Pete Buttigieg

[Jimmy Higgins]

The ONLY relevant question in this election is can they beat Trump? That's it. And to do that means no novelty candidates (i.e., no "firsts") and no candidates that will in any way antagonize the huge Republican swing potential.

Why can't Dems understand that certain elections--not all elections, but certain ones--are NOT about pet personal hopes and dreams?

In short, we need two straight white guys. Full stop. They need to appeal to the college educated white youth but also to the non-college educated rural white everyone.

They can't be gay this time and they shouldn't be another attempt at first female POTUS or "of color" (though that is less important) this time and they probably shouldn't be hundreds of years old (Biden) and/or hundreds of years old and cantankerous "New York Commie Jews" this time.

It's not personal. It does suck. It is, however, the cold hard reality of where we are at this point in history due to circumstances that have fuck-all to do with what's fair or right or one's "conscience" or any of the other dozen or so typical Dem arguments as to why they aren't voting for the one person that can actually beat the Republican.

There can be only one goal here: unify ALL Dems and pull Republican swing. The only way to safely guarantee that is two young(ish) white guys.

This isn't a proposition from Wittgenstein. It's painfully simple and driven entirely by the numbers, not anyone's personal agenda. Those numbers have to also factor in Republicans for any dipshits still not understanding how politics works.

So, no women, no openly gay guy?

Yeah, fuck that shit. I am so damn sick of being told that it's not the time for a woman POTUS. Fuck that hard.

Hillary Clinton did NOT lose because she was a woman or at least from the moderate vote. I'm certain part of the hate of Clinton is that she is a politically powerful woman, but that boat sailed for a lot people back in the 90s. I think it is safe to say a non-negligible reason she lost was her ticket was too white.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes... that'll get the minorities out in massive numbers.

It will, actually, but even if it did not, it is MORE IMPORTANT to pull Republican swing. In 2016, Clinton pulled 90% of blacks, which was only 4 points off of Obama's pull in 2012.

I believe Senator Harris is running to be the President of the United States, not to be the first female President of the United States.

Isn't that adorable. Semantics games.

What sucks is that you don't seem to be thinking this one through.

I've been accused of many things, but "not thinking something through" has never been one of them, especially when it comes to politics.

Your solution is to white wash the ticket, literally.

Not "my" solution; THE objective solution and for exhaustively detailed reasons based on the real world numbers I have repeatedly presented.

I agree, this isn't the time to put a Transgender Socialist Hippopotamus on the ticket.

Suggesting that Kamela Harris can't win because of her gender and race is ridiculous and unsupported.

IT'S NOT WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAS THE GENERAL CAPACITY TO WIN; IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN BEAT TRUMP, WHICH IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER.

Why the fuck can't Dems comprehend this?

Fuck the Republicans

In America, Republicans fuck you.

it is the "independent voter" and left-wing turnout.

By which you mean, right-leaning Independents, which is their swing component.

Putting two white guys on the ticket does not guarantee that.

It absolutely does in and of itself, but it certainly does when the alternative is a black woman or a gay mayor this time. We are talking about swing potentials, not about core percentages.

Two white people last time didn't win, and they didn't lose because Clinton was/is a woman.

They did, in fact win. What they lost was rural middle class older white guys, and 2020 isn't about 2016, it's about what's happened since 2016 and why there is no reason to take any risks knowing what we know.

Once again, it's about this time NOT ABOUT ALL TIME.

Fucking hell.

 

[Politesse]

I don't see the point in trying to cater to working class whites, they already got the guy they wanted, and he's still on the ticket. Why vote for a Trump-like Democrat when you can just vote for the real deal?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It will, actually, but even if it did not...

We'd lose.

..., it is MORE IMPORTANT to pull Republican swing. In 2016, Clinton pulled 90% of blacks, which was only 4 points off of Obama's pull in 2012.

The key word is "turnout". If you are getting 90%, you want as much of that group voting as possible.

I agree, this isn't the time to put a Transgender Socialist Hippopotamus on the ticket.

What, you think we can put a Hippo on the ticket? I'm all for it. Campaign costs would be through the roof.

Suggesting that Kamela Harris can't win because of her gender and race is ridiculous and unsupported.

IT'S NOT WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAS THE GENERAL CAPACITY TO WIN; IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN BEAT TRUMP, WHICH IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER.

I can't exactly see the difference here. If someone can win the Presidency, they can win the Presidency. Who can beat Trump? We aren't certain. A ham sandwich should have been able to beat Trump in '16. He is a historical oddity of which we have no data to develop a hypothesis. So without any thing to stand by, it comes down to what wins elections... turnout and not scaring the moderates.

Putting two white guys on the ticket does not guarantee that.

It absolutely does in and of itself, but it certainly does when the alternative is a black woman or a gay mayor this time. We are talking about swing potentials, not about core percentages.

A: Obama won presidency and re-election in '08 and '12.
B: White woman and her white running mate lost to Trump
Therefore: Only two white guys can beat Trump.

This makes no sense. Trump gained votes via the people who rarely voted because Buchanan wasn't crazy enough and Trump gained votes via union white folks who actually traded in their cows for some "magic" beans that grow magical jobs for industrial workers.

Two white people last time didn't win, and they didn't lose because Clinton was/is a woman.

They did, in fact win.

Weren't you just complaining about semantics? And turnout did drop among Blacks and Hispanics, and with the razor thin margins Trump won by, that very likely could have been the difference. So saying the ticket was safe because it wasn't white and sausage enough is ignoring a very important turnout issue in '16.

What they lost was rural middle class older white guys, and 2020 isn't about 2016, it's about what's happened since 2016 and why there is no reason to take any risks knowing what we know.

I don't consider putting a qualified person on the ticket a risk just because someone is a woman or not white.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If you are getting 90%, you want as much of that group voting as possible.

That's the percentage that turned out to vote for her, proving her appeal. The overall turnout is a different matter and had a lot to do with other factors, such as the massive clandestine Russian information warfare that was targeted specifically at young black "activist" males, who, it turns out, was the exact group that didn't turn out.

I can't exactly see the difference here. If someone can win the Presidency, they can win the Presidency.

Seriously? Clinton won the vote. Is she President?

Who can beat Trump?

Anyone that doesn't polarize the Republican (and, yes, right-leaning Independent) swing, which, right now is huge (upwards of 40%).

A ham sandwich should have been able to beat Trump in '16.

Confirmation bias thinking.

He is a historical oddity of which we have no data to develop a hypothesis.

We have ALL of 2016 to develop a very easy and straightforward hypothesis. What fucked us was a very small percentage of primarily white middle class rural males with no college degrees.

turnout and not scaring the moderates.

Turnout on the Republican side must also be factored in as well as not scaring the Democratic conservatives, not just the moderates.

A: Obama won presidency and re-election in '08 and '12.

But almost lost in 2012, speaking of Independents. To Mitt Fucking Romney.

B: White woman and her white running mate lost to Trump

Wrong. She won the popular vote, but lost the EC.

Therefore: Only two white guys can beat Trump.

For the LAST FUCKING TIME, only two white guys GUARANTEES that we beat Trump. Anything else is an unnecessary risk given all that we know about what happened in 2016 and what has continued ever since. Did you know that among Black voters, Trump's approval as actually doubled? Do you think that's because of his policies?

The simple question is, why the fuck should we risk losing when there is no pressing need to? It's not like Harris is the second coming of Jesus and NOW--and ONLY NOW--can she run for President.

Again, the ONLY question to ask this time around, is who can best ensure that we beat Trump? It doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to figure out this is not exactly the best time for a first black female candidate (or a gay man) to run against nazis on the right and no longer-very-closeted-rural-bigots on the left.

 

[PyramidHead]

Obama was hammered with charges of socialism basically from day one, and that hasn't stopped since then, and now applies to every Democrat in the running. However, unlike 2004 and 2008, the majority of Democratic voters todat have a more favorable opinion of what they regard as socialism compared to capitalism, and the only Dem candidate who has proven appeal with Republicans and independents who voted for Trump out of economic dissatisfaction with the status quo is Sanders. Nobody who supported Trump in 2016 will vote for any of the other Democrats in the running. Bernie had a room full of Fox News town hall participants shouting "Yes!" at his every position for fucks sake.

As I noted, a super-majority of Americans support what Sanders wants to do. But what you are missing out on is "the message" and how the right-wing has managed to successfully skew it.

Let me put it another way, Strickland lost the Senate race in Ohio because advertising convinced people that Strickland destroyed Ohio's economy... he also used up the Rainy Day fund (he was Governor between 2006 and 2010, which might remind someone of a particularly notable global economic event that occurred during that time... torrential rain!).

Just imagine "the $24 Trillion health care disaster that Sanders wants to unfurl onto America" commercials. It doesn't matter that the private version would cost $28 trillion, people will get worried about that price tag and the very scary imagery/music that'll accompany it... probably a lot of red, some socialist symbols, and a spiraling out of control debt clock. "We can't let this happen to our children." "I'm President Donald Trump and my wang is huge and I approve this message."

Real truth doesn't matter when the opponents can lie with it. "There he goes again" will be Trump's zinger and Sanders won't be able to deflect such idiocy. The truth is complicated, which is why Trump lies... it is so much more simple.

Then we fight back, hard, instead of backing down and nominating someone who... I don't know, somehow won't be attacked mercilessly with lies and distortions? Who would be less vulnerable to that kind of treatment without also being far worse policy-wise? What you're saying essentially amounts to letting the opposition define the parameters of the race. It has been a losing strategy for the Dems for decades now. Every time they pick a safe candidate who is beyond reproach, they get their asses handed to them!

We've had two Democratic presidents in the last 30 years. Both were mercilessly vetted in bitter primaries and smeared by Republicans for every real and imagined failing under the sun. Every time the party nominates an establishment favorite who checks all the safe boxes and looks good on paper, the Republican challenger (usually a bumbling moron with many obvious flaws) easily beats them.

And they're perfectly fine with that.

Listen to what I'm about to say and don't forget it: the Democrats are fine with losing the presidency and not having control of Congress. Why? Because it means they don't have to govern, which is something they have always hated doing. Once you internalize this basic fact about them, their behavior suddenly makes a lot more sense. Don't listen to Pelosi and Schumer. Their jobs are safe, and they want them to stay that way by having essentially nothing at stake but their scheduled SNL cameos. The only situation that puts them in danger is one where they have the ball and are expected to run with it.

The media has much the same opinion about Trump. He's a godsend to their ratings, and lets them play the stalwart opposition in a manner that excuses their lack of any integrity or principled objection to what he stands for. They would all be peachy keen with another four years of Trump, just like they were with another four of GW Bush. Don't trust their reporting on the race or what the polls mean, in other words.

The stuff that obvious bad-faith interlocutors try to dig up on Bernie has absolutely failed to make any dent in his popularity. They unearth videos of him supporting the Sandistas, singing folk songs shirtless with Soviets over vodka, endorsing Jesse Jackson, and nobody gives a shit because his supporters don't see those things as flaws. And if we don't care, maybe others (hypothetical independents with no ax to grind) should ask themselves why they should care.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For the LAST FUCKING TIME, only two white guys GUARANTEES that we beat Trump.

You can ALL CAP it all you want. You haven't demonstrated that it is a fact.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

For the LAST FUCKING TIME, only two white guys GUARANTEES that we beat Trump.

You can ALL CAP it all you want. You haven't demonstrated that it is a fact.

Idiotic as I can just say the exact same thing to you, because that's not a realistic standard when trying to predict likely outcomes.

Nevertheless, it is for anyone that's been alive and paying attention for the past twenty fucking years. The best chance we have of beating Trump is to appeal to the massive Republican/Independent swing potential while at the same time unifying ALL Dems. All Dems will get behind two straight white guys. Not all Dems will get behind a gay guy or a black woman.

Again, it's not rocket science.

 

[PyramidHead]

For the LAST FUCKING TIME, only two white guys GUARANTEES that we beat Trump.

You can ALL CAP it all you want. You haven't demonstrated that it is a fact.

Idiotic. Nevertheless, it is. The best chance we have of beating Trump is to appeal to the massive Republican/Independent swing potential while at the same time unifying ALL Dems. All Dems will get behind two straight white guys. Not all Dems will get behind a gay guy or a black woman.

Again, it's not rocket science.

Don't fall into the electability trap.

Electability has also come to serve as an antonym to progressivism—that electable candidates appeal to moderate voters. But as Ezra Klein has explained, the moderate voter is a myth. Surveys mistake diverse opinions for moderate opinions, but in fact, some of the most popular ideas are on the extremes. A person who both supports a moratorium on immigration and full legalization of marijuana isn’t moderate, even though we could assign a score to each of those views on a left-right spectrum, and it would average out in the center.

[...]

It thus makes little sense to equate electability with centrism or moderation. What if, instead of attempting to navigate “other people’s” biases, we put our energy into supporting the candidates that wanted to solve our society’s biggest problems? What if, instead of trying to outsmart the electoral process, and anticipate what others want, we put our efforts into fighting for the people who we know will serve us best? We should make our primary about ideas and solutions, rather than myths and misguided assumptions, not just because those assumptions have led us astray in the past, but because the future of our country depends on not making the same mistakes again.

In other words, spending all your time making strategic choices based on what you think other people will like will not only concede the outcome to Republicans (as it did in 2016 and 2004) just keeps the people who usually stay home on election day complacent with staying home. Oh look, another moderate centrist that doesn't understand me. Guess I'll sit this one out again. The Democratic base used to be young people, predominantly women and people of color. Trump's horrible attitude toward all of those groups has energized them politically, and Democrats need to tap into that; they are willing to come out and support the candidate that represents them, and not just the interests of the party or the superficial antithesis of the other candidate.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Don't fall into the electability trap.

Ironic, coming from you, but rest assured, I'm not. For what I would have thought was the last fucking time (but I forget who I'm dealing with), this isn't about who is or is not electable; it's about who can best guarantee our chances of beating Trump. There is a difference as has been excruciatingly clarified for even the severely mentally impaired several times now.

Once again for the brain dead, there are TWO components at play in this election; one is Dem turnout the other is Republican/Right-Leaning Independent swing.

It does us no good to appeal to just one; we have to appeal to both, because if we slight one, it will fuck us. Remember, Republicans cheat. It is NOT an even playing field. We have the numbers on paper, but all it would take is a 5%-10% differential to fuck us. Iow, a small, but significant percentage of "conservative" Dems are turned off and don't turn out, while a larger percentage of Republicans who wouldn't have turned out, nevertheless get motivated to do so.

That is highly likely with a gay candidate. Highly likely with a black female candidate. Less, but still likely with either just a black or a female candidate.

But Dems always need their pet egos stroked, so we have to go through all of this BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH MY GUY/GAL IS THE BEST FUCKING THING every fucking time, instead of just unifying around the only thing that matters.

So get it all out of your systems now and pray that Trump gets impeached, because if none of you can see what is right in front of your faces right now, then it's a lock we'll lose.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For the LAST FUCKING TIME, only two white guys GUARANTEES that we beat Trump.

You can ALL CAP it all you want. You haven't demonstrated that it is a fact.

Idiotic as I can just say the exact same thing to you, because that's not a realistic standard when trying to predict likely outcomes.

While I wouldn't qualify your repeatedly saying white male ticket guarantees victory as necessarily idiotic, you are free to do so. Admittedly low hanging fruit, but I had to!

Nevertheless, it is for anyone that's been alive and paying attention for the past twenty fucking years.

Like when the two white guys lost in '00... and '04... and the black guy won in '08 and '12... and a skirt won the popular vote in '16? The last 20 *bleep* years indicate that white males don't mean a guarantee to victory.

The best chance we have of beating Trump is to appeal to the massive Republican/Independent swing potential while at the same time unifying ALL Dems. All Dems will get behind two straight white guys. Not all Dems will get behind a gay guy or a black woman.

Again, it's not rocket science.

You are correct, your analysis isn't rocket science.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Like when the two white guys lost in '00... and '04... and the black guy won in '08 and '12... and a skirt won the popular vote in '16? The last 20 *bleep* years indicate that white males don't mean a guarantee to victory.

It's like arguing with drunk sorority girls at a bachelorette party.

What did we learn in 2016 (and 2018, but to a lesser degree)? That there are a depressingly large percentage of once closeted misogynist bigots among Democrats who actually vote (unlike the younger noisey assholes that bark a lot but don't vote).

Those Dems haven't disappeared. They're still all out there. The last poll I saw it was 8%. 8% of DEMOCRATS that approve of Donald Trump. 39% of Independents. How the fuck that's even possible at this stage of the game is truly mind-boggling, but that's the reality we're dealing with.

According to the same polling group (Gallup) and same time period (April 1-9, 2019), the current breakdown of registered voters is: 27% are Republicans, 26% are Democrats and 44% are Independents.

If we go by those percentages alone, we're already fucked, so what do you think is going to happen if we now decide to run either a gay man or a black woman? That 8% and 39% that currently, inexplicably approve of Trump are NOT part of any swing. Those are ones who already swung and are currently firmly in Trump's camp.

So that means those numbers will only go up, not down (either directly, by crossover voters or indirectly, by non-voters) if we do something monumentally stupid. Like running a gay man or a black woman when there is no need to run either this time. A fact I've noted you (and others) keep avoiding.

That's what isn't rocket science about any of this. Just look at the fucking numbers. That's ALL you have to do to understand that there is no reason to take such a large and present risk this time.

 

[PyramidHead]

Don't fall into the electability trap.

Ironic, coming from you, but rest assured, I'm not. For what I would have thought was the last fucking time (but I forget who I'm dealing with), this isn't about who is or is not electable; it's about who can best guarantee our chances of beating Trump. There is a difference as has been excruciatingly clarified for even the severely mentally impaired several times now.

Those are literally synonymous. Beating Trump means winning the 2020 election.

Once again for the brain dead, there are TWO components at play in this election; one is Dem turnout the other is Republican/Right-Leaning Independent swing.

It does us no good to appeal to just one; we have to appeal to both, because if we slight one, it will fuck us. Remember, Republicans cheat. It is NOT an even playing field. We have the numbers on paper, but all it would take is a 5%-10% differential to fuck us. Iow, a small, but significant percentage of "conservative" Dems are turned off and don't turn out, while a larger percentage of Republicans who wouldn't have turned out, nevertheless get motivated to do so.

That is highly likely with a gay candidate. Highly likely with a black female candidate. Less, but still likely with either just a black or a female candidate.

Nothing good ever happens in this country because of this kind of thinking. You are the voice that constantly tells people who endure endless hardship, oppression, and discrimination that they have to wait this one out, AGAIN, so that next time (we promise) we can get around to representing you in government. And next time, it's another reason why the candidate has to be safe, so the ball gets punted another term. There will never be a perfect moment to stop pandering to bigots if we keep adjusting our expectations around them.

But Dems always need their pet egos stroked, so we have to go through all of this BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH MY GUY/GAL IS THE BEST FUCKING THING every fucking time, instead of just unifying around the only thing that matters.

We disagree about what matters and how to obtain it. What matters is identifying people in our society whose values and positions are in line with what ordinary people want for themselves and their loved ones, elevating that person to political influence, and forming a mass popular movement around the goals that define their candidacy. That, and that alone, is the only thing that has ever attracted moderates and opponents: genuine grassroots support, rallying together to address problems that affect us all. I realize this sounds foreign to you because it's probably been a long time since you passionately believed in a social or political cause on its own merits rather than its calculated advantage in electoral politics. But progress is not something with a fixed tempo that we have to passively accommodate with game-theoretical contortions of logic every 2 or 4 years while the same clown car of dull, talentless communications majors explain to us what we should care about.

And you know what? Trump's defeat should not even be our top priority, because there are worse fates than Trump in the long run. Examples? A timid, conservative Democratic administration that fails to catalyze the total transformation that needs to happen in our country, leaving young voters in a state of blank, nihilistic apathy and paving the way for the next Trump, who will probably be worse because he will be able to read. The only way out of that future is to shoot for the fences and decisively reject the conservative Republican minority, with enough uncompromising conviction to galvanize the 50% of the country that has been waiting for a moment like this for so long. You don't do that by sitting them down and badgering them with what they are and are not allowed to demand from their government, and when is the statistically opportune time to start having ideological courage. You take to the areas that are hurt most by the way things are, who have the most to lose by things staying the same, and you smash that fucking bully pulpit until there's buy-in on how urgent things have gotten. That attracts young voters and moderates, because both groups want to be on the right side of history.

In the end, we've already been informed by the world's foremost experts that nothing short of a cataclysmic uprooting of our global economic system in the next decade will forestall climate disaster on a planetary scale. Now is not the time to select mealy-mouthed candidates based on how little they trigger boomers and divorced dads who watch NASCAR, because if we give them a candidate they can stomach, it sure as hell won't be one with the mass following and radical ambition we need to stem the bleeding of climate change. We run the candidate who will either (a) convince those NASCAR dads to put aside their hatred of brown people and think about their kids not living in a flooded hellworld, or more importantly, (b) show the entire country they understand what's broken and need a widespread popular coalition to fix it, so that the boomers and wine moms are finally relegated to the minority voice they've already been since the turn of the millennium.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Those are literally synonymous.

(Post edited) C'est la vie.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Like when the two white guys lost in '00... and '04... and the black guy won in '08 and '12... and a skirt won the popular vote in '16? The last 20 *bleep* years indicate that white males don't mean a guarantee to victory.

It's like arguing with drunk sorority girls at a bachelorette party.

What did we learn in 2016 (and 2018, but to a lesser degree)?

In 2016 we learned that a ticket consisting of White people can't win the Electoral college.

That there are a depressingly large percentage of once closeted misogynist bigots among Democrats who actually vote (unlike the younger noisey assholes that bark a lot but don't vote).

But we learned in 2018 that there was a record number of women elected to the House.

Those Dems haven't disappeared. They're still all out there. The last poll I saw it was 8%. 8% of DEMOCRATS that approve of Donald Trump. 39% of Independents. How the fuck that's even possible at this stage of the game is truly mind-boggling, but that's the reality we're dealing with.

There are always a bare minority of the other party that support the other team in office. It's just a thing.

According to the same polling group (Gallup) and same time period (April 1-9, 2019), the current breakdown of registered voters is: 27% are Republicans, 26% are Democrats and 44% are Independents.

If we go by those percentages alone, we're already fucked, so what do you think is going to happen if we now decide to run either a gay man or a black woman?

Same thing that happened in '08 or '12?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

In 2016 we learned that a ticket consisting of White people can't win the Electoral college.

Um, want to try that again? That's precisely who did win the EC. Two straight white males (though I still think Pence is deeply closeted).

That there are a depressingly large percentage of once closeted misogynist bigots among Democrats who actually vote (unlike the younger noisey assholes that bark a lot but don't vote).

But we learned in 2018 that there was a record number of women elected to the House.

Yep. But that's a midterm. Different rules apply. Still extremely encouraging, but again the question is about unwarranted risk in the general and against everything that is Trump.

Those Dems haven't disappeared. They're still all out there. The last poll I saw it was 8%. 8% of DEMOCRATS that approve of Donald Trump. 39% of Independents. How the fuck that's even possible at this stage of the game is truly mind-boggling, but that's the reality we're dealing with.

There are always a bare minority of the other party that support the other team in office. It's just a thing.

First of all, 8% of Dems and 39% is by no means a "bare minority" and, second it's not just a thing when it comes to this President and what he's been doing.

According to the same polling group (Gallup) and same time period (April 1-9, 2019), the current breakdown of registered voters is: 27% are Republicans, 26% are Democrats and 44% are Independents.

If we go by those percentages alone, we're already fucked, so what do you think is going to happen if we now decide to run either a gay man or a black woman?

Same thing that happened in '08 or '12?

Do we have the same circumstances as '08 or '12? No. In '08 we were not up against an incumbent. In '08 we were up against a "maverick" Republican who chose Sarah Palin as his VP. And, once again, we almost lost in 2012 due to the Independents, who, at that time, were a much smaller factor (similar to '08):

Owing to comparatively strong turnout from Obama’s base, the composition of the electorate in 2012 was strikingly similar to that of four years ago: Nationally, Democrats made up 38% of all voters, Republicans 32% and independents 24%. This enabled Obama to win re-election even though he lost the independent vote. Romney won independents by a 50% to 46% margin. Four years ago, Obama carried independents by 52% to 44%.

Once again for auld lang syne, the makeup now is: 26% Dems, 27% Republicans, 44% Independents. If that had been the case in '08 (or '12) no Obama.

And of those 44%, 39% currently (i.e., after two years of non-stop lies; indictments; investigations; devastating America's standing both domestically and internationally; etc.), still approve of Trump. Again, that's NOT the swing; that's those who have already and continue to have swung.

So, I'll ask again, why pick now to run either a gay man or a black female? Look at the numbers.

 

[Brian63]

...why pick now to run either a gay man or a black female? Look at the numbers.

Because numbers are fluid and not fixed, especially now when we are a year-and-a-half away from the election. They represented the votes for the candidates that ran in those election years, which will very likely be different from the votes for the candidates running for this upcoming election year. People are now hungry for something dramatically different, a significant change from what we have become accustomed to, in the last 3 years of devastation. New ideas, new faces. If Dems are going to win the general election, it is important that they (we) nominate a candidate who brings about dramatic change and does not depress the base. We need to stop basing our entire decision on demographics from 3 years ago (4, at the time of the upcoming nomination) and instead look at the personal characteristics of the candidates themselves more prominently. Even if you dislike Buttigieg's personality or lack of federal government experience or his policies (or if you mistakenly argue that he advocates not having any until he would enter office), it is clear that the guy has intellect and articulation and great ethics and appeal to sway voters and excite the base. That is more important to winning an election than being a conventional white male.

 

[RavenSky]

The ONLY relevant question in this election is can they beat Trump? That's it. And to do that means no novelty candidates (i.e., no "firsts") and no candidates that will in any way antagonize the huge Republican swing potential.

Why can't Dems understand that certain elections--not all elections, but certain ones--are NOT about pet personal hopes and dreams?

In short, we need two straight white guys. Full stop. They need to appeal to the college educated white youth but also to the non-college educated rural white everyone.

They can't be gay this time and they shouldn't be another attempt at first female POTUS or "of color" (though that is less important) this time and they probably shouldn't be hundreds of years old (Biden) and/or hundreds of years old and cantankerous "New York Commie Jews" this time.

It's not personal. It does suck. It is, however, the cold hard reality of where we are at this point in history due to circumstances that have fuck-all to do with what's fair or right or one's "conscience" or any of the other dozen or so typical Dem arguments as to why they aren't voting for the one person that can actually beat the Republican.

There can be only one goal here: unify ALL Dems and pull Republican swing. The only way to safely guarantee that is two young(ish) white guys.

This isn't a proposition from Wittgenstein. It's painfully simple and driven entirely by the numbers, not anyone's personal agenda. Those numbers have to also factor in Republicans for any dipshits still not understanding how politics works.

So, no women, no openly gay guy?

Yeah, fuck that shit. I am so damn sick of being told that it's not the time for a woman POTUS. Fuck that hard.

Hillary Clinton did NOT lose because she was a woman or at least from the moderate vote. I'm certain part of the hate of Clinton is that she is a politically powerful woman, but that boat sailed for a lot people back in the 90s. I think it is safe to say a non-negligible reason she lost was her ticket was too white.

She didn't lose.

- - - Updated - - -

It will, actually, but even if it did not, it is MORE IMPORTANT to pull Republican swing. In 2016, Clinton pulled 90% of blacks, which was only 4 points off of Obama's pull in 2012.



Isn't that adorable. Semantics games.

What sucks is that you don't seem to be thinking this one through.

I've been accused of many things, but "not thinking something through" has never been one of them, especially when it comes to politics.

Your solution is to white wash the ticket, literally.

Not "my" solution; THE objective solution and for exhaustively detailed reasons based on the real world numbers I have repeatedly presented.

I agree, this isn't the time to put a Transgender Socialist Hippopotamus on the ticket.

Suggesting that Kamela Harris can't win because of her gender and race is ridiculous and unsupported.

IT'S NOT WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAS THE GENERAL CAPACITY TO WIN; IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN BEAT TRUMP, WHICH IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER.

Why the fuck can't Dems comprehend this?

Fuck the Republicans

In America, Republicans fuck you.

it is the "independent voter" and left-wing turnout.

By which you mean, right-leaning Independents, which is their swing component.

Putting two white guys on the ticket does not guarantee that.

It absolutely does in and of itself, but it certainly does when the alternative is a black woman or a gay mayor this time. We are talking about swing potentials, not about core percentages.

Two white people last time didn't win, and they didn't lose because Clinton was/is a woman.

They did, in fact win. What they lost was rural middle class older white guys, and 2020 isn't about 2016, it's about what's happened since 2016 and why there is no reason to take any risks knowing what we know.

Once again, it's about this time NOT ABOUT ALL TIME.

Fucking hell.

There is no "Republican swing" that is going to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter how white and male and no-gay that nominee is.

 

[RavenSky]

For the LAST FUCKING TIME, only two white guys GUARANTEES that we beat Trump.

For the LAST FUCKING TIME, HORSESHIT!!!!!

What would "guarantee" we beat Trump would be no gerrymandered districts, over-turn Citizens United, no Russian (or Chinese or any other) election interference, voting machines that are not rigged, and states that are not suppressing people's right to vote.

But if you want to scream in all caps about the type of Democratic candidate who could beat Trump, it will be the one that makes him piss himself in fear... and that would be Kamala Harris.

 

[Derec]

and that would be Kamala Harris.

To bring it back on topic: Kamala - Mayor Pete ticket?