2020 Presidential Election

[bundabergdevil]

Yeah. Mitt thought he was going to win in 2016. No one thought Trump had a chance. Your point about Bernie above. If recent elections have taught us anything, candidates should shoot their shots.

I obviously meant 2012 for Mitt...

[OldPhiKap]

I find this to be an incredibly sad statement.

I don't disagree. But if they are going to focus on policies such as decriminalizing undocumented entry into the country, getting rid of private insurance, etc., these all poll horribly in national polls.

To be clear, there are plenty of Dem policies that poll very highly too. But those tend to be the more centrist ideas. The Dems can make this a lay-up or a contested jumper, depending on how far to the left they lurch. Modest improvements are boring but widely liked. Revolution is exciting but not really popular outside the bubble.

(And as always, this is not a comment on the merits of the policies -- just how they impact the electability of the candidate that espouses them).

[OldPhiKap]

I remember when having policies was a good thing.

"We won't beat Donald Trump with policies, we'll beat him with love."

-- Marianne Williamson (paraphrase)

Ah, good times.

[Bob Green]

...if they are going to focus on policies such as decriminalizing undocumented entry into the country, getting rid of private insurance, etc., these all poll horribly in national polls.

From my perspective, this cannot be overstated. Actually it isn't the national polls that matter, it is the polls in key battleground states the Democrats lost in 2016 and need to win in 2020. DBR leans left; however, those of us who work and run in moderate or conservative circles understand mainstream America isn't interested in providing free health care to illegal immigrants. In fact, significant numbers of voters find the idea appalling (Echoing OPK's disclaimer above, I am not commenting on the merits of the policy only the potential impact on the electability of a candidate).

[bundabergdevil]

From my perspective, this cannot be overstated. Actually it isn't the national polls that matter, it is the polls in key battleground states the Democrats lost in 2016 and need to win in 2020. DBR leans left; however, those of us who work and run in moderate or conservative circles understand mainstream America isn't interested in providing free health care to illegal immigrants. In fact, significant numbers of voters find the idea appalling (Echoing OPK's disclaimer above, I am not commenting on the merits of the policy only the potential impact on the electability of a candidate).

All of this is of course why Trump is trying to define the Democrats by its most liberal, demographically diverse members in The Squad and why Biden has a broader base of potential support. I will say that “universal health care” is almost universally popular so long as access to preferred private providers is ensured...which most closely parallels Biden’s positioning on the issue.

[Jeffrey]

But if they are going to focus on policies such as decriminalizing undocumented entry into the country, getting rid of private insurance, etc., these all poll horribly in national polls.

IMO, if those policies are their main priority, then they should be open and honest about their intent. IMO, Americans should know where the candidates truly stand and then vote accordingly.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

IMO, if those policies are their main priority, then they should be open and honest about their intent. IMO, Americans should know where the candidates truly stand and then vote accordingly.

That's a absurd and shocking perspective... Candidates communicating their platforms and stances on issues? And the public voting for the person who they agree with and who reflects their interests and values?

I shudder to think.

[OldPhiKap]

IMO, if those policies are their main priority, then they should be open and honest about their intent. IMO, Americans should know where the candidates truly stand and then vote accordingly.

Oh, I absolutely agree that each candidate should honestly state what they believe.

My point is, folks who believe extreme things are not good general election candidates.

Bernie and Warren are both great examples. I am absolutely convinced that they truly believe everything they profess and there is something refreshing about that. I would put someone like Pat Buchanan in that category from the Reps. But I do not think either one of them are good general election candidates, regardless of the somewhat meaningless "head to head" polls against Trump out now.

[Wander]

IMO, if those policies are their main priority, then they should be open and honest about their intent. IMO, Americans should know where the candidates truly stand and then vote accordingly.

"If we adopt a platform that's way out to the left, they're going to say we're socialists. If we adopt a more moderate or conservative platform, they're going to say we're socialists. So we might as well just do what we think is right and make the case for it."

- Pete Buttigieg

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Oh, I absolutely agree that each candidate should honestly state what they believe.

My point is, folks who believe extreme things are not good general election candidates.

Bernie and Warren are both great examples. I am absolutely convinced that they truly believe everything they profess and there is something refreshing about that. I would put someone like Pat Buchanan in that category from the Reps. But I do not think either one of them are good general election candidates, regardless of the somewhat meaningless "head to head" polls against Trump out now.

But "best general election candidate" doesn't necessarily mean "best president."

That's my issue with this entire process for the last several cycles - the issue most primaries seem most concerned with is "electability." I guess it's a product of the polarized politics of the day, but it's rather nauseating.

[OldPhiKap]

But "best general election candidate" doesn't necessarily mean "best president."

That's my issue with this entire process for the last several cycles - the issue most primaries seem most concerned with is "electability." I guess it's a product of the polarized politics of the day, but it's rather nauseating.

Truth.

[Chard]

"If we adopt a platform that's way out to the right, they're going to say we're racists. If we adopt a more moderate or conservative platform, they're going to say we're racists. So we might as well just do what we think is right and make the case for it."

That works both ways. Trump tapped into that long ago and he's sitting in the White House now. Can the Democrats do the same and win?


OldPhiKap hit the nail on the head several times. The Democrats can't run on far left policies and win in the general. That is why Biden is in the lead. Trump isn't going to be defeated by trying to make everything he does "racist." They have to make a strong case that their policies can benefit more voters than Trump's policies. Being nasty or projecting isn't going to do it. Trump is already in the mud and has been since 2015ish. It is where the game was being played. That is part of why he's POTUS.

Also, yesterday was a disaster for the Democrats optically. There were a slew of candidates focusing on impeachment talk afterwards. That may earn them some donations but it won't move the needle.

[Jeffrey]

That works both ways. Trump tapped into that long ago and he's sitting in the White House now. Can the Democrats do the same and win?

IMO, they can if they go with Biden.

However, I still believe that would be a much closer race than most believe. Trump will completely see Biden's moves three plays in advance, Biden (and, most of us) will not have a clue what Trump's next move will be.

[esl]

I heard someone describe things once in this way: during the primaries candidates have to run towards the edges of their party then sprint towards the center once they become the nominee. Whoever gets there first usually wins.
Seems to be the playbook again.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Also, yesterday was a disaster for the Democrats optically. There were a slew of candidates focusing on impeachment talk afterwards. That may earn them some donations but it won't move the needle.

Yesterday was a disaster for both parties. It was transparent political theater rather than anything productive. I was wildly disappointed.

[Jeffrey]

I heard someone describe things once in this way: during the primaries candidates have to run towards the edges of their party then sprint towards the center once they become the nominee. Whoever gets there first usually wins.

Are these allowed?

https://www.retirementliving.com/best-mobility-scooters

[bundabergdevil]

I heard someone describe things once in this way: during the primaries candidates have to run towards the edges of their party then sprint towards the center once they become the nominee. Whoever gets there first usually wins.
Seems to be the playbook again.

On the Democratic side at least. 2016 certainly defied this convention for Republicans and I don’t expect a center tack for Trump again. Not to get ahead of ourselves but I’m very curious about 2024 for the red team to see if Trump was an aberration or the new normal...

[PackMan97]

On the Democratic side at least. 2016 certainly defied this convention for Republicans and I don’t expect a center tack for Trump again. Not to get ahead of ourselves but I’m very curious about 2024 for the red team to see if Trump was an aberration or the new normal...

I'm not even certain what the center looks like today.

[Chard]

Yesterday was a disaster for both parties. It was transparent political theater rather than anything productive. I was wildly disappointed.

I disagree but I'm curious on why you specifically think it was a disaster for Republicans.

Furthering my point up thread, I just read this AP article:

It doesn’t take a biker jacket to show that Democratic candidates in some key states in the 2020 Senate race aren’t going along as much of the party’s presidential field takes a hard liberal turn. Big gaps already are apparent in races in Texas, Iowa and Arizona. The latest discordant voice is Amy McGrath of Kentucky, a former Marine combat aviator running against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , who recalled wincing while watching a sprint to the left unfold during the first Democratic debates on TV.

Policy differences always exist inside the major parties, but to some voters the Democratic agenda could soon seem like a hopeless argument with itself. More than in years past, progressives are insisting that winning in a polarized political environment requires ambitious ideas, not hedged compromises.

[OldPhiKap]

I disagree but I'm curious on why you specifically think it was a disaster for Republicans.

Furthering my point up thread, I just read this AP article:

It doesn’t take a biker jacket to show that Democratic candidates in some key states in the 2020 Senate race aren’t going along as much of the party’s presidential field takes a hard liberal turn. Big gaps already are apparent in races in Texas, Iowa and Arizona. The latest discordant voice is Amy McGrath of Kentucky, a former Marine combat aviator running against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , who recalled wincing while watching a sprint to the left unfold during the first Democratic debates on TV.

Policy differences always exist inside the major parties, but to some voters the Democratic agenda could soon seem like a hopeless argument with itself. More than in years past, progressives are insisting that winning in a polarized political environment requires ambitious ideas, not hedged compromises.

Upthread, Duke79UNLV77 pointed out that the swing in the House was related in no small degree to the suburban districts swinging from Trump to Dem. Those seats were not won by progressives by and large, but rather centrists.

By the way, in the Pantheon of great poster names, "Duke79UNLV77" has to be on the upper ring.