THE DEMOCRATS DILEMMA

GL2 said:
When I think back to when 18-yr-olds got the vote (“we can die in war but can’t vote!”) and look at % who now vote, I could cry. 
We need a centered centrist in ‘20. If we consider who progressive candidates appeal to, and then look at the voting records of those groups, we lose. 

 The counter argument is that they do not vote because the candidates are not progressive enough.

I started this thread thinking about Congressional Candidates but here is the dilemma about selecting a Presidential Candidate or how that Candidate should run.

Assuming he or she is running against Trump should the Democratic Candidate be combative and hit back exchanging blow for blow with Trump, or should he/she present a contract to Trump by being serious and sober?

Both. Obama was good at going hand-to-hand when necessary and staying above the fray when called for. Reagan had similar skills, though his direct hits came across rather genial.

LOST said:
I started this thread thinking about Congressional Candidates but here is the dilemma about selecting a Presidential Candidate or how that Candidate should run.
Assuming he or she is running against Trump should the Democratic Candidate be combative and hit back exchanging blow for blow with Trump, or should he/she present a contract to Trump by being serious and sober?

a person has to fight back.  Look what Trump did to Jeb and Little Marco. 

LOST said:

GL2 said:
When I think back to when 18-yr-olds got the vote (“we can die in war but can’t vote!”) and look at % who now vote, I could cry. 
We need a centered centrist in ‘20. If we consider who progressive candidates appeal to, and then look at the voting records of those groups, we lose. 

 The counter argument is that they do not vote because the candidates are not progressive enough.

 It's this.  Turnout was the Democrats' problem in 2016.  It's not as though trying to stand for even less than they did in '16 is going to excite anyone who didn't vote then.  

"We're not as liberal as you think we are!" is not a winning strategy.  

The party needs to take a page out of the GOP handbook and come out forcefully on what they believe in, and what they plan to do.  The Republicans unapologetically endorse a whole array of unpopular and/or nutty ideas and still win.  And some of them mix in overt racism and misogyny to boot.  And yet they win elections.

There were many anti Hillary people last election --- not just pro-Trumpers.  If the dems do not want to lose voters, they need to have a less polarizing and controversial (whether real or not) candidate.  

And even though Hillary won the popular vote by 3,000,000, most of that margin came from a few states.  She pretty much lost every swing state as well as a few states that were considered "safe'.  

She was a horrible candidate --- and that is a mistake the dems can not afford to do again.  

One can also argue that Trump was a "horrible" candidate, saying and doing things that would have ended campaigns just a few years ago. But his base saw that open SC seat and other issues and didn't stay home.

I don't know which of the potential Dem candidates is going to appeal to most voters. Hopefully for both '18 and '20 Dems remember what happened in '16 when they stayed home because they didn't love the nominee. Isn't it that simple? If everyone who supported Obama, Hillary and Bernie shows up in '18 and '20 and votes for the party (along with newly registered young people and people of color) that should return the WH and at least one house of Congress to the Dems. The message to voters needs to be, you can't make up excuses to stay home on election day.

mikescott said:

She was a horrible candidate --- and that is a mistake the dems can not afford to do again.  

 Whoever the Democrats nominate the Republicans will say that he or she 

"is worse than Hillary"!

In the new world of elections, a “horrible” candidate might, in fact, be the best qualified for the job. The personality level, however, seems to be a key factor: that supercharged, bright, undeniable force that can counteract the GOP without seeming at all deferential. Who is that?

LOST said:

mikescott said:

She was a horrible candidate --- and that is a mistake the dems can not afford to do again.  

 Whoever the Democrats nominate the Republicans will say that he or she 
"is worse than Hillary"!

Who cares what Republicans say.  If the Democrats nominate a sensible candidate any comparison with HRC will ring hollow.  

The real dilemma could very well be the fact that the Democrats don't appeal to the white segregationists who seem to be the majority. Trump tapped into their hatred. Trump gave them the energy to get out and vote.

This strategy worked well for Hitler.

Bloomberg, Biden or bust.

Bloomberg is terrible. We don’t need another authoritarian billionaire. 

Please. No retreads. This is not creative thinking.

lord_pabulum said:

LOST said:

 Whoever the Democrats nominate the Republicans will say that he or she 
"is worse than Hillary"!

Who cares what Republicans say.  If the Democrats nominate a sensible candidate any comparison with HRC will ring hollow.  

 Not to Trump's base nor to those who pay little attention.

When we go high they still go low.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/in-tennessee-a-microcosm-of-the-midterms.html 

LOST said:




When we go high they still go low.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/in-tennessee-a-microcosm-of-the-midterms.html 

Not really. I don't respect him, his weakness. Why would he say wants to work with someone that represents everything he's against?

She's deplorable but blunt. She said bluntly, in the most unpleasant way, that his values are not her values and therefore she is not interested in working with him.

What's next? We'll have some Neo-Nazi running with the opponent mouthing I'll work with the Nazi should he win?

I'm tired of having establishment candidates like Menendez forced down our throats.  The party leaders should let candidates get weeded out in the primaries, not by backroom deals.

yahooyahoo said:
I'm tired of having establishment candidates like Menendez forced down our throats.  The party leaders should let candidates get weeded out in the primaries, not by backroom deals.

I agree. Do you think Lisa would’ve won against the Republican Challenger? I voted for her in the Primary, she had an incredible turnout but to beat Hugin? 

yahooyahoo said:
I'm tired of having establishment candidates like Menendez forced down our throats.  The party leaders should let candidates get weeded out in the primaries, not by backroom deals.

 Am I wrong, but wasn't it the primary that weeded out McCormick, selected Menendez?

BG9 said:

LOST said:




When we go high they still go low.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/in-tennessee-a-microcosm-of-the-midterms.html 

Not really. I don't respect him, his weakness. Why would he say wants to work with someone that represents everything he's against?
She's deplorable but blunt. She said bluntly, in the most unpleasant way, that his values are not her values and therefore she is not interested in working with him.
What's next? We'll have some Neo-Nazi running with the opponent mouthing I'll work with the Nazi should he win?

 So you agree with Holder.

But they were asked their reaction if the other person wins. One accepted that the winner is the winner. The other was proud to be a sore loser. Were they being honest or did each answered the way that he/she thought would go over best with the voters.

There is only one professed Neo-Nazi running for Congress this year. He's running on the Republican ticket in an overwhelmingly Democratic District. The Republican Party has disavowed him. OTOH the Democratic candidate is one of the most conservative members of the Democratic Caucus.

BG9 said:

yahooyahoo said:
I'm tired of having establishment candidates like Menendez forced down our throats.  The party leaders should let candidates get weeded out in the primaries, not by backroom deals.

 Am I wrong, but wasn't it the primary that weeded out McCormick, selected Menendez?

There were no serious challengers to Menendez because party leaders lined up behind him way before the primaries. As a result, the big money followed Menendez. 

https://theintercept.com/2018/06/04/democrats-set-to-re-nominate-sen-bob-menendez-after-preventing-challengers-showing-how-calcified-the-party-is/

"But a mere four months later, Hopkins announced he was dropping his bid. The reason? He could not raise anywhere near the money needed to mount a credible challenge because, as Politico put it, Menendez “has the support of virtually all of the top Democrats in the state.” In his letter announcing his withdrawal, Hopkins wrote: “In a campaign system such as we have that is stacked against the average guy seeking public office to challenge an incumbent, prodigious fundraising is practically the only way to get the traction needed to keep a campaign afloat.”

The speed and unanimity with which Democratic leaders rallied to endorse Menendez’s re-election was dizzying."

In thinking about Centrists and Independents (yes, I do realize they can be different), I thought that rather than simply writing off those who choose not to affiliate with a party, I would try to understand their motivations.  Here are a few summarizations about political Independents (not necessarily Centrists) that I found to be interesting, taken from the Pew Foundation, Gallup, and Vox:

1. Independents outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. As of September 2018, 44% of those polled described themselves as Independent, 25% as Republican, and 27% as Democrat.

2. Most independents do have a partisan leaning.  As of September 2018, 44% of Independents leaned Republican and 47% leaned Democrat.

3. Independents tend to be more "anti" than "pro" when it comes to their reasons for leaning.  The most frequently cited factor for leaning toward one party is the perception of potential harm caused by the opposing party’s policies. A majority of Republican leaners (55%) and roughly half of Democratic leaners (51%) cite their belief that the opposing party’s policies are bad for the country as a major reason why they lean toward their party.  By contrast, just 30% of Republican leaners and 34% of Democratic leaners cite a belief that their own party’s policies are good for the country as a major reason why they lean toward that party.  And, based on a comparison of surveys dating back more than two decades through today, that animosity is increasing.

4. Why do Independents choose not to affiliate with a party?  Among Republican leaners, about half (52%) say they do not formally affiliate with the party because of their frustration with its leaders; 40% say it is because they disagree with the party on important issues.  Among Democratic leaners, no single reason stands out.  About 33% say a major reason they do not affiliate with the  party is that they disagree with the party on key issues, while 28% cite frustration with the party’s leadership. And "likeability" matters.  Independents do not necessarily identify with, or feel very warmly about, the party toward which they lean.  Fewer than half of Democratic leaners (45%) have a warm view of the Democratic party and its members. Even fewer Republican leaners (38%) feel warmly about the Republican party and its members.

5. There is a pronounced consensus among Independents that identifying as a strong partisan (either Democrat or Republican) makes a negative impression on others because much of what people see in the news about the parties is ugly. Candidates are angry, and party activists often seem stubborn,  aggressive, and demeaning. The research suggests Independents simply do not want to be associated with that image. [Of course, much of this could be a function of the efforts of each party to label the other.]

6. Independents are not truly independent.  Because they do lean toward one party, they might better be thought of as a segment of that party because they do tend to be likely voters for the candidates of that party.

7. Independents are not disengaged or "wishy washy".   In fact, leaning independents often tend to be more politically engaged and informed than weak partisans.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/05/5-facts-about-americas-political-independents/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814522/independents-voters-facts-myths   

Gets uglier and uglier.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/15/mcsally-sinema-arizona-senate-debate-903266

LOST said:
Gets uglier and uglier.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/15/mcsally-sinema-arizona-senate-debate-903266

 very strange to me that in 2018 the GOP candidate believes that opposition to the Iraq War in '03 was a bad thing. 

yahooyahoo said:

BG9 said:

yahooyahoo said:
I'm tired of having establishment candidates like Menendez forced down our throats.  The party leaders should let candidates get weeded out in the primaries, not by backroom deals.

 Am I wrong, but wasn't it the primary that weeded out McCormick, selected Menendez?

There were no serious challengers to Menendez because party leaders lined up behind him way before the primaries. As a result, the big money followed Menendez. 
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/04/democrats-set-to-re-nominate-sen-bob-menendez-after-preventing-challengers-showing-how-calcified-the-party-is/

"But a mere four months later, Hopkins announced he was dropping his bid. The reason? He could not raise anywhere near the money needed to mount a credible challenge because, as Politico put it, Menendez “has the support of virtually all of the top Democrats in the state.” In his letter announcing his withdrawal, Hopkins wrote: “In a campaign system such as we have that is stacked against the average guy seeking public office to challenge an incumbent, prodigious fundraising is practically the only way to get the traction needed to keep a campaign afloat.”
The speed and unanimity with which Democratic leaders rallied to endorse Menendez’s re-election was dizzying."

 Very much the same with Murphy, except that there were qualified alternatives. 

ml1 said:

LOST said:
Gets uglier and uglier.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/15/mcsally-sinema-arizona-senate-debate-903266

 very strange to me that in 2018 the GOP candidate believes that opposition to the Iraq War in '03 was a bad thing. 

 If you are trying to appeal to racist islamophobes it's not so strange. 

mrincredible said:

ml1 said:

LOST said:
Gets uglier and uglier.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/15/mcsally-sinema-arizona-senate-debate-903266

 very strange to me that in 2018 the GOP candidate believes that opposition to the Iraq War in '03 was a bad thing. 

 If you are trying to appeal to racist islamophobes it's not so strange. 

yeah, not so strange. I'm sure if you polled R's, they'd still support the war, and still think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

drummerboy said:

mrincredible said:

ml1 said:

LOST said:
Gets uglier and uglier.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/15/mcsally-sinema-arizona-senate-debate-903266

 very strange to me that in 2018 the GOP candidate believes that opposition to the Iraq War in '03 was a bad thing. 

 If you are trying to appeal to racist islamophobes it's not so strange. 

yeah, not so strange. I'm sure if you polled R's, they'd still support the war, and still think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

The GOP has given up all pretense of appealing to anyone outside the base