Will the Democrats nominate a George McGovern or a Bill Clinton in 2020?

[Elixir]

My ideal candidate would be strongly libertarian on social issues, moderate on economic and foreign policy and strong on opposing illegal immigration while still being pro-immigration at reasonable levels in general.

Well, isn't that just precious! I suppose that you would like to be recognized as the arbiter of "reasonable levels", "moderate economic and foreign policy" and the rest of the soft parameters you listed that you claim to favor?

On the brighter side, it looks like the venerable magic brownies are carrying your poll in a landslide.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I disagree. What your country needs is an engaged electorate. Almost half of you didn't vote and many of the rest, especially on the left, only did so grudgingly because they were voting against something as opposed to voting for something. Another pragmatic, middle of the road nominee who'd promising to maybe look into some of their issues and perhaps start the first tepid steps of implementing part of a few of them (provided that doing so polls well in the suburbs of the swing states) isn't going to do it. Your country needs to go too far the other way and then recorrect instead of just treading water in the current doldrums.

Do you think everybody who is not an ideologue from the left or right fringe is necessarily tepid? I know Hillary was, but that is not necessarily the case. One can have strongly held political and policy opinions without being on the left or right wing of the political spectrum.
My ideal candidate would be strongly libertarian on social issues, moderate on economic and foreign policy and strong on opposing illegal immigration while still being pro-immigration at reasonable levels in general.

Yes, one can, but that's unrelated to the point being made. I'm saying that the left wing needs to get itself inspired and active in your country. If other people want to get themselves inspired and active as well, that's even better, but the left wing is the demographic which currently needs a far bigger kick in the ass than anyone else.

 

[Derec]

The Dems had a good candidate

You're serious?
Or in other words, the Democrats had a very good candidate, but this wasn't it.

 

[skepticalbip]

The Dems had a good candidate,.

Then why the hell didn't they run that good candidate instead of the train wreck that they chose to run? Are you saying that they intentionally threw the election by running someone who couldn't even beat an opponent like Trump?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I have heard that Hillary is considerably charismatic in one-on-one situations. Dems need someone with crowd charisma like a Trump or a Bernie. And someone without thirty years of republican attack-dog scars all over them. And definitely someone who doesn't sound fingernails-on-chalkboard screechy every time they try to be emphatic. So yeah - prob'ly a male.

I have heard the opposite, that she is more charismatic when speaking to a crowd (as hard as that would be to believe). But then I doubt that either of us will ever have the chance to know which is true.

Not necessarily. Without a promise of access to the White House, i hear her speaking fees will most likely take a considerable nose dive, thus making her more accessible to the rest of us. She may be speaking at a grocery store opening near you.

 

[skepticalbip]

I have heard the opposite, that she is more charismatic when speaking to a crowd (as hard as that would be to believe). But then I doubt that either of us will ever have the chance to know which is true.

Not necessarily. Without a promise of access to the White House, i hear her speaking fees will most likely take a considerable nose dive, thus making her more accessible to the rest of us. She may be speaking at a grocery store opening near you.

That is cold, funny as hell, but cold... and maybe a bit of truth in it.

 

[ksen]

I have heard the opposite, that she is more charismatic when speaking to a crowd (as hard as that would be to believe). But then I doubt that either of us will ever have the chance to know which is true.

Not necessarily. Without a promise of access to the White House, i hear her speaking fees will most likely take a considerable nose dive, thus making her more accessible to the rest of us. She may be speaking at a grocery store opening near you.

And still have trouble filling aisle 3 with people to listen to her.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Dems had a good candidate,.

Then why the hell didn't they run that good candidate instead of the train wreck that they chose to run? Are you saying that they intentionally threw the election by running someone who couldn't even beat an opponent like Trump?

No, I'm saying that Clinton was the good candidate. Won the popular vote by at least 1% too. The polling was historically wrong and she won the three states she had to win. What happened was she lost blue wall states, which no one saw coming. No one thought it was possible to win Virginia by several pts and lost Michigan or Wisconsin.

 

[Deepak]

Then why the hell didn't they run that good candidate instead of the train wreck that they chose to run? Are you saying that they intentionally threw the election by running someone who couldn't even beat an opponent like Trump?

No, I'm saying that Clinton was the good candidate. Won the popular vote by at least 1% too. The polling was historically wrong and she won the three states she had to win. What happened was she lost blue wall states, which no one saw coming. No one thought it was possible to win Virginia by several pts and lost Michigan or Wisconsin.

I wouldn't say no one http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-campaign-neglect_us_582cacb0e4b058ce7aa8b861

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, I'm saying that Clinton was the good candidate. Won the popular vote by at least 1% too. The polling was historically wrong and she won the three states she had to win. What happened was she lost blue wall states, which no one saw coming. No one thought it was possible to win Virginia by several pts and lost Michigan or Wisconsin.

I wouldn't say no one http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-campaign-neglect_us_582cacb0e4b058ce7aa8b861

Like I said, couldn't possibly lose MI or WI but win VA by 5 pts. It sounds like they were complacent.

It turns out, she should have bunkered down in the midwest and not gone to GA or AZ, but that point was to landslide Trump. All Clinton had to do was win the wall and Nevada, Virginia, and New Hampshire. She didn't win the wall.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Then why the hell didn't they run that good candidate instead of the train wreck that they chose to run? Are you saying that they intentionally threw the election by running someone who couldn't even beat an opponent like Trump?

No, I'm saying that Clinton was the good candidate.

Even now, after she lost to "the worst candidate ever" you still insist that she was the good candidate.

 

[Sarpedon]

I was just reading how they neglected the get out the vote ground game in Michigan and other states she took for granted. After all we were told about how good she was at fundraising, and how good her ground game and organization were. From now on I'm not going to believe that crap unless I've seen some evidence of it. Next time I'll be part of the ground game myself, so I can see firsthand.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Her failure to do any sort of get out the vote ground game is part of the reason she is such a great candidate.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Her failure to do any sort of get out the vote ground game is part of the reason she is such a great candidate.

But political campaigns are about perception and style over substance. Therefore when she said she had a great ground game, that was more important than actually having a great ground game.

Also, not putting the ground game together saved donor money that was better spent going into Clinton's bank account.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, I'm saying that Clinton was the good candidate.

Even now, after she lost to "the worst candidate ever" you still insist that she was the good candidate.

Making a couple flawed (in hindsight) campaign decisions doesn't make he a terrible candidate. She had experience for the position she was running for. Trump didn't.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Her failure to do any sort of get out the vote ground game is part of the reason she is such a great candidate.

But political campaigns are about perception and style over substance. Therefore when she said she had a great ground game, that was more important than actually having a great ground game.

Also, not putting the ground game together saved donor money that was better spent going into Clinton's bank account.

The ground game existed... in states that were presumed to be close, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia.

They didn't think that Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania were in play. Almost no one did. In hindsight, she took those states for granted. Ultimately, Michigan and Wisconsin would not have been enough. Clinton lost big in Iowa and Ohio (losing Ohio by a margin similar to Texas!). So the get out the vote mistakes in close states wouldn't have been enough, unless they could have made Pennsylvania blue, but that was lost by a decent margin (relative to getting more turnout). North Carolina and Florida were also lost, but the ground game existed there.

Clinton lost, in main part, because:

1) Some white people, mainly rural, are tired of the cards 'always being stacked against them', and they turned out in good numbers for Trump.
2) Anti-government white people (and a few Latinos) think that the Government can create jobs if a billionaire is in charge.

More white people vote so winning that group by a large enough margin can offset the minority voting, especially in states with fewer minorities (Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina).

 

[skepticalbip]

But political campaigns are about perception and style over substance. Therefore when she said she had a great ground game, that was more important than actually having a great ground game.

Also, not putting the ground game together saved donor money that was better spent going into Clinton's bank account.

The ground game existed... in states that were presumed to be close, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia.

They didn't think that Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania were in play. Almost no one did.

Not true. The Clinton team convinced themselves that they weren't in play. The Trump team saw the discontent with the establishment. Only way too late did the Clinton team realize they had a problem in PA. They drug in "star power" to put on concerts to try to attract enough people to the rallies to even make their efforts there worth while. In WI, the Clinton team never did realize they were in trouble.

In hindsight, she took those states for granted. Ultimately, Michigan and Wisconsin would not have been enough. Clinton lost big in Iowa and Ohio (losing Ohio by a margin similar to Texas!). So the get out the vote mistakes in close states wouldn't have been enough, unless they could have made Pennsylvania blue, but that was lost by a decent margin (relative to getting more turnout). North Carolina and Florida were also lost, but the ground game existed there.

Clinton lost, in main part, because:

1) Some white people, mainly rural, are tired of the cards 'always being stacked against them', and they turned out in good numbers for Trump.
2) Anti-government white people (and a few Latinos) think that the Government can create jobs if a billionaire is in charge.

More white people vote so winning that group by a large enough margin can offset the minority voting, especially in states with fewer minorities (Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina).

If the Dem. party convinces themselves of this and runs their next campaign accordingly then they will be in for another big loss.

Demographically, Trump did better with females, blacks, and Hispanics than Romney did. It was these that won for Trump.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But political campaigns are about perception and style over substance. Therefore when she said she had a great ground game, that was more important than actually having a great ground game.

Also, not putting the ground game together saved donor money that was better spent going into Clinton's bank account.

The ground game existed... in states that were presumed to be close, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia.

They didn't think that Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania were in play. Almost no one did. In hindsight, she took those states for granted. Ultimately, Michigan and Wisconsin would not have been enough. Clinton lost big in Iowa and Ohio (losing Ohio by a margin similar to Texas!). So the get out the vote mistakes in close states wouldn't have been enough, unless they could have made Pennsylvania blue, but that was lost by a decent margin (relative to getting more turnout). North Carolina and Florida were also lost, but the ground game existed there.

Actually, quite a few people thought that these states were in play. For instance, the Democrats on the ground in those states were saying that for months but Clinton and the DNC chose not to listen and provide them extra resources. Trump's team said that they were in play but Clinton and the DNC chose to ignore him and decided not to look into the matter to see if their claims were justified. Taking a look into those things could have revealed the holes in their strategies and helped them elsewhere as well, but they chose to stay within their little bubbles and not pay attention to contrary data.

 

[skepticalbip]

Then why the hell didn't they run that good candidate instead of the train wreck that they chose to run? Are you saying that they intentionally threw the election by running someone who couldn't even beat an opponent like Trump?

No, I'm saying that Clinton was the good candidate. Won the popular vote by at least 1% too. The polling was historically wrong and she won the three states she had to win. What happened was she lost blue wall states, which no one saw coming. No one thought it was possible to win Virginia by several pts and lost Michigan or Wisconsin.

Not true at all. The Trump team saw it clearly and took advantage of it. It was only smug arrogance that allowed the Dems to not see that there was significant discontent with Democrat policy in Mi and WI. VA is blue because a significant portion of those government bureaucrats who work in Washington live in VA.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually, quite a few people thought that these states were in play. For instance, the Democrats on the ground in those states were saying that for months but Clinton and the DNC chose not to listen and provide them extra resources. Trump's team said that they were in play but Clinton and the DNC chose to ignore him and decided not to look into the matter to see if their claims were justified. Taking a look into those things could have revealed the holes in their strategies and helped them elsewhere as well, but they chose to stay within their little bubbles and not pay attention to contrary data.

But ignoring the people in the field and making decisions contrary to the evidence is why she was such a great candidate. She clearly knew better.