I thought the US had the monopoly on brushes that broad, what with all the repaving required for 8 lane freeways.
2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II
- Thread starter Skeptic Ginger
- Start date
- Status
angrysoba
Philosophile
Wrong. The person making the claim can back it up. I’m not searching to substantiate someone else’s claim.
You can do what you want.
Then lead by example. You’ve claimed two things I haven’t done.
That's not the a totally meaningless quality when it comes to politics.
60% of voters going "meh" is better then 40% shrieking like girls at Beatles concert.
Belz...
Fiend God
Really? I would.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
If 60% isn't enough to win the election then it works out to the same thing anyway. It's always a gamble anyway, so why not go all out? Considering Trump's unpopularity with the left this would be a pretty opportune time to not restrict it to questionably "safe" mediocrity.
angrysoba
Philosophile
I don’t think “The Dems” are over or underestimating anything right now, hence the high number of candidates in the lead. And it is premature to crown Biden as “the choice of the voter base” even though he is the front-runner given that he is still only polling at around 25-30%. Sanders and Warren make up a larger number when combined and they are running on platforms that are largely indistinguishable.
Because the idea that moderates are less important then extreme Democrats is frankly absurd and I don't why that's the narrative the Democrats keep trying to sell that as the narrative.
Scenario 1: The Democrats nominate a safe, milquetoasts, run of the mill, "Human Personification of a early 1990s Beige Volvo Station Wagon" candidate.
Scenario 2: The Democrats nominate a more progressive, forward thinking, more "to the left" candidate.
The idea that somehow Scenario 1 leads to more people voting for Trump in 2020 makes... no... sense.
Nominate Biden. Put one of the "New Generation" Dems as has VP. That's the start of a good long term politically dynasty.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
The risk isn't that would-be Sanders or Warren voters would vote for Trump over Biden, the risk is that they'd just not vote at all, or vote third party.
And "safe, milquetoast, run of the mill" is a terrible way to live. That's how people end up with boring Betty instead of feisty Veronica. Life is risk! Go for what you truly want because it's better to try for greatness and fail than to settle for mediocrity!
Hillary didn't lose the ultra-liberal dense urban cores in 2016, she lost the "Blue Wall" Rust Belt. Those people are going to take to Biden a lot more then Warren.
Not when what we're risking is 4 more years of Trump.
I'm not trading that so the Democrats can create and maintain a power fantasy where the reason they lost in '16 was they just weren't Democrat enough.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
What are you basing that on? Biden's not much different than Clinton, and will be receiving even more of a Republican slander assault than she did because this time Trump's got more time to Tweet.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
What I'm saying is that the so-called "safe" course of Biden actually is riskier than Warren. Clinton was the "safe" one last time and lost. Now that Trump's had a term in and alienated so many I think more people who wouldn't otherwise vote for Warren will, versus the number of people who wouldn't normally vote Same Old Democrat Plod will decide to choke down Biden.
I don't think Trump won because the majority want Extreeem Republican Crazy, I think he won because more people were fed up with the status quo than not. A middle-road Democrat is a return to the status quo.
*Confused* The fact that... that's what happened.
Listen we can't play the "Republicans are going to slander them card." That's gonna happen regardless.
Trump knows what's at stake here. He knows if he loses the Presidency or the Republicans lose the Senate there is a very, very real chance he's going to prison.
2016 ain't gonna have nothing on 2020 for how dirty an election can get. No matter what candidate they go for the Democrats better let their balls drop before then.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I mean what makes you think they'll vote for Biden this time?
My point is that Biden's going to be just as hard to sell as Clinton was, and Clinton lost. Everything you've suggested has been "we should do exactly what we tried last time even though it didn't work". How many more iterations are you willing to go through following the "sensible" course to failure?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
There is an undeniable difference: Clinton had been demonized for decades, in a way that no other candidate has experienced. There was/is a hatred for her that is semi-unique.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Not exactly. I want a good president, one worth having. Not another shifty hypocritical plutocrat to serve the banks. Biden's is a boring sort of evil. A facade of dullness is a useful mask. Warren may be an idealist and her ideas may not work but she does seem to be honest about them and willing to try.
You had a Blue Wall of states, basically the Democrats one big stronghold of "safe" states outside of the West Coast and the Northeast, that had voted in the Presidential Election for the Democratic Candidate going back to I wanna say 1992 (might have been 96 for a few of them)
In 2016 three of those states went Red, a major factor (perhaps "the" major factor) in her losing the election.
Those states didn't go Red because Hillary Clinton wasn't liberal enough. That makes no sense.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
True, but that hatred was held by the people that wouldn't have voted Democrat regardless. What does it matter if a person loathes Clinton and only mildly dislikes Biden if they're going to vote for Trump anyway? It's like how the depth of a lake doesn't matter to someone floating on the surface, whether it's ten feet deep or a thousand they're at the same elevation.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
It does if the reason was a lower left-inclined voter turnout.
- Status