Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 9:44:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 21:34:24 GMT
NBC Article
Monmouth University PollNBC just released this poll/article. I started to put this on the catch all thread but in the course of reading it, I felt maybe it should have its own thread and maybe generate an honest discussion on who and what we Democrat’s are looking for to run against trump, if he is not primaried. IMO, it should be “anyone breathing, can beat trump. But this is a weird time in this country, so maybe they need to be as skuzzy as trump to beat him. Hope not, hope we are better then that. “Poll: Dems want 'electable' challenger who can beat Trump. Values come second.”“This year is a change from what qualities voters are looking for in their 2020 nominee.” WASHINGTON — Spooked by the 2016 election, Democratic voters say they want above all else someone who can beat President Donald Trump, according to a new poll Monday. The only problem is they disagree on how you beat Donald Trump. The poll from Monmouth University found that an unusually large number of Democratic voters are prioritizing "electability" over values as they begin to think about whom to support in their 2020 presidential primary. "In prior elections, voters from both parties consistently prioritized shared values over electability when selecting a nominee," said Patrick Murray, the director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. "It looks like Democrats may be willing to flip that equation in 2020 because of their desire to defeat Trump. This is something to pay close attention to when primary voters really start tuning into the campaign." In the survey, 56 percent of potential Democratic voters nationally said they preferred someone who would be a stronger candidate against Trump, even if they don't agree with that candidate on all issues. Meanwhile, 33 percent said they would prefer someone who aligns better with their beliefs, but who might have a harder time beating Trump. Just 10 percent rejected the question, saying there is no tradeoff between the two. The problem for Democrats is that, after Trump’s shocking upset in 2016, there's widespread disagreement on what electability even looks like. After all, Hillary Clinton was supposed to be more electable than Bernie Sanders, but she and her campaign were still blindsided by Trump and lost the presidency in the Electoral College even as they won the popular vote. That's not to say Sanders would have won, but that party leaders and the 2020 candidates themselves will have to spend much of the next year and a half debating not just why they are the best candidate to face Trump, but what criteria should even be used to judge that question. Is the most electable candidate a moderate who won't scare off the upwardly mobile suburbs that were crucial to the party's gains in the 2018 midterms? Or is it a person of color who can excite African-Americans and Latinos, whose turnout dropped off in 2016? Or could it be a populist progressive who can try to back white union voters who drifted from the Democratic Party in those upper Midwest states that were crucial to Trump’s victory? Or is it something else entirely? Ask a dozen Democratic strategists that question and you might get a dozen different answers, especially as they start to align themselves with different candidates with different electoral strategies. Strategic voting — choosing someone in a primary because you think they have the best chance of winning the general — is not new. And campaign pollsters often ask respondents how they think other people will vote to gauge perceptions of electability, especially for candidates who are women or racial minorities, where prejudices are difficult to tease out. Barack Obama, for instance, spent much of his 2008 primary election battle against Clinton convincing party elites that he was electable enough to be their standard-bearer in the general election. "The Clinton campaign maintained that we would struggle in the general election with blue-collar voters, seniors and Hispanic voters, and that the Republicans would find ways to make their swift boating of John Kerry look like child's play," Obama strategist David Plouffe wrote in his book, "The Audacity to Win." "Obama's 'electability problems' became the new narrative for us to fight through, less in terms of how voters processed the argument than how it was received by a few hundred superdelegates who now held our fate in their hands.” A month before the 2016 Iowa caucuses, NBC News and The Wall Street Journal asked potential Democratic voters what was more important to them. Just 16 percent chose "a candidate with the best chance to defeat the Republican candidate," while 46 percent opted for "a candidate who comes closest to your views on issues" and another 38 percent said "the right personal style and strong leadership qualities." This year, though, the "electability problem" seems to have filtered down to Democratic voters, especially in early primary and caucus states, who have already voiced worries that candidates they otherwise like couldn't beat Trump.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 9:44:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 21:54:39 GMT
linkPaul Waldman wrote this article in The Prospect. “Sorting Through What the Democratic Candidates Really Think About 'Medicare-For-All'IMO this is one of the traps candidates fall into. Trying to be all things to all people on a position. And I think that’s our fault because we almost demand a candidate believe as we do otherwise they won’t get our vote. That we have become so closed minded that we aren’t willing to listen to all views on a position that a candidate may present. As much as we talk about compromise from our candidates, we don’t seem willing to do it ourselves. And because of that the eventual elected officials aren’t willing to do it either. From the article “Medicare-For-All is now being used to describe a variety of different kinds of systems with significant differences. When I was 24 years old, with field-grunt positions on a couple of campaigns under my belt, I went to work for a political consulting firm where one of the first things I was taught was that getting too specific about policy was deadly for candidates. The trouble with putting out a bunch of white papers was that the more detailed you got, the easier it would be for voters to find something in your proposals they didn't like. And all it took was one disagreement for a voter to turn away and support another candidate who hadn't said anything they objected to. The safer path was to lay out broad principles on policy without getting too specific. It's hard for a presidential candidate to follow that advice, particularly on an issue that the primary electorate cares deeply about. But so far, the Democrats running for president (and those thinking about running who haven't yet pulled the switch) are at the very least keeping their options open on many subjects, especially the one that looks to be the most important policy argument of the 2020 primaries: health care, or more specifically, Medicare-For-All. Before we get to what the candidates are saying and will be saying, a word about that descriptor. Not that long ago, when liberals were asked what kind of health system they'd prefer, the words "single-payer" became the most common answer. The problem was that a true single payer system, in which everyone is covered by a government plan and there's little or no role for private insurance, exists in only a few places like Taiwan, while there are many other systems that provide universal coverage but include a role for (closely regulated) private insurers. As it became clear that many liberals were open to universal systems that weren't necessarily single-payer, liberals cast about for a different term to describe what they were for. "Universal coverage" might have been a contender, but for some reason it never caught on. Instead, "Medicare-For-All"—capitalizing on the enormous popularity of Medicare—became the thing every Democrat began to say they're for. To the dismay of the wonkish or pedantic (or both), Medicare-For-All is now being used to describe a variety of different kinds of systems with significant differences. At this point, though, we may have no choice but to live with it, particularly because it seems so popular among the Democratic presidential candidates who will be at the center of this debate. And as far as they're concerned, getting too specific could indeed be dangerous. Kamala Harris, for instance, did a town hall on CNN last week, and was asked about whether she really supported eliminating private insurance companies. That is what would happen under Bernie Sanders's Medicare-For-All plan, which Harris has cosponsored. She affirmed the idea, describing the difficulties private insurers create and saying "Let's eliminate all that, let's move on." But within a day, her aides were telling the press that Harris is open to multiple paths to reform, even if she still preferred true Medicare-For-All. That's probably why Harris is a cosponsor not just of Bernie's plan, but also of this plan and this plan and this plan, all of which try to expand coverage through the government in different ways without eliminating private insurance. She may be hedging her bets, but it also appears that she's been happy to sign on to any proposal that sounds better than what we have now. And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, all four of the senators currently running for president—Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand—cosponsored Bernie Sanders's bill, but none of them seems to look at it the way Bernie himself does, that eliminating private insurance is the only solution to our health-care problems and anything else would be inadequate. Unfortunately, that means that when someone says "Medicare-For-All," it's hard to know precisely what they mean. At a minimum they may mean that they want any American to at least have the option to join Medicare, or another government insurance plan, if that's what they'd prefer. That question of choice is absolutely essential to this debate, both substantively and politically. Allowing people (or businesses) to choose to join Medicare but not requiring them to do so would make for a much less disruptive transition, even if over time the role of private insurers grows smaller as more people switch to the government plan (which is likely to be more affordable). Just as important, Americans respond far more positively to the idea of opening up Medicare to those who want it than to the idea of moving them from their current plan to Medicare whether they want to or not. Don't forget, over 150 million Americans currently have employer-sponsored coverage, and people fear change whether the change will work out better for them in the long run or not Which is why the safest path for a presidential candidate to take is probably to offer the broadest possible interpretation of Medicare-For-All, applying it to a variety of ideas that may not be precisely compatible with one another. The first step for some of them is to say that though they cosponsored Sanders's bill, they don't necessarily think private insurance has to be eliminated right away, if at all. That seems to be Harris's position, it's what Booker has said, and it's what Warren says, too. Gillibrand describes a voluntary buy-in as a way to eventually get to a single-payer system. Because it's so early in the race and none of the candidates has produced detailed campaign proposals on just about anything, at this point they can be pretty vague. But as the race proceeds, voters are going to demand more specificity, particularly since this issue is so close to the hearts of the Democratic base and will be such a critical priority for the next president. Right now they can say they're for multiple different ideas, and put them all under the umbrella of "Medicare-For-All." But probably not for long. “
|
|
Anita
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,628
Location: Kansas City -ish
Jun 27, 2014 2:38:58 GMT
|
Post by Anita on Feb 4, 2019 21:57:18 GMT
At this point, I would pull the lever for anyone or anything running against that POS in the White House. After the last two years, values are laughable.
|
|
|
Post by monklady123 on Feb 4, 2019 22:02:44 GMT
Someone who can bring back the voters who couldn't bear to vote for Hillary. Someone ordinary. Probably not a woman or a person of color, sad as it makes me to say that. A plain ordinary white man, maybe from the midwest. And it has to be someone who will get the endorsement from whoever loses to him in the primary. The second place person has to say to his/her followers "YOU MUST VOTE FOR THIS MAN!" I still blame Bernie for never really coming out and saying that to his followers.
So yeah... no one exciting. The bottom line criteria is "can he beat trump?" If the answer is yes, then that's my candidate.
|
|
|
Post by colleen on Feb 4, 2019 22:02:54 GMT
While in theory I believe that anybody is better than Trump, in fact, I would find it difficult to vote for anybody as slimey as he is even if they were a dem. That is what horrifies me about the Republican party these days -- that they would stand behind him now.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 4, 2019 22:03:35 GMT
You don’t just have to beat Trump though.
Since the senate has refused to do a single thing about the election interference from 2016 or election security going forward, you also have to beat Putin’s hackers. Our country is up for grabs. Which ever foreign power has bigger/better internet troll/hacker ‘army’ can ‘win’ the 2020 election. Putin, China, even Israel. Our country is literally up for grabs via the Internet
Too many of us are too gullible.
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Feb 4, 2019 22:29:19 GMT
You don’t just have to beat Trump though. Since the senate has refused to do a single thing about the election interference from 2016 or election security going forward, you also have to beat Putin’s hackers. Our country is up for grabs. Which ever foreign power has bigger/better internet troll/hacker ‘army’ can ‘win’ the 2020 election. Putin, China, even Israel. Our country is literally up for grands via the Internet Too many of us are too gullible. I think this analysis fails to take into account the interference in the last election. Propping up Bernie and Jill Stein by the Russians also contributed to Trump's win. It is, IMHO, insane to think Bernie had a better chance against Trump. If Bernie had won the nomination, Trump would still have won the WH and possibly with the popular vote because Russia wanted Trump to win. They fought hard and down to the wire to block Clinton. The Russians wouldn't have backed off if Bernie won. Their goal wasn't just to block Clinton, they were playing hard for Trump to win. Because if Trump won, Putin won. My expectation is that Trump will not be on the ballot for 2020. I'll be supporting the Democratic candidate that aligns most closely with my values.
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Feb 4, 2019 22:39:55 GMT
Someone who can bring back the voters who couldn't bear to vote for Hillary. Someone ordinary. Probably not a woman or a person of color, sad as it makes me to say that. A plain ordinary white man, maybe from the midwest. And it has to be someone who will get the endorsement from whoever loses to him in the primary. The second place person has to say to his/her followers "YOU MUST VOTE FOR THIS MAN!" I still blame Bernie for never really coming out and saying that to his followers. So yeah... no one exciting. The bottom line criteria is "can he beat trump?" If the answer is yes, then that's my candidate. i was having lunch with my friend last week and this is exactly what we discussed. your view is also mine. word for word. my friend believes a woman in a top corporate position or who has a strong or long record in politics would be electable. she googled for the longest time but couldn't come up with anyone. like i said, i'm on the bench with you.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Feb 4, 2019 22:53:30 GMT
I think that it means someone who can pull independents and people slightly to the left of center.
Whether that is true or not will be the question in 2020.
|
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,946
Location: North Idaho
Jul 1, 2014 23:30:44 GMT
|
Post by Nink on Feb 4, 2019 22:57:52 GMT
I’m an independent, but after the last two years, I’d settle for anyone who falls somewhere between the Chucky doll and the Pope.
|
|
|
Post by monklady123 on Feb 4, 2019 23:12:53 GMT
I’m an independent, but after the last two years, I’d settle for anyone who falls somewhere between the Chucky doll and the Pope. (laughing so I don't cry) (and I totally agree with you)
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Feb 5, 2019 0:10:18 GMT
The second place person has to say to his/her followers "YOU MUST VOTE FOR THIS MAN!" I still blame Bernie for never really coming out and saying that to his followers. Even if he had, most of us that couldn't stomach Hillary still wouldn't have done it.
|
|
|
Post by Katiepotatie on Feb 5, 2019 0:33:20 GMT
Usually it’s someone in sync with my values. Right now it’s someone who can beat Trump.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Feb 5, 2019 0:41:10 GMT
Clear messaging Solid background with few skeletons/baggage Strong knowledge of law/policy/data and can fact check live Tech & Social Media savvy team Can win Wisconsin Has a solid health care policy/platform
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Feb 5, 2019 0:45:55 GMT
The second place person has to say to his/her followers "YOU MUST VOTE FOR THIS MAN!" I still blame Bernie for never really coming out and saying that to his followers. Even if he had, most of us that couldn't stomach Hillary still wouldn't have done it. and look what you got. Truly, absolutely truly, could anybody be worse than Trump?
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Feb 5, 2019 0:48:23 GMT
Even if he had, most of us that couldn't stomach Hillary still wouldn't have done it. and look what you got. Truly, absolutely truly, could anybody be worse than Trump? They put up the only person who could possibly lose to Trump. That also speaks volumes.
|
|
scrapngranny
Pearl Clutcher
Only slightly senile
Posts: 4,757
Jun 25, 2014 23:21:30 GMT
|
Post by scrapngranny on Feb 5, 2019 1:07:37 GMT
Preferably someone without a lot of baggage, both personal and political. Second someone with firm, clear, consistent, moderate political stance. We don’t neeed someone from the far left who can not attract conservatives who are sick and tired of Trump.
I just hope that person exists.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Feb 5, 2019 2:10:55 GMT
Someone moderate that can get voters from their own party as well as sway other voters from their standard party and get those independents. Someone that appeals to all genders. Someone who hasn’t been accused (or found guilty) of sexual harassment, crimes, or any other types of crimes.
Someone moderate.
(And in this next presidential cycle, literally anyone who can beat trump).
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 5, 2019 2:25:47 GMT
Honestly, as long as so-called moderates cling to the idea that Trump was a better choice because they couldn't "stomach" Hillary, we could run Jesus Christ himself and he'd lose.
Americans are deeply stupid. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, so Americans will toss a well-qualified candidate because she wasn't likeable enough, or because they didn't like her husband, etc., and vote for a corrupt, senile reality TV show star instead. Republicans have run their own party into the abyss, so now they're encouraging us to move further right so they can have a rational conservative choice instead of the crap show they've allowed their party to become. That, however, is not our job.
I say we run a well qualified candidate. There is no such thing as a candidate without baggage. No such thing as a candidate who hasn't pissed somebody off along the line. No such thing as a candidate who can be all things to all people. So we run one that is well qualified for the job, and Americans have a simple choice - the well qualified candidate or the current idiot occupant of the Oval Office. We know what the right choice should be.
We'll lose, of course. Because Americans are deeply stupid. They'll convince themselves that they "can't" vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who he/she is, and they'll vote for the idiot.
That's my pessimistic view tonight. I don't think anyone we can run is electable. Americans have shown they prefer stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 5, 2019 2:34:30 GMT
Unfortunately I honestly think it comes down to personality much more than people would like to admit. I fear the Dems are going to find an "adult" who isn't offensive and think there's no way he'll lose to Trump - they might want to spend a bit of time looking at how Kasich fared in the primaries. I truly don't want to start a debate about Obama, but I do think his election is pivotal to understand that people really don't vote for the person who has the longest track record. He galvanized people because of his personality. I knew 2016 was going to go for Trump when Dems put up Hillary. Again, it's not about debating her qualifications or whether she would have been a good president. She lost in 2008, because people were EXCITED about Obama. She went into that election process with the Super delegates in her pocket and a clear path to the White House with just a junior Senator with next to no experience to get through. Obama won despite the residual racism in this country. It's not about finding a white man. It's about finding a person who can connect with people. I still remember one of the early, early Republican debates when there were seemingly 500 people on the stage and I completely blew off Trump as I thought he was a clown that no one would take seriously. I was wrong. Now was he helped by an opponent who didn't excite their base - sure, but if the Dems hope to win in 2022 they better find someone who EXCITES people. Right or wrong, it's what people vote for.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Feb 5, 2019 2:39:18 GMT
Unfortunately I honestly think it comes down to personality much more than people would like to admit. I fear the Dems are going to find an "adult" who isn't offensive and think there's no way he'll lose to Trump - they might want to spend a bit of time looking at how Kasich fared in the primaries. I truly don't want to start a debate about Obama, but I do think his election is pivotal to understand that people really don't vote for the person who has the longest track record. He galvanized people because of his personality. I knew 2016 was going to go for Trump when Dems put up Hillary. Again, it's not about debating her qualifications or whether she would have been a good president. She lost in 2008, because people were EXCITED about Obama. She went into that election process with the Super delegates in her pocket and a clear path to the White House with just a junior Senator with next to no experience to get through. Obama won despite the residual racism in this country. It's not about finding a white man. It's about finding a person who can connect with people. I still remember one of the early, early Republican debates when there were seemingly 500 people on the stage and I completely blew off Trump as I thought he was a clown that no one would take seriously. I was wrong. Now was he helped by an opponent who didn't excite their base - sure, but if the Dems hope to win in 2022 they better find someone who EXCITES people. Right or wrong, it's what people vote for. I agree that charisma is going to be vital.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 5, 2019 2:41:29 GMT
Their reporting fails to consider the election interference that went into electing trump.
Sanders is not a democrat—never was and the Democratic Party hurt themselves by allowing him to run as such.
Right now I’m more focused on values and ethics.
Filing our tax returns and watching our 401K plummet and seeing just how much this administration has fucked over the middle class is enough.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Feb 5, 2019 2:47:52 GMT
Unfortunately I honestly think it comes down to personality much more than people would like to admit. I fear the Dems are going to find an "adult" who isn't offensive and think there's no way he'll lose to Trump - they might want to spend a bit of time looking at how Kasich fared in the primaries. I truly don't want to start a debate about Obama, but I do think his election is pivotal to understand that people really don't vote for the person who has the longest track record. He galvanized people because of his personality. I knew 2016 was going to go for Trump when Dems put up Hillary. Again, it's not about debating her qualifications or whether she would have been a good president. She lost in 2008, because people were EXCITED about Obama. She went into that election process with the Super delegates in her pocket and a clear path to the White House with just a junior Senator with next to no experience to get through. Obama won despite the residual racism in this country. It's not about finding a white man. It's about finding a person who can connect with people. I still remember one of the early, early Republican debates when there were seemingly 500 people on the stage and I completely blew off Trump as I thought he was a clown that no one would take seriously. I was wrong. Now was he helped by an opponent who didn't excite their base - sure, but if the Dems hope to win in 2022 they better find someone who EXCITES people. Right or wrong, it's what people vote for. I agree with you. Dems have a potential problem, though, because we truly are a big tent. We run the gamut on opinions and beliefs. So how to settle on one candidate who will satisfy most? Whoever that is, they have my vote, because nothing could be worse than what we have now.
|
|
|
Post by Zee on Feb 5, 2019 2:56:38 GMT
Honestly, as long as so-called moderates cling to the idea that Trump was a better choice because they couldn't "stomach" Hillary, we could run Jesus Christ himself and he'd lose. Americans are deeply stupid. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, so Americans will toss a well-qualified candidate because she wasn't likeable enough, or because they didn't like her husband, etc., and vote for a corrupt, senile reality TV show star instead. Republicans have run their own party into the abyss, so now they're encouraging us to move further right so they can have a rational conservative choice instead of the crap show they've allowed their party to become. That, however, is not our job. I say we run a well qualified candidate. There is no such thing as a candidate without baggage. No such thing as a candidate who hasn't pissed somebody off along the line. No such thing as a candidate who can be all things to all people. So we run one that is well qualified for the job, and Americans have a simple choice - the well qualified candidate or the current idiot occupant of the Oval Office. We know what the right choice should be. We'll lose, of course. Because Americans are deeply stupid. They'll convince themselves that they "can't" vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who he/she is, and they'll vote for the idiot. That's my pessimistic view tonight. I don't think anyone we can run is electable. Americans have shown they prefer stupid. Hahahaha it's true--so many of his supporters are deeply suspicious, uninformed, uneducated, easily misled by half-truths, and just plain stupid.
|
|