Page 3 of 90 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 1784
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by gus View Post
    Lieberman? Hahahaha. Democrats would get absolutely trounced at all levels with someone like that at the top of the ticket. They'd lose dog-catcher elections.

    Democrats nominated a moderate last time. She lost. I don't think it's about where a candidate falls on the left/right spectrum, but whether the candidate can capture peoples' imagination. Look at the candidates that have actually generated excitement and brought people to the polls - I think that's the likelier model going forward: overcoming the systemic biases against voting by generating significant excitement to actually vote. Nelson and Liberman ain't that. Someone like Beto is.
    Agree that Democrats have elected relative moderates, who have run as moderates, since probably Dukakis. That may or may not change this time, but candidates seem to be more showing off their progressive credentials than hiding them now.

    My memory of presidential elections goes back to Reagan-Carter. For better or worse, I think at least since then the candidate with more charisma (by default with H.W. vs. Dukakis) has won each time, whether conservative, moderate, or liberal. That may also change this time in a Trump vs. a Democrat to be named later election.

    I think it would be interesting to do periodic polls (starting bi-monthly) of people's picks of the Republican nominee, Democrat nominee, and if there will be a significant 3rd party nominee and, if so, who.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke79UNLV77 View Post
    Agree that Democrats have elected relative moderates, who have run as moderates, since probably Dukakis. That may or may not change this time, but candidates seem to be more showing off their progressive credentials than hiding them now.

    My memory of presidential elections goes back to Reagan-Carter. For better or worse, I think at least since then the candidate with more charisma (by default with H.W. vs. Dukakis) has won each time, whether conservative, moderate, or liberal. That may also change this time in a Trump vs. a Democrat to be named later election.

    I think it would be interesting to do periodic polls (starting bi-monthly) of people's picks of the Republican nominee, Democrat nominee, and if there will be a significant 3rd party nominee and, if so, who.
    The charisma test is an interesting one. I suppose it is akin to "which candidate would you rather have a beer with?" Though if someone offered me the chance to pound a quaff with Hillary or Donald, I would have stayed home and sipped some hot tea.
       

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    The biggest question is not how much a voter dislikes Trump, it's how much they dislike Trump compared to how much they dislike the Democratic alternative. We answered this question in 2016 with regards to Hillary.

    The Democrats would be well served to find a moderate Democrat in the mold of Liebermann or Nelson that will appeal to those who dislike Trump but will see him as the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, moderates don't do well in primaries. Maybe with more "open" primaries and an electorate trending more and more independent, a moderate candidate could make a push?
    Well, MAYBE. The 2016 election was essentially won by less than 100,000 votes (the combined vote difference in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, the 3 states that swung the election), despite running a very vanilla and pretty moderate (and fairly controversial and unpopular) candidate. With changing demographics, I'm not sure that they (the Dems) necessarily need to lean even more centrist to win. Put another way, Trump won only 46.1% of the popular vote in 2016, compared with 47.2% of the popular vote won by Romney in 2012 and 45.7% of the popular vote won by McCain in 2008. Clinton got 48.1% of the popular vote in 2016 compared with 51.1% for Obama in 2012 and 52.9% for Obama in 2008.

    But if they (the Dems) are going to go with a more progressive candidate than Clinton was (and she wasn't at all progressive), it's going to have to be someone who can draw out some of the support that Obama got. Because they'll need to inspire the progressives in those Midwest states to come out and vote in 2016.

    Now, maybe an argument could be made for a Biden/O'Rourke ticket being a safer bet, sort of splitting the difference between getting a Midwest tough guy to battle with Trump in the swing states and an inspiring progressive as running mate to draw out the progressive vote. Though I'm not sure how much that would do for drawing out the progressive support, in which case you're really hoping that Biden can upgrade the Midwest vote (he'd very likely win Pennsylvania at least) without costing any support elsewhere due to being boring (politically at least, he's entertaining outside of politics) and old.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Now, maybe an argument could be made for a Biden/O'Rourke ticket being a safer bet, sort of splitting the difference between getting a Midwest tough guy to battle with Trump in the swing states and an inspiring progressive as running mate to draw out the progressive vote. Though I'm not sure how much that would do for drawing out the progressive support, in which case you're really hoping that Biden can upgrade the Midwest vote (he'd very likely win Pennsylvania at least) without costing any support elsewhere due to being boring (politically at least, he's entertaining outside of politics) and old.
    I can certainly see how a Biden/Beto ticket would be attractive, but I think the odds are against the Dems putting two white males on the ticket. The Democratic party is increasingly dominated by women and minorities and the Dems cannot win the presidency without strong turnout in those two arenas. Unless Trump looks dead in the water thanks to a withering Mueller report, the Dems will likely say there needs to be some kind of representation of minorities or women on the ticket.

    -Jason "that's why, if she does not get the nomination, I really like Kamala Harris as VP... she checks both boxes" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I can certainly see how a Biden/Beto ticket would be attractive, but I think the odds are against the Dems putting two white males on the ticket. The Democratic party is increasingly dominated by women and minorities and the Dems cannot win the presidency without strong turnout in those two arenas. Unless Trump looks dead in the water thanks to a withering Mueller report, the Dems will likely say there needs to be some kind of representation of minorities or women on the ticket.

    -Jason "that's why, if she does not get the nomination, I really like Kamala Harris as VP... she checks both boxes" Evans
    I wonder if the VP slot would do much to move the dial — either for Democratic voters or Kamala Harris herself? Say Biden were at the top of the ticket, would adding Harris strike core Democratic voters as tokenism?
    Carolina delenda est

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I can certainly see how a Biden/Beto ticket would be attractive, but I think the odds are against the Dems putting two white males on the ticket. The Democratic party is increasingly dominated by women and minorities and the Dems cannot win the presidency without strong turnout in those two arenas. Unless Trump looks dead in the water thanks to a withering Mueller report, the Dems will likely say there needs to be some kind of representation of minorities or women on the ticket.

    -Jason "that's why, if she does not get the nomination, I really like Kamala Harris as VP... she checks both boxes" Evans
    Flip side argument is that if the Dems happen to have white male candidates, it takes away Trump's argument that the election is really a cultural war thing.

    Personally, I think the Dems would be best-served by focusing on core competencies instead of what box a candidate checks. A competent, moderate candidate with some charisma and return to normalcy (whoever that is) should be heavily favored against Trump absent some big upswing for him. The further the Democrats stray from that, the greater degree of difficulty they add IMO.

    Oh, and economic/trade plans that work for the middle class would be a big plus given the looming bumpy road for 2019.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    I wonder if the VP slot would do much to move the dial — either for Democratic voters or Kamala Harris herself? Say Biden were at the top of the ticket, would adding Harris strike core Democratic voters as tokenism?
    The VP pick is almost always about finding balance.

    • Trump was seen as struggling with evangelicals and true conservatives so he picked a Christian conservative in Pense.
    • Hillary was a woman from the Northeast so she took a man from the South in Virginia's Tim Kaine.
    • Obama was a young and inexperienced minority so he picked an experienced white Senator in Biden.
    • McCain was an old, experienced guy with a moderate reputation so he took a woman that arch conservatives loved in Palin.
    • GWBush was seen as young and inexperienced so he took a steady hand who had been around for decades in Cheney.

    Heck, other than Romney/Ryan, and Kerry/Edwards (in both cases, there was a 'pick the attractive young fella' thing going on there) we see nothing but balancing picks for VP in the past 20 years of elections. And while Beto is young to Biden's old, I think the sex/race thing is just too important to the Democratic party.

    In the 2018 midterms, Dems took 59% of the female vote, 90% of the black vote, and 69% of the Latino vote. Meanwhile, Republicans won white males by 21 points (60-39). How can Dems ignore the folks voting for them to pick two white males? I get having one white dude to mute some of Trump's dog whistle kinda stuff, but two?!?! I just don't see it happening.

    -Jason "I think Beto is more likely to be on the ticket than Biden... even if Beto does not get the nom, I think he will be a leading VP choice and he could put Texas really in play" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    -Jason "that's why, if she does not get the nomination, I really like Kamala Harris as VP... she checks both boxes" Evans
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    -Jason "I think Beto is more likely to be on the ticket than Biden... even if Beto does not get the nom, I think he will be a leading VP choice and he could put Texas really in play" Evans
    - Jason "I can't seem to make up my mind" Evans
    Rich
    "Failure is Not a Destination"
    Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    - Jason "I can't seem to make up my mind" Evans
    The first rule about Jason "I can't seem to make up my mind" Evans is -- oh wait, wrong thread.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I can certainly see how a Biden/Beto ticket would be attractive, but I think the odds are against the Dems putting two white males on the ticket. The Democratic party is increasingly dominated by women and minorities and the Dems cannot win the presidency without strong turnout in those two arenas. Unless Trump looks dead in the water thanks to a withering Mueller report, the Dems will likely say there needs to be some kind of representation of minorities or women on the ticket.

    -Jason "that's why, if she does not get the nomination, I really like Kamala Harris as VP... she checks both boxes" Evans
    I think that the odds of the Mueller report having a major impact on Trump are very slim. Most people already have their opinion formed about him. I keep coming back to his comment about shooting someone on 5th Ave. - it holds very true.

    If Biden were to run for President, the VP choice holds extra importance as due to Biden's age, there is a decent chance that if they win, the VP will be running at the top of the ticket in 2024. What box they are looking to check off could matter a lot. Though Harris helps with women and minorities, she does nothing geographically. Beto could help put Texas in play but does nothing for gender or race. VP doesn't have to be locked in until summer 2020 so others could emerge during that time.

    I think that the relationship between the more progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic Party is going to be a huge issue. They have to avoid infighting and unify behind an Anyone But Trump/lesser of two evils plan. I think a more moderate candidate, particularly at the top of the ticket, will play better nationally, but the primary process might make that difficult.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    - Jason "I can't seem to make up my mind" Evans
    No, this was my subtle way of saying I don't think Biden will get the nomination and I think the only white male who has a good shot at it is Beto. I was saying that when Harris or Booker or Gillibrand or whoever does get the nomination, Beto will look like a very attractive running mate.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    No, this was my subtle way of saying I don't think Biden will get the nomination and I think the only white male who has a good shot at it is Beto. I was saying that when Harris or Booker or Gillibrand or whoever does get the nomination, Beto will look like a very attractive running mate.
    And I would not discount the chance that it is Beto who is picking the running mate. I['m not sure how many of you watched his debates or have seen his speeches -- he is the real deal when it comes to old-time political stumping and speaking.

    So maybe Uncle Joe will be VP again, who knows.

    But I do think Joe is in the mix, as well as Harris and Klobuchar (if she can get some early traction). I just don't see Booker, Warren or Bernie getting far. Don't know enough about Castro, he was once hyped as the next big thing but Beto may have eclipsed him (and they're both from Texas). Have not seen enough of Gillibrand to judge, although her work in a NY law firm representing Phillip Morris in litigation and ties to Andrew Cuomo is gonna make it hard for her to please any wing of the party it seems to me.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    And I would not discount the chance that it is Beto who is picking the running mate. I['m not sure how many of you watched his debates or have seen his speeches -- he is the real deal when it comes to old-time political stumping and speaking.
    I'll take someone who's got a ton of experience in politics without too much baggage and is a middle of the road policy wonk who knows how to compromise in order to get things done. I'm sure I'm in the minority.
    Rich
    "Failure is Not a Destination"
    Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    I'll take someone who's got a ton of experience in politics without too much baggage and is a middle of the road policy wonk who knows how to compromise in order to get things done. I'm sure I'm in the minority.
    I'm with you in this cycle -- but my preferred candidates never win in either party. Still riding the Tsongas Tsunami here.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    I'll take someone who's got a ton of experience in politics without too much baggage and is a middle of the road policy wonk who knows how to compromise in order to get things done. I'm sure I'm in the minority.
    I completely agree with your ideal candidate description and I think many others do too but unfortunately I think that ship has sailed.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    I'm tanned, rested and ready.

    Just sayin'
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    I'll take someone who's got a ton of experience in politics without too much baggage and is a middle of the road policy wonk who knows how to compromise in order to get things done. I'm sure I'm in the minority.
    Sadly in this day and age experience is roughly equivalent to baggage. (Depends on who is counting; your baggage may vary.)

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Albemarle, North Carolina
    So are we of the mind to say Bernie won't run again? He was close last time and probably would have beaten Trump in 2016 if Hillary wouldn't have gotten the bid over him. I have a feeling there won't be many "fence sitters" this go around and that spells disaster for Trump. His followers will no doubt flock to the polls again but the biggest difference were the Hillary opposers who just wanted Trump over her but not necessarily Trump himself. Bernie is well loved but might be too old in 2020 but would make a fine VP for somebody.


    Beto to me is the most interesting, I've only seen a small amount of him but he does seem to have an "it" factor that grabs more moderate people. With as close as he was to taking down Cruz in Texas of all places I think he stands a great chance at taking the presidency.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge" -Stephen Hawking

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I'm with you in this cycle -- but my preferred candidates never win in either party. Still riding the Tsongas Tsunami here.
    HAHAHA I also voted for Paul Tsongas in the 92 Primary. Unfortunately he died in 1997 so, had he won election to a second term, he would have died in office. I remember a friend told me he couldn’t vote for Tsongas because he sounded like Elmer Fudd.
       

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by JNort View Post
    So are we of the mind to say Bernie won't run again? He was close last time and probably would have beaten Trump in 2016 if Hillary wouldn't have gotten the bid over him. I have a feeling there won't be many "fence sitters" this go around and that spells disaster for Trump. His followers will no doubt flock to the polls again but the biggest difference were the Hillary opposers who just wanted Trump over her but not necessarily Trump himself. Bernie is well loved but might be too old in 2020 but would make a fine VP for somebody.
    I expect Bernie to run again, but I don't think he has a great shot at it. There are younger, sexier, more electable standard bearers for the progressive wing of the party, starting with Beto.

    If they miss out on the top of the ticket, Bernie and Biden (someone else mentioned him) will not be in the VP conversation. Biden doesn't want to do that again and Bernie has too much baggage.

    I am far from convinced that Bernie would have beaten Trump. Yes, it is possible**, but I don't take it as some given the way many others do. Bernie would have been attacked pretty thoroughly for being a Socialist. There are Republicans who stayed home or who voted for someone else instead of Trump who would have been much more worried about Bernie than they were about Hillary.

    -Jason "** - Trump won by such a small margin that any change could have tipped the election, heck, a different weather forecast in the midwest could have tipped it" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

Similar Threads

  1. 2020 Duke men's basketball recruiting
    By Duke95 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 663
    Last Post: Today, 12:02 PM
  2. One n dones and returning players. 2018-2020
    By proelitedota in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-18-2017, 10:03 AM
  3. Coming to the 2020 Olympics: 3-on-3 basketball!
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2017, 11:44 AM
  4. Cutcliffe Extended Through 2020-21
    By BD80 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-01-2017, 04:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •