loose from it, but it took a long time of careful planning and imaging. Cory Booker could try and shake of his image problems but I don't see him doing that anytime soon.
No, Obama swept through downstate because his opponent wasn't a real Illinoisan; he established residence in Calumet City a few months before the election and was really from the East Coast. Check out the Chicago Tribune's 2004 endorsement of Obama to see just how out of touch his Republican opponent (Alan Keyes) really was with Illinois. The GOP couldn't find anyone who wanted to run against Obama. Also, since Keyes entered late, Obama had already consolidated his base in Chicagoland and had plenty of time to campaign downstate. Furthermore, downstate Illinois was a lot more swingy and more apt to split ballots (Bush still won the area) than it is now. Rod Blagojevich's corruption scandal was what (I think) really turned downstate red for good, and that didn't happen for another six years.

Also, a career in government hardly screams "crafting an image to connect with the working class". If Obama wanted to do that, he'd have been in the pipe fitters' union or the UAW.

Anyway, I'm not sure whether this changes your mind on Booker, but I thought I should at least set the record straight.
Logged

Say NO to mediocrity!
#FireGarPax
McGovernForPrez
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 737


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: August 27, 2017, 03:21:44 pm »
Ignore

I think any notion of "uniting the country" has to come with the understanding that the primary electorate does not equal the general electorate, and that most Americans aren't a.) all that passionate about politics or b.) particularly ideological. Someone like Booker, at least in terms of messaging, would do extremely well with a general electorate and fare poorly with an activist base, whereas Sanders/Warren would do extremely well with the Democratic base but poorly with the general electorate.

I'll chip in and say that I think Sasse (not a Democrat, obviously) would do extremely well in a general election, particularly with people who don't vote.
Why can't you be popular with both? Obama certainly was popular with activists and average Joe's alike. On the flip side you can be neither. Hillary wasn't popular with activists nor was she very popular amongst average Americans either. I think Booker would fall much more the way of Hillary than Obama. Nothing about Cory Booker yells average American to me.

Firstly he's black so that automatically makes it a challenge for him to connect to the broader electorate. Obama did it, but even he struggled. Obama spent his entire career crafting an image which made him popular with working class whites. His success in downstate Illinois in his 2004 Senate race translated into his success with the WWC nationally. Do you really think Booker will have the same image as Obama had? Booker isn't from Illinois he's from New Jersey. New Jersey is a stereotypical coastal elite type of state. It's very wealthy and urban making it rather difficult for him to have the same image as Obama. Let's also not forget that Obama was a once in a generation speaker, and that also helped him have broad national appeal.

Just because Cory Booker is "fiscally moderate" doesn't mean he automatically dips into this magical pool of "moderate" voters. Electoral politics is more complicated than a simple battle of being more left leaning or more right leaning. Cory Booker has serious image problems which would prevent him from ever being capable of being a nationally uniting candidate. He's a wealthy technocrat and most Americans can't identify with him. There are certainly ways to change that image. Donald Trump managed to break loose from it, but it took a long time of careful planning and imaging. Cory Booker could try and shake of his image problems but I don't see him doing that anytime soon.
No, Obama swept through downstate because his opponent wasn't a real Illinoisan; he established residence in Calumet City a few months before the election and was really from the East Coast. Check out the Chicago Tribune's 2004 endorsement of Obama to see just how out of touch his Republican opponent (Alan Keyes) really was with Illinois. The GOP couldn't find anyone who wanted to run against Obama. Also, since Keyes entered late, Obama had already consolidated his base in Chicagoland and had plenty of time to campaign downstate. Furthermore, downstate Illinois was a lot more swingy and more apt to split ballots (Bush still won the area) than it is now. Rod Blagojevich's corruption scandal was what (I think) really turned downstate red for good, and that didn't happen for another six years.

Also, a career in government hardly screams "crafting an image to connect with the working class". If Obama wanted to do that, he'd have been in the pipe fitters' union or the UAW.

Anyway, I'm not sure whether this changes your mind on Booker, but I thought I should at least set the record straight.
That is certainly some interesting info that I wasn't aware of about Illinois politics. I think my point overall still stands, though. Obama was popular with white midwesterners, and he did that through being anice incredible speaker and crafting a strong image.

Booker doesn't have that same working class appeal. He's too wealthy and technocratic. Wealth isn't so much the problem as plenty of wealthy people can connect to the middle class. It's that technocratic image that'll really do him in. American voters don't like technocrats and that a fact. Look at Gore, Kerry or Clinton (Hillary). They were all generally conceived of as being out of touch with the people. So wrapped up in the minutia of their policies that they couldn't see the real frustrations of Americans. Cory Booker will come across that way too. He's not an Obama tier speaker, and I don't think he's as charismatic as Bill Clinton. He'll even have trouble getting the activist base excited as they all already hate him for the most part.

Booker also doesn't seem to be trying very hard to change this either. He's tried shoring up the activist base by introducing Marijuana legislation, but it hasn't gotten much hype. He introduced a bill to remove confederate statues from the Capitol despite the country and even his own party being highly divided on the issue. The dude just seems politically clueless.
Logged

Endorsements:
2020 President: Steve Bullock, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown
MA Governor: Robert Massey (D), Charlie Baker (R)
Boston Mayor: Tito Jackson
VA Governor: Ralph Northam
MA-07 Primary: Mike Capuano
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines