• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
kellyb said:
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...mericans-support-medicare-for-all-health-care
The only argument is over what form of UHC it should be.

eta:
I picked one of your links at random:
https://www.politico.com/story/2007/08/roves-patented-strategies-will-endure-005375 ("Rove's patented strategies will endure") and literally none of that is about messaging.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you don't get it about the Rove Playbook. Here's what you missed:
Microtargeting became the rage of the 2004 campaign after Rove green-lighted a project to use a wider array of databases to identify potential Bush voters. The campaign bought data that allowed it to cross-reference religious affiliations, shopping habits and club memberships to unearth pockets of Bush supporters in normally hostile or inscrutable areas.
Click to expand...
If you recall, Cambridge Analytica did just that. Messaging includes the receiver. It's not like one size fits all or one only needs to consider the message and not the target market.

About your poll:
The poll, conducted by Hill.TV and the HarrisX polling company, found that 42 percent of respondents said they "strongly" supported the proposal, while 28 percent said they "somewhat" supported it.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what "somewhat supported it" means except that the poll questions were over-generalized.

IIRC, you are a diehard Sanders fan. I said he would lose to Clinton, and he did. Why? Because the revolution he's trying to sell isn't going to sell.

If we're lucky, whoever we nominate will win because Trump is so bad. Then we might benefit from a Warren nominee. But it won't be Warren winning, it will be Trump losing.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
And?

Every politician gets pushed and pulled in various directions. Every politician moves back and forth in response. So what?
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not making that huge a deal of it. If you read the parent comment to that response chain you'd see my point.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
If we're lucky, whoever we nominate will win because Trump is so bad. Then we might benefit from a Warren nominee. But it won't be Warren winning, it will be Trump losing.
Click to expand...

It's richly and hilariously ironic that you're saying that in the context of a frontrunner whose basic message is "Dream Big, Fight Hard", when your preferred candidates, who are doing quite poorly indeed, seem to be sticking to something more like "Aim Low, Let the Republicans Come to You."
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Did anyone see that horrendous story about McConnell holding a decades long grudge because Bork wasn't confirmed, which McConnell then got his revenge by blocking Obama's rightful SCOTUS nomination?

Could be McConnell's hatred of Obama had something to do with it as well. I'd bet you McConnell dislikes blacks. I'd guess he was racist but he's married to an Asian. Is there a name for that? Selective racism?
Click to expand...


What does disliking blacks have to do with Asians? Being racist doesn't necessarily make one a white supremacist. One can have more selective hate.

I don't recall hearing of any "Thai Only" drinking fountains down south, or making them sit in the back of the bus. The racism towards blacks in this country dwarfs that of any other race.

That's why I don't like the term "people of color" that's been getting a lot of use recently. As if all non-white people are one big group, and as if all "white people" were as well. Talk about a divisive term! Us vs Them! I don't like that at all, but I'm sure many people do. It works juuust fine for their purposes.

My family is mainly from Italy, soooo that makes me white? It sure as hell didn't 120 years ago when my ancestors arrived! No white privilege there, oh nosirree!

As for this thread topic:

My hope is that Trump resigns at some point as I do not want him reelected, and I also do not want any of these aged Dem nutcases to run the country either.

An election between him and these bozos is not what I want.

A resignation means no more Trump but it also means that these nuts will have to run against someone else. If a dem happens to win so be it, but if the Republicans do I'd like it to not be Trump.

A Trump resignation THEN an election is the best path forward I think. My opinion. It should be for dems too for the same reason - in case Repubs win.
 
my prediction on a Trump loss on 2020 doesn't depend on messaging by the Dems.

It's the fact that Trump has lost most of the cheerleaders in the media since 2015/16. Which means that Trump will have to spend is campaign chest on people without either skill or conservative credentials.
Secondly, people who usually don't vote came out for Trump in the belief that 'This time is different': by now they know it's not, at least not in the way they had hoped. The enthusiasm of the Alt-Right has turned to nihilism; 2016 was the brief window in which the radical right thought that they might get their way through political means - and it has passed.
2020 will see much less enthusiasm for Trump.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm sorry you don't get it about the Rove Playbook. Here's what you missed:If you recall, Cambridge Analytica did just that. Messaging includes the receiver. It's not like one size fits all or one only needs to consider the message and not the target market.

About your poll:You have no idea what "somewhat supported it" means except that the poll questions were over-generalized.

IIRC, you are a diehard Sanders fan. I said he would lose to Clinton, and he did. Why? Because the revolution he's trying to sell isn't going to sell.

If we're lucky, whoever we nominate will win because Trump is so bad. Then we might benefit from a Warren nominee. But it won't be Warren winning, it will be Trump losing.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that Booker is using micro-targeting?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Oof, the Onion still has that biting edge.

Buttigieg is a mystery to me. I understand Biden and his bizarre conservative-democrat ideology. He's literally a politician from a previous era.

Buttigieg is a different story. His pandering to some "mainstream center" is a real head-scratcher.
Click to expand...
Maybe because that is where the attainable votes that are not already firmly in one column or the other reside?

The Left, being totally disgusted with Trump, is already fired up to turn out in great number against him.
The Right, knowing this, will make great effort to turn out their own base.
I think we will see record turnout levels on all sides.

If Buttigieg knows that he cannot get the left more fired up than we already are without having a reciprocal effect of helping to fire up the right to a greater extent, where is he to look for votes?

Electability matters, and he knows this.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Oof, the Onion still has that biting edge.

Buttigieg is a mystery to me. I understand Biden and his bizarre conservative-democrat ideology. He's literally a politician from a previous era.

Buttigieg is a different story. His pandering to some "mainstream center" is a real head-scratcher.
Click to expand...

He strikes me the same way Hillary Clinton did: he wants the office so he tailors his positions to what his research and focus groups indicate are the positions to have. Whether he's guessing correctly or not on those positions doesn't matter to me, I prefer to vote for people who already have positions and are trying to sell the public on them. The only product Butts seems to be selling is himself. But we've already got better products for the same price so...
 
Distracted1 said:
Maybe because that is where the attainable votes that are not already firmly in one column or the other reside?

The Left, being totally disgusted with Trump, is already fired up to turn out in great number against him.
The Right, knowing this, will make great effort to turn out their own base.
I think we will see record turnout levels on all sides.

If Buttigieg knows that he cannot get the left more fired up than we already are without having a reciprocal effect of helping to fire up the right to a greater extent, where is he to look for votes?

Electability matters, and he knows this.
Click to expand...

I think the size of the "milquetoast, technocratic centrist" base is largely overstated.

Tragic monkey hits the nail on the head. Buttigieg reminds me a lot of HRC, who's political ideology seems to have been made incoherent through tedious focus-testing and centrist needle threading. It's the plain white bread of politics, acceptable to all, but nothing to get excited about.
 
I think in "Ye Old Days" the idea was to when running for the primary to lean into extremes from your party; everybody you're talking to is already going to vote for a Democrat so your best bet when trying to break out from the other Democrats is to be the most Democratically Democratic Democrat who ever Democrated.

If you get the nomination then you shift into "Moderate McModerateFace"

Problem is I think everyone kind of knows that you can't do that anymore in the 24 hour, always on, social media days but nobody knows exactly what to do now.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Oof, the Onion still has that biting edge.

Buttigieg is a mystery to me. I understand Biden and his bizarre conservative-democrat ideology. He's literally a politician from a previous era.

Buttigieg is a different story. His pandering to some "mainstream center" is a real head-scratcher.
Click to expand...
Specifically, in what way is he pandering? Is there something in particular he said that's panderific?
 
JoeMorgue said:
I think in "Ye Old Days" the idea was to when running for the primary to lean into extremes from your party; everybody you're talking to is already going to vote for a Democrat so your best bet when trying to break out from the other Democrats is to be the most Democratically Democratic Democrat who ever Democrated.

If you get the nomination then you shift into "Moderate McModerateFace"

Problem is I think everyone kind of knows that you can't do that anymore in the 24 hour, always on, social media days but nobody knows exactly what to do now.
Click to expand...

Republicans can't do that anymore. Democrats can.
Warren can run on her "I am a true Republican, the current GOP has moved to the Right Extreme" if she wants to.
A former Republican as President is better than a life-long Democrat for moderates who need a reason to vote for her.
 
TragicMonkey said:
He strikes me the same way Hillary Clinton did: he wants the office so he tailors his positions to what his research and focus groups indicate are the positions to have. Whether he's guessing correctly or not on those positions doesn't matter to me, I prefer to vote for people who already have positions and are trying to sell the public on them. The only product Butts seems to be selling is himself. But we've already got better products for the same price so...
Click to expand...

He and Hillary are also the kind of person who if you pointed this out to them they would immediately gather a focus group to ask if you are right or not.

I mentioned before how that's the only way the inanity of Trump, someone who lies slightly more often then he breathes, has such a reputation as someone who "Tell it like it is." When (most or at least some) Trumpers argue the "I like him because he tells it like it is" nonsense they aren't being literal, they don't mean "honesty" they mean directness, lack of polish.

Trump won because nobody realized a lot of people would rather see someone cheat at baseball then play Moneyball.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I think in "Ye Old Days" the idea was to when running for the primary to lean into extremes from your party; everybody you're talking to is already going to vote for a Democrat so your best bet when trying to break out from the other Democrats is to be the most Democratically Democratic Democrat who ever Democrated.

If you get the nomination then you shift into "Moderate McModerateFace"

Problem is I think everyone kind of knows that you can't do that anymore in the 24 hour, always on, social media days but nobody knows exactly what to do now.
Click to expand...
I confess to being of two minds about that. Largely because I think Trump is so anomalous.
And, FWIW, so was HRC (she was despised by the right for years- and a terrible selection)

Trumps' repugnance to so much of the country has given the Democrats what is perhaps their best opportunity in decades to possibly create a large shift to the left in one fell swoop.
I would be happy about this- but I feel like it is quite the gamble, and I am loathe to suffer the consequence of having it not pay off.
So I ask myself, "which of the current batch of candidates would defeat Romney, McCain, or even Bob Dole, if they were the Republican nominee?"

I don't see any of the "baseline" Republicans losing the general election to Sanders or Warren. They are too far left.
A "milquetoast technocrat" without much of a history- or with a "milquetoast" history would be the best bet against a mainstream Republican, and I think will also have the best chance against Trump. Someone the right can't portray as wanting to "give everything away".
 
JoeMorgue said:
In politics any reaching out to any group that isn't "you" is pandering.
Click to expand...
What with this ostensibly being a forum for critical thinkers with an ethic for supporting claims with evidence, I think that when we have something to say about a candidate, or anyone for that matter, the onus is on the poster to provide specific evidence. Otherwise I tend to interpret comments such as "X is pandering" to actually mean "X is not my preferred candidate".
 
Distracted1 said:
I confess to being of two minds about that. Largely because I think Trump is so anomalous.
And, FWIW, so was HRC (she was despised by the right for years- and a terrible selection)

Trumps' repugnance to so much of the country has given the Democrats what is perhaps their best opportunity in decades to possibly create a large shift to the left in one fell swoop.
I would be happy about this- but I feel like it is quite the gamble, and I am loathe to suffer the consequence of having it not pay off.
So I ask myself, "which of the current batch of candidates would defeat Romney, McCain, or even Bob Dole, if they were the Republican nominee?"

I don't see any of the "baseline" Republicans losing the general election to Sanders or Warren. They are too far left.
A "milquetoast technocrat" without much of a history- or with a "milquetoast" history would be the best bet against a mainstream Republican, and I think will also have the best chance against Trump. Someone the right can't portray as wanting to "give everything away".
Click to expand...

Ah, but you're overlooking one thing: the shrill, mindless crapulence of Republicans. No matter who the Democrat candidate is the right will declare them the second coming of Lenin. So since the Dem is going to get that treatment anyway, why not go ahead and make it a good one? Why bother trying to compromise when the other side is determined in advance to reject all compromise?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom