TheCid

2020 Election

203 posts in this topic

'My neighbors don't watch anything else': Democrats debate whether they need Fox News more than it needs them

Unlike Sen. Elizabeth Warren, many Democratic candidates are eager to reach out to potentially skeptical voters.

 

" Montana Sen. Jon Tester, one of the only Democrats to win re-election in a red state last year, thinks his party needs to work harder to reach rural voters — and that includes talking to Fox News. ....

Tester, a farmer who delivered a speech at the Center for American Progress Ideas Conference on Wednesday on rural engagement, said Democrats can't write off conservative areas and they don't have many other options in how to reach them other than Fox. ....

 

"If you’re going to touch 'em, that's how you have to do it,” he said.

Approaching the issue from a much bluer state, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., also saw value in going on Fox News as long as the format allowed candidates to get their message out clearly.

"One reason I do a town hall in every county every year in Oregon is specifically to reach out to all segments in our state," Merkley told reporters. "I hear from them as they stand up to ask their questions what they hear on Fox News."...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/my-neighbors-don-t-watch-anything-else-democrats-debate-whether-n1009036?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_np

;)

-sounds like a good idea to me

reach out & challenge the lies on THEIR turf :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mr6666 said:

I have not really seen that much, if any, detrimental about Gabbard, Sanders, AOC, et. al. other than portraying them as extremely liberal and probably beyond acceptance by the majority of vorters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2019 at 5:02 PM, mr6666 said:

Rev. Dr. William J. Barber IIVerified account @RevDrBarber 20h20 hours ago

 

To the media in this election season:

Don’t give Trump all the air time.

Don’t give the men more air time than the women.

 

Don’t focus on the petty personality peculiarities; focus on policy positions.

Don’t get sucked into what’s good TV but bad for the country.

:rolleyes:

If the MSM is going to focus on policy positions in most cases they should point out the odds of these policy positions being implemented. 

E.g. CNN had an article where it said Sara Sanders wasn't being honest when she said that the Dems in the House haven't gotten anything done.  The article points out that the Dem controlled House under Pelosi passed hundreds of bills and listed many of the 'great things' these bills would do.   Well later on they point out that 99% of these bills were NOT taken up by the Senate.    

To CNN  'getting something done' is passing bills Pelosi knows the Senate will NEVER vote on or even discuss.    Now I understand it is the GOP and Mitch that is blocking these bills from a vote,  but I still say passing bills that one knows will NEVER be voted on in the other body,  is doing next-to-nothing (done for show to please dummies in the base).

Most Dem Presidential candidates are doing the same with their policy stances.  They might as well just say they wish to make America great again (another silly but effective,  full of hot air,  political stance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" If the MSM is going to focus on policy positions in most cases they should point out the odds of these policy positions being implemented.  ...."

============================

-how can one predict such chances BEFORE a major election, when status of Congress may change? :unsure:

and how & what would you rather candidates campaign on..........trading childish INSULTS?? 

or empty platitudes??  :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr6666 said:

" If the MSM is going to focus on policy positions in most cases they should point out the odds of these policy positions being implemented.  ...."

============================

-how can one predict such chances BEFORE a major election, when status of Congress may change? :unsure:

and how & what would you rather candidates campaign on..........trading childish INSULTS?? 

or empty platitudes??  :wacko:

The Senate is not very likely to change at all.  And current thinking is that if the Dems push too far left, those Den House members elected in 2018 from Red and Purple districts will be replaced by GOPers.  It is going to be hard for the Dems to hold all the seats they gained in 2018 anyway.  For example, the Charleston SC House seat and the AL Senate seat.

While everyone wants people to campaign on policy issues, those that do seldom get any traction.  Warren is an example, she is not really advancing yet she has offered reams of policies.  Then again, that could be the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, there's NO Hope.....guess we're all Doomed...... :rolleyes:

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mr6666 said:

well, there's NO Hope.....guess we're all Doomed...... :rolleyes:

giphy.gif

There's always hope and success.  But it is achieved by understanding the real world and recognizing what is acceptable and can be accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At a time when medical bills is the number one reason to file bankruptcy in the US, having atrocious infrastructure and stagnant wages as inflation keeps rising, voting just to get Trump out of office isn’t enough. Henceforth why I will stay home on Election Day if the Democratic Nominee is not a progressive.
 
Not going to vote for a non- progressive this time around. A single vote has not even been cast yet and you can already see how the establishment is smearing true progressives. My days of going along to get along are over. You hearing me Tom Perez?
 
You can tell she's comfortable with the status quo. While Alyssa Milano may "want" progressive reforms, she overlooks the fact that the most vulnerable in our society "need" progressive reforms. There is a stark difference between a want and a need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sen. Kamala Harris is in Upstate S.C. area this week campaigning for The First in the South primary.  Like most candidates she went to predominantly black locations.  Of course, that is where the votes are in the Dem. primary in S.C. 

She called for raising teacher pay by $10,000 in S.C. by using federal funds.  All states would receive sufficient funds to raise teacher pay.  She called for families earning less than $100,000 per year to receive $6,000 tax credits. She is going to pay for the later by repealing the Trump Tax Cuts.  This supposedly will fix the problem of too many people not having savings.

She also will require that companies prove they are paying women equally for equal work or be fined 1% of past year's profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard George Will on MSNBC or CNN this morning.  While a Republican leaning conservative, he is no fan of Trump.  He read off a list of the favorite causes of the leftist Dems.  He believes that a nominee advocating these causes would guarantee Trump's re-election.  He is correct.

If the people who actually show up to vote couldn't stomach Hillary Clinton, they surely will not vote for the leftist Progressive agenda of many of the Dems running for the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related to the 2020 election for Congressional House seats:   Pelosi's strategy is to pass bills that are jointly authored by many of the Dem newbies,  especially those in purple \ moderate districts.    While less than 1% of these passed-by-the-House-bills are taken up by the Senate,   the strategy has the newbies going back to their districts  in the summer of 2020 showing voter that they-did-what-they-promised-to-do.

Does such a strategy (getting next-to-no actual legislation passed) really work with partisans?    It appears to have historically for the right \ far-right.    I.e.  one is more likely to be removed in the primary by working-across-the-aisle and getting actual 'compromise' legislation passed,    than one is by passing bills in the House that go nowhere expect as red-meat to the base in the next election cycle.

Also,  Pelosi is using this go-nowhere-bills strategy instead of pushing for impeachment since these purple \ moderate districts will be a lot harder to retain in 2020 then progressive districts like the one A.O.C. won in 2018 (which was NOT a net gain for Dems),  and impeachment of Trump is a lesser priority than passing go-nowhere-bills.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Related to the 2020 election for Congressional House seats:   Pelosi's strategy is to pass bills that are jointly authored by many of the Dem newbies,  especially those in purple \ moderate districts.    While less than 1% of these passed-by-the-House-bills are taken up by the Senate,   the strategy has the newbies going back to their districts  in the summer of 2020 showing voter that they-did-what-they-promised-to-do.

Does such a strategy (getting next-to-no actual legislation passed) really work with partisans?    It appears to have historically for the right \ far-right.    I.e.  one is more likely to be removed in the primary by working-across-the-aisle and getting actual 'compromise' legislation passed,    than one is by passing bills in the House that go nowhere expect as red-meat to the base in the next election cycle.

Also,  Pelosi is using this go-nowhere-bills strategy instead of pushing for impeachment since these purple \ moderate districts will be a lot harder to retain in 2020 then progressive districts like the one A.O.C. won in 2018 (which was NOT a net gain for Dems),  and impeachment of Trump is a lesser priority than passing go-nowhere-bills.

 

 

 

I agree.  Too many people did not analyze the Dem victory in 2018 closely enough.  The senate seat from AL and the Charleston SC house seat are most likely to return to the GOP.  I'm sure there are many more and Pelosi is aware of it.  As is Chuck Schumer in the senate.

Pushing for impeachment too early is very dangerous politically.  All politics are local - because that is where the voting takes place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2019 at 2:02 PM, TheCid said:

If the people who actually show up to vote couldn't stomach Hillary Clinton, they surely will not vote for the leftist Progressive agenda of many of the Dems running for the nomination.

I don't think that those deplorable Democrats and independents who didn't vote for Hillary didn't do so because of her politics. I think it was just the campaign of hate that has been waged against her for years. I think that Hillary lost because of Bernie, and I think anyone who didn't vote for Hillary and cares about abortion rights, voting rights, environmental issues, etc., is getting what they deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Swithin said:

I don't think that those deplorable Democrats and independents who didn't vote for Hillary didn't do so because of her politics. I think it was just the campaign of hate that has been waged against her for years. I think that Hillary lost because of Bernie, and I think anyone who didn't vote for Hillary and cares about abortion rights, voting rights, environmental issues, etc., is getting what they deserve.

Hillary's campaign failed for many reasons, but a lot of voters thought she was too liberal and her policies (DNC platform) were too extreme.

The Bernie supporters and others who failed to vote at all definitely contributed to her loss.  On the other hand, she also lost the never-Trump Republicans and many independent voters in the swing states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Hillary's campaign failed for many reasons, but a lot of voters thought she was too liberal and her policies (DNC platform) were too extreme.

The Bernie supporters and others who failed to vote at all definitely contributed to her loss.  On the other hand, she also lost the never-Trump Republicans and many independent voters in the swing states.

I see a connection between the Bernie voters who switched to Trump; and the rock-ribbed Labour voters in places like Sunderland in the UK who switched to Nigel Farage/Brexit Party. Bernie (and particularly his vile supporters like Nina Turner)  fanned a climate of hate against Hillary. Obama was more liberal than Hillary, and he won. People don't look at the platforms. In fact, Hillary was perceived as not progressive enough. It was Bernie and the ignorance of the deplorables, voting against their own interests, just like the people in Sunderland voted against their interest and for candidates who will endanger the NHS (which they love in the UK).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCid said:

Hillary's campaign failed for many reasons, but a lot of voters thought she was too liberal and her policies (DNC platform) were too extreme.

The Bernie supporters and others who failed to vote at all definitely contributed to her loss.  On the other hand, she also lost the never-Trump Republicans and many independent voters in the swing states.

I tend to view why Hillary lost the way Swithin does;   mostly because of a general dislike factor instead of thinking she (and \ or her politics) were too liberal.     Hillary was just on-the-scene for too long and too many voters that generally agreed with her politics (e.g. the issues Swithin sites),   didn't vote for her because they didn't want her around anymore.

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Swithin said:

I see a connection between the Bernie voters who switched to Trump; and the rock-ribbed Labour voters in places like Sunderland in the UK who switched to Nigel Farage/Brexit Party. Bernie (and particularly his vile supporters like Nina Turner)  fanned a climate of hate against Hillary. Obama was more liberal than Hillary, and he won. People don't look at the platforms. In fact, Hillary was perceived as not progressive enough. It was Bernie and the ignorance of the deplorables, voting against their own interests, just like the people in Sunderland voted against their interest and for candidates who will endanger the NHS (which they love in the UK).

Do you have a source establishing that Bernie voters switched to Trump?  My impression was that they just did not vote at all or voted for Jill Stein.

While Obama was more liberal than Clinton, he also energized the Democrats to actually go out and vote.  Hillary did not do that - too many Dems or Dem leaning independents just stayed home.  Also, many independents just did not like Hillary Clinton.  Also I think many may have perceived her as being more liberal than Obama or as a successor who would further the Obama liberal agenda.

Another factor is that McCain and Romney did not really energize their voters as much as they needed to.  Trump and the RNC avoided that mistake-barely.

You are right that Hillary was not progressive enough for the ultra-liberals.  But she was too progressive/liberal for many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheCid said:

You are right that Hillary was not progressive enough for the ultra-liberals.  But she was too progressive/liberal for many.

Those people are called conservatives. 

Also:

Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That is according to the data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I tend to view why Hillary lost the way Swithin does;   mostly because of a general dislike factor instead of thinking she (and \ or her politics) were too liberal.     Hillary was just on-the-scene for too long and too many voters that generally agreed with her politics (e.g. the issues Swithin sites),   didn't vote for her because they didn't want her around anymore.

 

  

I can see that, but I think part of the dislike was that she was perceived as too liberal by independents and never Trumpers (as I said).  Those few thousands who made the difference in 4 or 5 swing states that got Trump elected. Probably because of her attempts to woo the progressive/liberals/Bernieites into voting for her.

I will agree that the Clintons had been around too long and that did not help her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Those people are called conservatives. 

Also:

Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That is according to the data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

Thanks.  Informative study.  I found the below statements particularly informative.  I think one interesting aspect is that people who vote in one party's primary end up voting for the other party's candidate.  I still contend that many independents found Clinton too liberal.  These may well have been people who did not vote in either primary.

 

"For example, Schaffner tells NPR that around 12 percent of Republican primary voters (including 34 percent of Ohio Gov. John Kasich voters and 11 percent of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio voters) ended up voting for Clinton. And according to one 2008 study, around 25 percent of Clinton primary voters in that election ended up voting for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the general. (In addition, the data showed 13 percent of McCain primary voters ended up voting for Obama, and 9 percent of Obama voters ended up voting for McCain — perhaps signaling something that swayed voters between primaries and the general election, or some amount of error in the data, or both.)"

 

"To answer the question that many Clinton supporters may be asking: By this data, yes — there are enough of those Sanders-Trump voters who could have potentially swung the election toward Clinton and away from Trump."

"Specifically, if the Sanders-Trump voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had voted for Clinton, or even stayed home on Election Day, those states would have swung to Clinton, and she would have won 46 more electoral votes, putting her at 278 — enough to win, in other words."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the most interesting analysis is those that voted for Obama in either 2008 or 2012 but did NOT vote for Clinton in 2016.    Clearly as Swithin notes Obama was more liberal than Clinton so the main reason can't be because they believed Clinton was more liberal than Obama.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s How Many Sanders-Trump Voters There Were In Key Swing States

Political scientist Brian Schaffner recently tweeted out rough numbers on the share of Bernie Sanders primary voters who eventually went on to vote for Donald Trump in the general election, based on the massive CCES poll. Using those numbers and other available data, here is our back-of-the-envelope math on how many Sanders-Trump voters there were in those states — potentially enough to have handed Hillary Clinton those states (and the presidency).

 
STATE
 
SANDERS PRIMARY VOTERS
 
SANDERS PRIMARY VOTERS SUPPORTING TRUMP
 
SANDERS-TRUMP VOTERS (EST.)
 
TRUMP'S 2016 MARGIN OF VICTORY
Michigan 598,943 8% 47,915 10,704
Pennsylvania 731,881 16% 117,100 44,292
Wisconsin 570,192 9% 51,317 22,748

Source: 2016 National Popular Vote Tracker, U.S. Election Atlas, Brian Schaffner

Credit: Danielle Kurtzleben/NPR

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Swithin said:

Here’s How Many Sanders-Trump Voters There Were In Key Swing States

Political scientist Brian Schaffner recently tweeted out rough numbers on the share of Bernie Sanders primary voters who eventually went on to vote for Donald Trump in the general election, based on the massive CCES poll. Using those numbers and other available data, here is our back-of-the-envelope math on how many Sanders-Trump voters there were in those states — potentially enough to have handed Hillary Clinton those states (and the presidency).

 
STATE
 
SANDERS PRIMARY VOTERS
 
SANDERS PRIMARY VOTERS SUPPORTING TRUMP
 
SANDERS-TRUMP VOTERS (EST.)
 
TRUMP'S 2016 MARGIN OF VICTORY
Michigan 598,943 8% 47,915 10,704
Pennsylvania 731,881 16% 117,100 44,292
Wisconsin 570,192 9% 51,317 22,748

Source: 2016 National Popular Vote Tracker, U.S. Election Atlas, Brian Schaffner

Credit: Danielle Kurtzleben/NPR

Swith-- What kind of people here are we talkin about?

How do you view these people who voted like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

Swith-- What kind of people here are we talkin about?

How do you view these people who voted like this?

I think there are misogynists among them. Also the Republicans have been been demonizing Hillary for years, and the white male working class is susceptible to that. (They tried to do it to Nancy Pelosi, but it hasn't worked.)

There are people who are swayed by rhetoric and wild-eyed emotion rather than reason. Bernie appealed to that, and so did Trump. It's hard for a woman to do that, without being criticized; and Hillary is just too rational for theatrics.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us