The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[TGHusker]

^^^Trump will argue he wins the 'landmass' election vote therefore the electoral and popular vote is rigged. 

[ActualCornHusker]

50 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

The case against leftist progressivism, to play devil's advocate, because much of this thread recently has been in support of Warren and Bernie.

 

Looking at the evidence, America wants off Mr. Trump's Wild Ride. Regardless of how stable his base is, the group of voters who don't like him is larger. A lot of folks who aren't hardcores but decided they'd give him a chance last time around have bailed. Even if they don't hate his policies, they realize he's a doofus and want to dump him based on his personality defects.

 

That people dislike Trump personally does not mean they support all progressive policies, nor the associated pricetags or the necessary increase of government involvement they require. This is especially so in swing states, which due to our stupid electoral system, are the only ones that matter.  From what it seems to me, they lean culturally conservative and are susceptible to GOP agitprop.

 

The case is that swing state voters don't actually want leftism, they want an alternative to Trump who will prosecute the case against him without rocking the boat too much. A Dem who will stay out of their own way and merely make this an election a referendum on Trump rather than societal upheaval & drastic change.

 

There's some evidence for this argument. For example, Tom Nichols (and other Never Trumpers) are pointing out with increasing fervency that they think Warren will struggle to appeal in Rust Belt swing states.

 

 

 

All progressives will struggle in the rust belt

[BigRedBuster]

I feel the same way. 
 

 

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I feel the same way. 
 

 

 

Absolutely.

 

All things being equal, I'd prefer to move left in a lot of areas.

 

But I acknowledge there's risk in that because a lot of people don't feel the same way.

 

A lot of people don't seem to acknowledge the risk.

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Absolutely.

 

All things being equal, I'd prefer to move left in a lot of areas.

 

But I acknowledge there's risk in that because a lot of people don't feel the same way.

 

A lot of people don't seem to acknowledge the risk.

If we're going to acknowledge that moving left is a risk, then we should also acknowledge that moving to the center is also a risk. There's no such thing as not taking a risk no matter the candidate. And we very recently tried moving to the center and lost to Trump, but we haven't tried moving left yet.

 

And while people might feel like moving left is a losing strategy in swing states, that doesn't make it true. I'd like to see polling that supports or rejects those conclusions. From earlier in this thread, this polling shows Bernie doing better in the Rust Belt:

 

[Ratt Mhule]

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Absolutely.

 

All things being equal, I'd prefer to move left in a lot of areas.

 

But I acknowledge there's risk in that because a lot of people don't feel the same way.

 

A lot of people don't seem to acknowledge the risk.

Will you acknowledge that picking a centrist is also a risk as it will not create any enthusiasm at all and a lot of people will stay home again?  Which centrist is a slam dunk against Trump?

Biden? He will get demolished in debates bc he has no policy to run on other than Trump bad and his mind is melting as I type. Trump will hammer him over the head as being corrupt and come out looking strong as hell. If you cant see that coming from a mile away than I dont know what to tell you but its a risk to find out. 

 

Buttigieg? Not only is he at 1-2% African American and Latino, but for some really odd reason, the South Bend mess is not even being mentioned in the primary. I wonder why? You think Trump and the GOP wont find everything about what happened there. I bet they have those tapes released to the public as soon as he is announced as the nominee. Its a disaster just waiting to happen. 

 

Klobuchar? Hahahahahahahahahahaha

 

Delaney? Hes probably your best bet actually. Too bad he cant even make it on the debate stage. 

[BigRedBuster]

54 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

And we very recently tried moving to the center and lost to Trump, but we haven't tried moving left yet.

That is not why the Dems lost to Trump. 

[Ratt Mhule]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

That is not why the Dems lost to Trump. 

They lost to Trump bc Clinton didnt even campaign in the rust belt. Her husband was responsible for the trade policies that shipped four million of their jobs to China. Trump ran a populist campaign and hammered the trade policy, told them he would bring their jobs back, give them healthcare and save their pensions. Thats why he won the rust belt. 

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

They lost to Trump bc Clinton didnt even campaign in the rust belt. Her husband was responsible for the trade policies that shipped four million of their jobs to China. Trump ran a populist campaign and hammered the trade policy, told them he would bring their jobs back, give them healthcare and save their pensions. Thats why he won the rust belt. 

And Hillary was the worst person they could put up and try to get non-Dems. 

[Ratt Mhule]

25 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

And Hillary was the worst person they could put up and try to get non-Dems. 

She also didnt get dems. 
 

My whole argument the other day was about how the dems are abandoning their own base to move more center right to get Trump voters and independents. And leaving millions of people on the left feeling abandoned. And I understand the GOP did that with center right voters also.  

[Danny Bateman]

23 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

Will you acknowledge that picking a centrist is also a risk as it will not create any enthusiasm at all and a lot of people will stay home again?  Which centrist is a slam dunk against Trump?

 

I actually did that in another thread shortly before you posted this. Would you admit the same about left-wing populism?

 

No one is a slam dunk against Trump. Sadly he's a formidable opponent, as awful as he is. I'm simply operating based on conventional knowledge and past history - i.e., moderate candidates tend to win general elections and ones viewed as too left-wing get their butts kicked.

[Ratt Mhule]

5 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I actually did that in another thread shortly before you posted this. Would you admit the same about left-wing populism?

 

No one is a slam dunk against Trump. Sadly he's a formidable opponent, as awful as he is. I'm simply operating based on conventional knowledge and past history - i.e., moderate candidates tend to win general elections and ones viewed as too left-wing get their butts kicked.

Sure I can admit Im not 100% certain Sanders or Warren would win. Im just going by polls and every national poll had Sanders ahead of Trump more than Clinton and still has Sanders over Trump in most cases. 
 

Please provide evidence to back up your last statement. Justice democrats in their first year of elections (2018) had 43% of their nominees elected. Kara Eastman came within 2 points of winning a congressional seat in Nebraska, as we all know a deeply red state. 

[Danny Bateman]

5 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

Please provide evidence to back up your last statement.

 

1972 electoral map: Nixon vs. McGovern (a lefty)

 

 

1982 electoral map: Reagan vs. Mondale (the year Mondale pledged to raise taxes):

 

 

Also, as a bonus, the 1964 electoral map: LBJ vs. Goldwater (the year Goldwater thought he could win by running an unapologetically conservative campaign):

 

It's conventional political knowledge that you hew back towards the center in the general election to better your odds of winning. I could find you some stuff to back this up but frankly I'm too tired right now. Perhaps later, if you want.

 

Also, per their Wiki page, only 7 of the 79 candidates endorsed by the Justice Democrats actually won in 2018 - which equates to an 8% success rate. At least as I'm reading it. We could have different info.

 

 

[Ratt Mhule]

10 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

1972 electoral map: Nixon vs. McGovern (a lefty)

 

 

1982 electoral map: Reagan vs. Mondale (the year Mondale pledged to raise taxes):

 

 

Also, as a bonus, the 1964 electoral map: LBJ vs. Goldwater (the year Goldwater thought he could win by running an unapologetically conservative campaign):

 

It's conventional political knowledge that you hew back towards the center in the general election to better your odds of winning. I could find you some stuff to back this up but frankly I'm too tired right now. Perhaps later, if you want.

 

Also, per their Wiki page, only 7 of the 79 candidates endorsed by the Justice Democrats actually won in 2018 - which equates to an 8% success rate. At least as I'm reading it. We could have different info.

 

 

This is a new era of politics than it was in the 1980s. Lets try and evolve to the year 2019 and realize millenials, Gen Z and Gen X are much more progressive than the boomers. 
 

JD only have 15 candidates running in 2020 and that includes the incumbents that won in 2018 so there is no way they had 79 in their first year. Endorsements are different than people they are actually running in their group. They could endorse anyone running against a GOP member. 
 

https://www.justicedemocrats.com/candidates

[BigRedBuster]