• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Williamoson deleted tweet a bout how power of the mind can turn a hurricane away is not going over well. Might well hasten her political demise..which can't happen soon enough for me.
We have enough religious wackjobs in the GOP:we don't need them in the Democratic Party.
 
Williamoson deleted tweet a bout how power of the mind can turn a hurricane away is not going over well. Might well hasten her political demise..which can't happen soon enough for me.
We have enough religious wackjobs in the GOP:we don't need them in the Democratic Party.
There are plenty of others, of course.

And all of the Democrat Party candidates are evil Socialists. Heck, the Dems could nominate a ticket of Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon and they'd be declared socialists.
 
CNN only let me watch a short bit before asking me for a subscription login. I caught an outtro, commercial gap, and about 7-8 minutes of Sanders sounding about as tired of repeating himself as I am of hearing him (just being honest).
 
Yes, I get it... hillary won the popular vote.

Yet she still lost the election, and she did so against a person who was completely unsuitable for the office of president.

Now, would Hillary have won had she actually had policies closer to the political center? Honestly, I don't know... Statistically, people who are moderate have more success during general elections, but exceptions do occur, and presidential elections are relatively rare events.

Her policies were not the problem.

It was a massive demonizing campaign against her, Comey's stupid decisions, Cambridge Analytica's data mining expertise put to use micro-targeting including propaganda aimed at encouraging Obama supporters not to vote, all topped off with Clinton's team's lack of skill modernizing their campaign tactics.

And to keep this on-topic, the point is, focusing only on policies and not on all the other issues of campaigning, including with the social media aspect of modern elections is a losing formula.

Remember when Kennedy out-performed Nixon in the TV debates because he refused make-up and he was sweating while Kennedy looked cool, calm, and collected?

Nixon learned from that and the next time he ran there was "The Selling of the President".

When are the stupid Democrats going to learn and modernize their campaigns?

More than a few people told me, Obama moved the ball. Sure, he effectively used the internet to raise money. That was the extent of it. His popularity did result in social media users spreading the word, but it wasn't a concerted campaign effort from the top.

Clinton failed miserably to notice that she was being attacked by trolls and bots. They didn't need the FBI to tell them that, they should have noticed it was happening. They could have hired data analyzers to map out the activity. There were (and are) plenty of them around.

So much for Obama moving the ball, Clinton got sacked. And they used a seriously outdated campaign tactic of ignoring attacks on the premise said attacks got more attention if you tried to address them. That is no longer the right tactic.

And raising money via email, OMG, I'm bombarded with so many requests for money, all using terrible techniques like constant push polls, I bet it's a lot less effective than if they stopped badgering. Bernie is still doing well because his fundraising involves social media, not just emails. Steyer's money raising is doing well because he started with the impeachment focus and TV ads.

Most of the Democratic candidates are still floundering, akin to Nixon sweating in front of the TV cameras.
 
Last edited:
That's not the only difference. For example, I think there's a significant number of Trump voters who are sick of the "establishment" candidates and a big deciding factor is they want to go outside the establishment. Pick an establishment candidate like Biden and they'll stick with Trump. Pick someone who's at least perceived as outside the establishment like Sanders or Warren and some of these Trump voters just might switch over.
That was the theme in 2016. The Democrats ought to easily campaign on "look what you got, a nut job".

But Biden is absolutely (IMO of course) the wrong person to sell that message. He'll be seen by a lot of people as the reason Trump won and I don't think people want to go back. They want to go forward. They just need a good salesperson working on that message.
 
Her policies were not the problem.

<snip>

No question on the media strategy in all its various forms.

Including insidious ones cooked up by Putin.

But the basic question of why things kept tightening up repeatedly* (with the "amplitude" of difference between them getting smaller each time) still isn't answered by all of these strategic considerations.

Here's the problem:

What was her message?



*If you look at the national polling and allow in your mind an even 2-3% skew in the surgically-targeted districts we know of, it looks like a a very competitive race down the last 3-4 months.
 
Last edited:
No question on the media strategy in all its various forms.

Including insidious ones cooked up by Putin.

But the basic question of why things kept tightening up repeatedly* (with the "amplitude" of difference between them getting smaller each time) still isn't answered by all of these strategic considerations.

Here's the problem:

What was her message?
*If you look at the national polling and allow in your mind an even 2-3% skew in the surgically-targeted districts we know of, it looks like a a very competitive race down the last 3-4 months.
The highlighted is very much part of the failed marketing I am talking about.
 
Last edited:
The highlighted is very much the failed marketing I am talking about.
I haven't been keeping up but I can think of what might be an effective strategy but would probably be seen as risky. And that is rebranding what some people seem to consider "far left," thanks to very consistent messaging by the Republican Party.

Universal health care is not far left.
Safeguarding our elections is not far left.
Standing with allies is not far left.
Standing up to dictators is not far left.
Affordable education is not far left.
A non-political Supreme Court is not far left.
Background checks are not far left.

The above issues largely have to do with branding themselves as centrists. Some people will say that is the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

When Democratic candidates talk about free college, are they also talking about free tuition at trade schools? IMO they need to frame issues in ways that appeal to conservative values. Because Democrats are actually more conservative than the Republicans are at the moment. Blowing up trade relationships is not conservative. Neither IMO is outlawing abortion at this point.
 
Secondly, I don't really see any justification about why a "lean democrat" voter would be any more or less likely to vote for an extremist candidate. To me, it would seem like an extremist candidate would be more of a turn-off for them, since if they're only 'leaning democrat' then they might be amiable to the republicans, depending on the situation.

Lean Democrat just means that they're independents that are much more aligned with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, not that they're in some "center" or "is reasonably likely to go either way" position. Thus, your reasoning here is a bit wrong-headed. You may as well try to make a point out of the fact that if someone is only a registered Democrat, not one of the core campaigners, then they might be amiable to the Republicans, depending on the situation. It'd be just as true and just as meaningless.

Specifically the banks. The banks loved the Clintons and Biden. They don't like Warren.

Its not just the banks, for that matter. Companies that effectively hold monopolies don't want her.

In other news...


Tracking disinformation: How RWNJs tried to smear Beto O'Rourke during Odessa shooting


For if one wants a peek at a bit of the current GOP disinformation machine.
 
I haven't been keeping up but I can think of what might be an effective strategy but would probably be seen as risky. And that is rebranding what some people seem to consider "far left," thanks to very consistent messaging by the Republican Party.

Universal health care is not far left.
Safeguarding our elections is not far left.
Standing with allies is not far left.
Standing up to dictators is not far left.
Affordable education is not far left.
A non-political Supreme Court is not far left.
Background checks are not far left.
<snip>
Good point. No matter who the Dems pick, we know they will be yelling SOCIALISM all day long. They need to counter that with specific examples that are know to have high approval ratings yet that are anathema to the GOP.
 
From that link it is not clear to me what "go after" really means. Supposing they do find something, I dunno, dirty(?), about some reporter, so what. Will the very media they are targeting print the dirt. I doubt it.

The whole thing sounds like, "Way, way, some in the media don't like us." It's just another effort to pry money out of the fat cats to enrich the "campaign consultant" class.

Really short version? They're overtly looking for potential blackmail and material they think they can use to discredit opponents. Would the very media they're targeting print the dirt? Yes. Maybe not that particular news outlet, but Fox? Breitbart? They'd do it with glee, before getting to social media and the right-wing disinformation machine.
 
Williamoson deleted tweet a bout how power of the mind can turn a hurricane away is not going over well. Might well hasten her political demise..which can't happen soon enough for me.
We have enough religious wackjobs in the GOP:we don't need them in the Democratic Party.
It may have been difficult to explain how the power of love caused the Bahamas to be scraped off the earth.
 
From that link it is not clear to me what "go after" really means. Supposing they do find something, I dunno, dirty(?), about some reporter, so what. Will the very media they are targeting print the dirt. I doubt it.
The whole thing sounds like, "Way, way, some in the media don't like us." It's just another effort to pry money out of the fat cats to enrich the "campaign consultant" class.

I'm pretty sure the right wing media machine will print it. And that's a pretty significant machine.
 
Can the discussion move back to the topic rather than a discussion of what was discussed? These sidebar wranglings are deadening to participation. And probably brain cells.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom