Besides not knowing what the field is going to look like, the main reason it's too early to make rational guesses about 2020 is the assumption that the field will be large. That means that someone could be 1st place in Iowa and New Hampshire with barely 10-20% of the vote. A perfect recent primary to study is the 2016 GOP primary which similarly had a massive field. One of the things I found fascinating was how quickly Scott Walker folded ... someone who I thought had some broad GOP appeal. A big field can sometimes reward a candidate who may lack broad appeal, but has a very loyal and reliable niche. You can lean on your niche and hope that the opposition cannibalizes itself. Don't forget that Trump was often winning states with barely 25-30% of the vote. It wasn't until very late that he won a couple of states with 50%+. Monday morning quarterbacking is pointless since one can never know, but I think Kasich had almost as much to do with Trump winning as Trump did. Cruz was pretty competitive anyways, but I think Kasich in the end stole more votes from Cruz than he did Trump.
*see Harvard poll from last month posted above.... I’m a “POC “ and that whole narrative is so lazy...he’s not walking around with hot sauce in his bag...
If young POC voters are default Democrats, they should be making a much bigger impact on Democratic primaries than they have. 800,000 Latinos turn 18 every year in America. So why is the share of people self identifying as Democrats actually decreasing? The number of Democrats and primary turnout is very relevant. You can't just separate the primary from the general, since many of the same people vote in both. My whole point is that I find it annoying when people take the POC vote for granted like it's a given. The only thing keeping the POC vote favorable to Dems is the fact that the GOP is the opposition party. My secondary point is that there is a price to pay if Democrats start explaining everything through identity politics. POC are not a monolith. Women are not a monolith. White progressives are not a monolith. Instead of focusing on putting people in separate neat little boxes, the left should be focusing on unity. Isn't that the America we're supposed to be fighting for?
Focusing on unity is a great way to lose progressive voters who want to see the Republican Party burn to the ********ing ground.
Registration yes, but also in the way people identify themselves. https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx Voting is different because people only have two viable choices. Polling and studies have shown that voters are increasingly voting negatively, not positively. They're voting against who they hate, not who they like. For example you can't explain the above average turnout in 2018 as a sudden national infatuation with the Democratic Party. It was a Trump referendum, simple as that. The drum I keep beating in this forum for years is that the Dem party shouldn't just be running against the GOP. That's a recipe to maintain the status quo where we win some and lose some. I want Dems to run for themselves, and enter an era of sustained majorities and super majorities so we can finally move this country into a better direction. A lot of the critical issues facing us need to be addressed like yesterday. Whenever I see this repeat of identity politics finger pointing, I see us returning to the same pathology that got us to where we are today. Dems will never be the 60%+ party with that mindset. I can already see posters like superdave, knave and others working overtime to alienate X Bernie voters before the race even starts. What agenda does that serve? We'll just have another regressive primary that weakens us and strengthens the GOP.
They don't count. They're 100% irrelevant. The only people less relevant are the unfortunate voters in places like NY and California. If the Democrats give the nomination again based on how people in, say, Arkansas vote in their primary, it'll be a massive self-own.
Is it? Turnout in this year’s U.S. House primaries rose sharply, especially on the Democratic side The 2018 midterm vote: Divisions by race, gender, education The age divide in voting, which barely existed in the early 2000s, also is large. Majorities of voters ages 18 to 29 (67%) and 30 to 44 (58%) favored the Democratic candidate. Voters ages 45 and older were divided (50% Republican, 49% Democrat). Among voters who said this was the first midterm in which they voted, 62% favored the Democrat and just 36% supported the Republican. As of 2017, 50% of the country were Dem/Lean Dem according to Pew. That's the highest it had been since 2008/09, when it was... 51%. Gallup's party affiliation polls are all over the place, but in general the democratic part has been running solidly of the GOP. And when you add "Dem + Lean Dem" it's a substantial lead. Which is to say: I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm obviously not talking about what you're talking about. In many places, people that "lean dem" either can't or won't vote in a Dem primary. I understand the concept that this is ultimately a 50/50 country. What I'm talking about is that the Democratic Party is representing fewer and fewer of their half compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago. As for 2018 ... great. Now we just have to make sure Donald Trump stays president for the next 20 years so we can keep getting that big youth turnout. Because they sure as hell weren't there for the Dem party just 2 short years ago, or 4 years ago.
Those voters elect somewhere between a third and a half of the Congressional Black Caucus.They also elect a sizable percentage of state and local officials in those states. A campaign has to do the electoral math, but any candidate who openly admits he doesn't care about the party as a whole or a significant demographic slice of the party in general simply because they cannot help him, personally, win the election has no business asking the party for the nomination. He or she is going to need Democrats in Congress to sign on to his or her agenda once elected, and he or she is going to need allies at the state and local level.
Probably won't be in 2020, but it sure as hell was in 2016. It would be revisionism to claim that Bernie wasn't running from Hillary's left.
Bernie is not a good candidate. Apart from his inability to beat a beatable Clinton, he is all fire and brimstone, but not the coals that actually are needed to cook the food. And, like Biden, he is too old. Do we really want another 70+ year old entering the WH? Booker has baggage, both with his Wall Street connection, but also with his mayoral time. Yet he is also fairly solid. Harris - what does anybody know about her? Seriously, what are her policies? And what is the polling data from Black women (those who I know are skeptical of her, but that is not a true measure). O'Rourke? Really? He couldn't beat a beatable Cruz. That is going to held over him massively if he get the Dem nomination. Of everybody out there, I think Booker is the best one to lead, and I think O'Rourke would be a good VP candidate.
I think you're underestimating O'Rourke. He came closer to winning a statewide race in Texas than any Democrats since Ann Richards. He did it while eschewing PAC money, AND I believe his race had a positive effect for down-ticket races. Also, his race just had that energizing "zeitgeist" vibe that's really hard to quantify but in this day and age can turn into social media buzz, etc. He's not my choice, but while the Texas result was disappointing I don't think it's quite the curtain-falling disaster you do. Booker, IMHO, has waited too long. Not for MY tastes, but we're in the age where having a legislative record is almost a detriment.
I'm not sure what you mean. AFAIK, he was a goddamn superhero as mayor. He was routinely shoveling old ladies out of the snow and rescuing kittens from trees.That's why he became senator nearly by acclaim.
<looks at thread title> <realizes boloni has gotten to the point of an argument where he’s so determined to “win” he can’t remember what he’s talking about >
I'll give you gun control, but in the 2016 the two candidates were asked about unaccompanied minors that were deported under Obama's administration. Clinton answered that she would want to increase the number of lawyers to handle those asylum cases. Bernie's answer was simply to have an uncontrolled opening of the border to any unaccompanied minors arriving from the region. Then there was the Fox News town hall where the two candidates were asked about late term abortion. Sanders answered with an unequivocal opposition to any restrictions. Clinton answered that she supports restrictions, unless the life of mother is in danger. The only way Sanders could have swung more pro choice would be if he came out in favor of aborting already born babies. On gay rights, both candidates had imperfect records, but by the time the campaign started there was no discernible difference between the two. If anything Bernie beat Clinton on the gay marriage issue by 4 years having come out in favor back in 2009 compared to her 2013. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Bernie tried to flank her from the left on most other issues as well.
Go back and re read my first post on this issue ... post #319. All I said is that it's absurd to assume who has a chance when nobody noteworthy has even declared yet. And it's absurd to see posters in this forum already going after Bernie voters ... in this thread and the 'Democrats in wilderness' thread. You're the one that decided to reopen the identity politics attack on Bernie, when I wasn't even defending or talking about Bernie. The whole POC trope against Bernie was stupid in 2016, and it hasn't aged well since then. I admit that I do get triggered about that for several reasons. First of all because we all saw the DNC leaks and how the sausage was being made behind the curtains. These talking points were being manufactured for divisive political reasons, not on the basis of any specific policy differences. Second of all it was always a very lopsided attack, focusing only on Bernie's shortcomings while at the same time trying to whitewash Clinton's murky history with social justice issues. And finally what angers me the most about the identity politics angle is that it devalues the people that don't fit the stereotype. Your Keith Ellisons and Raul Grijalvas and Ro Khannas who did so much work for the Bernie campaign in 2016. And vice versa, all the progressives last month that ran with the support of Bernie's activists, like Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ayanna Presley, Ammar Campa Najar, Chuy Garcia, Sanjay Patel and so many more. Some of these people were actually part of the Bernie movement in 2016. I guess they too didn't read the memo on why Bernie is no good for POC.