He is "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II
- Thread starter Skeptic Ginger
- Start date
- Status
He is "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
First of all, I was responding to another poster who had suggested Democrats never learn from their mistakes by picking 'moderate' candidates. I was just illustrating that moderate candidates can and do find success with the Democrats.
Secondly, there are some people who think Hillary Clinton was campaigning fairly far to the left (possibly forced to adopt policies thanks to Sanders) compared to where Bill Clinton had campaigned. For example, she came out against the TPP, wanted a rise in the minimum wage to $12/$15,
Further to the left than some previous presidental candidates, not further to the left when compared to many congress critters and/or Democratic voters.
Moderate success.
Some people think the moon landings were fake. She was as middle of the road as she could be without having to turn in her D.
A lot of words to carry such a light load.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
If being mutli-term presidents (you know, the position that allows the holder to nominate judges, veto legislation, and set foreign policy) is "moderate success" then I hope the Democrats have all the 'moderate success' that they can handle.
Seriously, what else were you expecting?
From: https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-hillary-clinton-left-20160329-story.html
A group of 3,000 people surveyed by the Rand Corp. in December rated Clinton as being about as liberal as the average registered Democrat. The group was asked again just this month after voting in the contentious primary had gotten underway and Clinton had seemed to shift left to regain her footing as Sanders had begun winning states.
...
After Clinton’s big wins on Super Tuesday...the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal powerhouse, announced the night was hardly a disappointment for the grass roots....co-founder Adam Green told reporters, Clinton was no longer the centrist candidate she was when the race began. ...To support his argument, Green offers a laundry list of positions Clinton has taken: her call to jail rogue Wall Street bankers, to break up “too big to fail” banks, to expand Social Security, to make public universities debt-free. He points out how Clinton sought to get to the left of Sanders on several of these issues.
From:https://www.npr.org/2016/04/02/472434968/has-bernie-sanders-pulled-hillary-clinton-to-the-left
When asked, a spokesman for the Sanders campaign listed off several areas where Clinton has moved: trade, climate change, social security, Wall Street reform and the minimum wage. But Clinton's camp isn't buying it. "No, I don't think he's pushed her," said pollster Joel Benenson, a Clinton strategist..."I think she has said repeatedly, she's a progressive who likes to get things done."
So, the Sander's campaign saying "she's more leftist now". Members of a Left-wing group saying "she's more leftist now". And the Clinton campaign itself adopting the 'progressive' label.
Is this a case of you adopting such a far left-wing position with complete ideological purity that anyone that doesn't completely conform to your mindset is somehow right-wing?
And you gave very few words that managed to carry even less weight.
Mine was an accurate assessment.
If 21% of the senate is more "liberal" than Obama, and the democrats made up roughly half the senate, then Obama was pretty much in the middle of the pack of democrats. Certainly not someone who was a 'far left' radical.
Biden is too gaffe-prone and utterly uninspiring.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
It's not the milquetoast candidates, it's their utter failure to produce decent marketing of said candidates.
And if they don't figure out how to market this time, the GOP will run right over us.
Some evidence that going further left would have been worse in the general election.
Yes, she had to pander left to secure the nomination, but did she campaign hard on those policies in the general, was there a real shift in her policies. I don't think we will ever know, but it certainly felt like she was being pulled from "conservative democrat" to "look how progressive I am" just to keep Sanders at bay.
No. I voted for her and would vote for her again if she were running. But that doesn't mean she isn't a centrist democrat.
Right. And I think we will agree that he is the most liberal democratic presidential candidate in recent history. And he got 52.9% of the vote. You have to go back to LBJ a year after JFKs assassination to find a democrat with a better percentage of the popular vote. If you skip that one due to the understandable sentimental issues at play, keep going back to FDR.
The most liberal is also the most popular.
Yet the take away is that we should be less liberal. OK. You have any bridges for sale?
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
Funny thing is, I've never met anyone who believed her about that. Absolutely nobody.
Did you?
Did anyone else here?
angrysoba
Philosophile
Give me Trotsky, or I don’t votsky!
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
On another note, the DNC has emailed out requests for debate questions. I don't think my proposed question will get much attention but you never know:
Do you have a marketing plan/team to deal with the powerful propaganda attacks and lies you know will saturate social media and also the mainstream media?
Do you have a marketing plan/team to deal with the powerful propaganda attacks and lies you know will saturate social media and also the mainstream media?
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
From: https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/20677656/donald-trump-moderate-extremism-penalty
The hoary old chestnut that moderate candidates do better at the polls than relatively extreme ones is well supported in the academic literature. In 2002, for example, Brandice Canes-Wrone, David Brady, and John Cogan found that the more an incumbent House member breaks with party leadership on roll call votes, the better he does on Election Day. Andrew Hall in 2015 looked at very close congressional primaries and found that moderate candidates who narrowly win the nomination do better in the general election than extreme candidates who narrowly win the nomination. A follow-up paper he wrote with Daniel Thompson suggests this is because certain folk theories about base mobilization are mistaken, and extreme nominees “fire up” the other side’s base and increase opposition turnout.
From: https://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com/Hall_Snyder_Ideology.pdf
This paper examines the relationship between ideological position and electoral success in U.S. elections.... In general elections moderate candidates tend to receive more votes, and win more often, than extremists.
Whatever reason she had for trying to put forward left wing policies, it did seem to give her the reputation of a 'leftist/liberal'.
From: https://www.people-press.org/2016/0...didates-traits-ideology-and-impact-on-issues/
Most voters (58%) say Clinton has liberal views on almost all or most issues. Just 28% say Clinton has a mix of liberal and conservative positions...Perceptions of Trump’s ideology are more divided: 44% say he has conservative views on almost all issues or most issues, while 40% say he has a mix of conservative and liberal positions.
So, your average voter saw Clinton as more 'liberal' than saw Trump as more 'conservative'.
No, I don't think we agree that he is the "most liberal democratic candidate in recent history".
I'd say Dukakis was further to the left than Obama in some respects (crime issues, plus he had a reputation for 'tax and spend'), especially when you consider how the political spectrum has shifted over time. And the democrats lost horribly to Bush.
Go ahead. Pick the most left-wing candidate you can find. Pat yourself on the back for your willingness to stand up for your principles.
Just don't be surprised if you end up losing the election because you have both lost moderates, and energized the republican base by picking someone who can turn Republicans from 'Meh... not sure if I want to vote' to 'OMG! Gotta stop the far left Democrats!'
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
Honest question: how would you recommend they deal with that?
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
I'm sure it was true almost 20 years ago. The 90's and early 2ks were the age of centrist supremacy, for sure.
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
I don't know if you've noticed, but that "someone" is anyone who runs as a Democrat.
All democrats are "far left" to Republicans.
Hillary Clinton was never seen as anything BUT a far-left Democrat to Republicans. Same with Obama.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
First of all, do you have any reason why it wouldn't be true today?
While the U.S. does seem to be more polarized now than it was in the past, there is no reason to believe that election turnout (the reason why extreme candidates fail) wouldn't still be affected at least to some degree.
Secondly, look at my posting. The reference I gave posted multiple studies, the latest being done in 2015. Which is a lot more recent than "almost 20 years ago".
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, I'm sure whomever the Democrats pick will subsequently be demonized as the second coming of Marx by the republicans, and many in their base will believe it.
But, the impact will not be universal. Some (even most) will do everything they can to stop the 'Evil Librul Democrats', others will actually be less energized, unless they can see an actual threat (such as Sanders taking away people's private insurance.) Granted we are only talking about a minority of Republicans, but when you have elections that are decided on only a few thousand votes in a couple of swing states, then even getting a few of the less eager republicans to sit out the 2020 election can make a difference.
After all, despite significant evidence that Trump was a racist, many african American voters who had supported Obama sat out the 2016 election. Sometimes motivation matters.
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
There are more independents now, for one thing, and you can look at the changes in how they lean:
https://www.people-press.org/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/
There's been a huge growth in the "lean democrat" type. From 10% in 2002, to 17% in 2018. (A 64% increase).
The economics of "fiscal conservatism" has proven false since the housing crash. Stuff like that almost has to be behind this, I think:
https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/battleground-favorability
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
I don't know if anyone here would have believed it. But, we're not exactly typical of the American electorate. I suspect a large portion of the general electorate would believe her when she said she was against the TPP.
You are right. That is probably why she got 3 million less votes. Sorry I questioned your thesis.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Hire expertise. The answer I'd like to hear is an admission the Democratic candidates have been weak in this field and they plan to use a team of experts like Cambridge Analytica.
What I don't want to hear is any belief that effectiveness requires dishonesty because it absolutely does not.
- Status