fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Eyup. Dems are really worried about raising money. Only one of them exceeds Trump. On the other hand there are 10 of them and only one of him. I like that picture.
-
Features
Why Trump Will Win in 2020
- Thread starter SLD
- Start date
Eyup. Dems are really worried about raising money. Only one of them exceeds Trump. On the other hand there are 10 of them and only one of him. I like that picture.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
All congress has to do is to enact a law specifying only living individual humans speak.
Court opinion becomes moot.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
When the primaries are over, and the Democratic candidate is chosen to take on Trump, I suspect there will be a torrent of money as money that otherwise went to ten candidates flows to one who will have to be supported to take down the loathsome Trump. If he has not been impeached, quit to avoid that or choked to death on a cheeseburger.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 47,101
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Shouldn't you add all that Dem money together against Trump? That's a huge advantage over Trump.
PyramidHead
Contributor
Not if the people donating to one candidate wouldn't also donate to whoever the nominee may be.
SLD
Contributor
No. That's the point of Citizens United. Congress can’t do that.
SLD
Contributor
Yes, but it also goes to the ground game. It’s about having campaign operatives in key states and in key areas that can organize and get people to the polls. You can’t just rely on volunteers. You need headquarters and paid staffers. That and advertising is what money gets you. Plus the cost of taking your entourage around the country with you. Not cheap.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 47,101
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
All that is needed is two or three supporter groups to switch to the nominee to still overwhelm the Trump donations. "Vote Blue No Matter Who" is a very popular meme.
PyramidHead
Contributor
True, and it's one I disagree with, but it may come in handy for that very reason. Also, once the nominee is selected, the party itself will put a lot of funding behind whoever it is other than Sanders.
repoman
Contributor
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,628
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
The question is, can Trump turn out more voters in PA, MI, and WI or MN. Trump managed a sliver of a popular vote victory in three states and needs to hold, which will require getting more votes.
He also has another problem, the Hispanic vote in Texas. It is mathematically possible for the Democrat to win Texas with a large enough lop sided Hispanic vote victory.
With all of the political drama, the 2020 election is about as unknown a landscape as an election can get. We don't even know if Trump will be President by the time it comes.
He also has another problem, the Hispanic vote in Texas. It is mathematically possible for the Democrat to win Texas with a large enough lop sided Hispanic vote victory.
With all of the political drama, the 2020 election is about as unknown a landscape as an election can get. We don't even know if Trump will be President by the time it comes.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Trump won Wisconsin by 11 thousand votes. Obama won the state by 300 thousand votes. 2016 was a anomaly. Clinton put little effort there and it was a disaster. That won't happen this time. And Trump's positives in the three states he flipped to with the electoral college are now deeply underwater.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 47,101
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Clinton didn't put effort into "safe" states because they had no money to spend on safe states. Not only was her campaign funding itself but also funding the DNC which was practically broke.
Elixir
Made in America
I don't think that's correct. I am told it would take either a SCOTUS ruling or a constitutional amendment.
southernhybrid
Contributor
I am concerned because apparently, the Democrats are very split over who should be the nominee. Plus a lot of us aren't very impressed with any of the candidates. I've been reading quite a few articles about this lately. I though perhaps I was the only one who felt this way, but that's not the case. I will vote for whoever ends up being the nominee, but none of them are that appealing to a wide range of Democrats and independents. Maybe Democrats do too much hand wringing and worrying. I don't know, but unless the nominee is someone who can appeal to a wide range of voter types, we may be looking at a second Trump term or a Pence presidency. 
Trump and Pence are both idiots, imo. Pence isn't as erratic, but he's a raging fundy, who doesn't seem to have a clue.
So many candidates, but none of them are generating enthusiasm from the majority of Democrats. I've known of Bernie bros who once again say they won't vote if Bernie isn't the nominee. I've known of moderates who say they can't vote for someone as progressive as Warren. And, this morning, a close black friend of mine, who I discuss politics with several times a week, told me that a lot of her other friends feel that a woman isn't qualified to run the country.
I thought we had moved past that sexist attitude, but I was wrong.
I read yesterday that some of the big wheels in the Democratic Party are actually trying to get more people to run! OMG! All these candidates and nobody is uniting the party. WTF!
Trump and Pence are both idiots, imo. Pence isn't as erratic, but he's a raging fundy, who doesn't seem to have a clue. So many candidates, but none of them are generating enthusiasm from the majority of Democrats. I've known of Bernie bros who once again say they won't vote if Bernie isn't the nominee. I've known of moderates who say they can't vote for someone as progressive as Warren. And, this morning, a close black friend of mine, who I discuss politics with several times a week, told me that a lot of her other friends feel that a woman isn't qualified to run the country.
I thought we had moved past that sexist attitude, but I was wrong. I read yesterday that some of the big wheels in the Democratic Party are actually trying to get more people to run! OMG! All these candidates and nobody is uniting the party. WTF!
PyramidHead
Contributor
Appealing to voters is not a passive activity. Instead of looking at the political makeup of the population and backing whatever candidate corresponds best to it, politics is about changing the political beliefs of that population to better reflect the candidate (and the corresponding agenda) that you feel is right for the nation. There are now several competing ideas about that, and since this is a primary election, the job ahead of you is to advocate for the one that you agree with, not the one that you think everyone else agrees with. You are likely to be wrong about what people are ready to fight for, and how many are ready to do it; polls are only as accurate as the sample is representative of the whole, and there is no reason to assume we're in the ballpark on that metric.
Believe it or not, there are people in the country and in the world who have been left behind and/or harmed by the Obama administration as well as the Trump administration. For them, the most pressing issue in the world isn't beating Donald Trump, because if the one who beats Trump is another Obama, then (a) nothing is stopping another Trump from taking power again, since the first one did so under the same conditions, and (b) nothing changed for them materially under Obama anyway, so what difference does it make? For those people, who rarely vote because they have little reason to, the election is an opportunity to transform the structure of a society that has failed to meet their basic needs. It's not about simply beating Trump so they can get back to brunch.
If you disagree with the political priorities of these people, try and change their minds. Explain to them why they shouldn't care whether somebody is going to fight for their interests or for the corporate elite, as long as they have a D next to their name instead of an R. Explain why the ideological and moral substance of a candidate is less important than the superficial identity characteristics that are important to you. Explain why they are wrong to insist on a president that will actually change their lives for the better, instead of being satisfied with selecting between two people who won't. That's how politics works, not by selecting the most palatable, mediocre choice and demanding everyone get in line for the sake of party unity. The party isn't unified because the party platform doesn't benefit the majority of people anymore.
To look at the state of the Democratic party today and see anything other than a real schism that needs to be resolved through argumentation and political passion is to treat politics as a game, or a horse race. We aren't the horses, and we aren't even the riders. We're just on the sidelines, betting on the one we think is most likely to win based on what how we think everybody else is betting! Flooding the primary with more identical neoliberal corporate-friendly candidates will not remedy this situation, unless it divides that vote to the extent that the contingent in favor of actual change prevails. Again, if you don't think that should happen, give your reasons, and make them reasons other than "it won't fly in the general election" or "my circle of friends won't vote for it". That's taking the political landscape as out of your hands and hoping Secretariat is as fast as the rumors claim.
Engage people politically and you can change their minds. We still have a long way until the first primaries, and after that everything changes anyhow. As a reminder, the last time the Democrats won the White House after a Republican president, there was plenty of party unity at this point in the race:
Believe it or not, there are people in the country and in the world who have been left behind and/or harmed by the Obama administration as well as the Trump administration. For them, the most pressing issue in the world isn't beating Donald Trump, because if the one who beats Trump is another Obama, then (a) nothing is stopping another Trump from taking power again, since the first one did so under the same conditions, and (b) nothing changed for them materially under Obama anyway, so what difference does it make? For those people, who rarely vote because they have little reason to, the election is an opportunity to transform the structure of a society that has failed to meet their basic needs. It's not about simply beating Trump so they can get back to brunch.
If you disagree with the political priorities of these people, try and change their minds. Explain to them why they shouldn't care whether somebody is going to fight for their interests or for the corporate elite, as long as they have a D next to their name instead of an R. Explain why the ideological and moral substance of a candidate is less important than the superficial identity characteristics that are important to you. Explain why they are wrong to insist on a president that will actually change their lives for the better, instead of being satisfied with selecting between two people who won't. That's how politics works, not by selecting the most palatable, mediocre choice and demanding everyone get in line for the sake of party unity. The party isn't unified because the party platform doesn't benefit the majority of people anymore.
To look at the state of the Democratic party today and see anything other than a real schism that needs to be resolved through argumentation and political passion is to treat politics as a game, or a horse race. We aren't the horses, and we aren't even the riders. We're just on the sidelines, betting on the one we think is most likely to win based on what how we think everybody else is betting! Flooding the primary with more identical neoliberal corporate-friendly candidates will not remedy this situation, unless it divides that vote to the extent that the contingent in favor of actual change prevails. Again, if you don't think that should happen, give your reasons, and make them reasons other than "it won't fly in the general election" or "my circle of friends won't vote for it". That's taking the political landscape as out of your hands and hoping Secretariat is as fast as the rumors claim.
Engage people politically and you can change their minds. We still have a long way until the first primaries, and after that everything changes anyhow. As a reminder, the last time the Democrats won the White House after a Republican president, there was plenty of party unity at this point in the race:
J842P
Veteran Member
Lol there is no way Warren wouldn't carry New York.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/24/trump-evangelical-christian-support-056121
...
A much-discussed Fox News poll found that nearly three in 10 white evangelicals want the president impeached and removed from office — a figure that startled some officials on Trump’s 2020 campaign, according to an outside adviser. And in the NPR/Marist survey, which was taken after House Democrats began their impeachment inquiry, only 62 percent of white evangelicals said they definitely plan to vote for Trump next fall.
That’s the number Trump’s top evangelical supporters are closely monitoring and cautioning the president not to ignore. Eighty-one percent of the white evangelical vote in 2016 was enough to carry him to the White House, they say, but with underwater approval ratings among other key constituencies he needs to do even better next fall.
...
-----
Some little cracks are forming in Trump's most loyal base of supporters.
...
A much-discussed Fox News poll found that nearly three in 10 white evangelicals want the president impeached and removed from office — a figure that startled some officials on Trump’s 2020 campaign, according to an outside adviser. And in the NPR/Marist survey, which was taken after House Democrats began their impeachment inquiry, only 62 percent of white evangelicals said they definitely plan to vote for Trump next fall.
That’s the number Trump’s top evangelical supporters are closely monitoring and cautioning the president not to ignore. Eighty-one percent of the white evangelical vote in 2016 was enough to carry him to the White House, they say, but with underwater approval ratings among other key constituencies he needs to do even better next fall.
...
-----
Some little cracks are forming in Trump's most loyal base of supporters.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
You just gotta wonder where they drew the line. Although it would probably be depressing. "All the crap he's pulled, and it was _____ that pulled the rug out from under your vote?"
Elixir
Made in America
Oh come on, dude - leave Melanie out of this!