So I'm still a bit undecided which is fine. How will each candidate beat Trump?

[Piratedog]

I don’t mean the base— I mean how are they going to wrestle the Obama Democrat’s who voted for Trump?
To win republican moderates who don’t like Trump?

Who can beat Trump in Michigan? Pennsylvania? North Carolina? Arizona? Colorado? Florida?

Getting more votes doesn’t matter. Getting the right votes is required.

This isn’t rhetorical.

I’ll support the nominee. Period. But I have real doubts about each of our candidates when faced with the questions above.

[Progress_Dem]

1. Here is my take

The way we beat Trump is turnout, new voters, and winning back enough of those who held their nose last time and voted for Trump because they didn't like HRC.

We must match the enthusiasm of the Trump voters. That is where turnout is key. We have to get our voters to the polls to vote. We have to give them a reason to go vote. A vote against Trump gets us partially there, but they need to believe in the candidate they are voting for too.

We also need to bring in new voters, young voters. Bring in those who usually don't vote.

And lastly, we need to give those who held their nose and voted for a Trump a real choice. Some of these are the blue collar voters that get mention a lot. They will vote for a Democrat who cares about them and offers policies that benefit them.

All of this is why I think Sanders is the best option. He can bring the inspiration, passion, and enthusiasm we need to get people out to vote. He represents a clear choice against Trump. He can appeal to the blue collar voters. And he is very popular with young voters and the new voter.

[Piratedog]

3. But doesn't sanders' socialism give excuse for the same folks to hold their noses

And vote for trump again? I think so. They may not say do but in a booth, they will

[ehrnst]

14. Do you have any polling data on what the population in general think about

the meaning of "socialism?"

They called Obama a socialist and even a communist! And yet those voters still voted for the "socialist" candidate.

What data do you have that those who called Obama a socialist still voted for him?

He is especially popular with the younger generations and the disaffected voters (who we need to turn out and vote in November).

So why do you think that he wasn't able to achieve the turnout necessary to win the nomination?

He inspires people, gets them passionate, and has created a movement.

The same was said about Nader. How did that election turn out for our country?

On Oct. 13, 2000, 15,000 zealous progressives packed Madison Square Garden for one of Ralph Nader’s super rallies. They paid $20 each for admission, evidence of their passion, since political rallies are almost always free. That year, many on the left were disappointed with the Democratic nominee for president. Al Gore was a wonky centrist and a stilted speaker who appeared to possess few core principles. For progressives, his association with Bill Clinton, icon of triangulation and political compromise, counted against him. At a time when the left was outraged over our corrupt campaign finance system, Gore was dogged by questions about money he’d received from sketchy donors with ties to foreign governments.

At best, Gore offered progressives a continuation of politics as usual. True, the Republican in the race seemed a right-wing buffoon, but Nader told his followers to vote their hopes, not their fears, and his message about citizens banding together to overturn entrenched, amoral corporate interests spoke to many people’s deepest aspirations. Bush and Gore, he said at Madison Square Garden, are “both for cracking down on street crime but ignoring corporate crime, which takes far more lives.” In response, the crowd erupted in chants of “Let Ralph debate!” Young people flocked to Nader, and hip musicians played his rallies: The lineup in New York included Eddie Vedder, Patti Smith, and Ani DiFranco, whose ’90s cool had not yet evanesced.

Nader concluded his almost hourlong speech by calling the evening “the most memorable political rally of the year 2000.” Some who were there felt they were witnessing the flowering of an epochal social movement. “The protest movement that has been growing on a grassroots level, as evidenced by the World Trade Organization demonstrations in Seattle, reached its political coming-of-age last night,” the Village Voice wrote.

At the time, it felt like nothing short of a rebellion against consumer capitalism. Nader had made his name campaigning against the blandishments of corporations, first as a consumer advocate and then as a gadfly political candidate. “Who designed this economy, anyway?” he asked at Madison Square Garden. “I think it’s time to have it designed as if people mattered, not as if General Motors, Exxon, DuPont, and the other corporations matter!”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/09/ralph-nader-and-the-tragedy-of-voter-as-consumer-politics.html

[ehrnst]

17. So you don't have any examples of the "different polling" you referenced. Why not?

As for Obama, my point was simply that the right called him a socialist too but he still got elected, twice.

So you don't have any data to support the claim that those who called Obama a socialist went ahead and voted for him, so they would vote for Bernie.

As for Sanders and turnout, be patient. Only one state has voted, and it was a caucus and not a primary. With that in mind, still, Sanders won some 6,000 more votes than Buttigieg.

He does best in caucuses. Primaries are not where he shines - when it's voters who turn out to the polls. Again...why do you think that he wasn't able to turn out enough voters to win the nomination in 2016?

Lastly, Nader was running as a third party candidate. Completely different contest.

I was pointing out the similarities to the points that you stated about Sanders being appealing to young voters, so they'll turn out to vote for him. Just like Nader. Many of the very same things were said about Nader "starting a movement" big crowds, lots of young people...

Are you saying that there would still be a Nader 'movement' if he had run as a Democrat? Why could he not sustain it past his candidacy for POTUS?

[ehrnst]

19. You said, "There is different *polling* out that presents a mixed view of Americans' views

socialism. As with *all polling,* it all depends on *how you asked the question.*

So you were not actually talking about any polls, when you said you were talking about poll data. And you have no evidence to support your claim that voters who called Obama a "socialist" voted for him. Just an assumption you have, that confirms your bias concerning your candidate preference. Got it.

We can't be afraid of what the right is going to call our candidate. They are going to call any candidate we nominate a socialist. Get ready for it. They will do it to Buttigieg, they will do it to Warren (especially Warren), etc.

They will only have evidence that one of those candidates self-identified as a socialist. The junior senator from Vermont. So there's that.


What they say does have an effect. You certainly can't be naive to the power of marketing and choice of language (see also "corporatist" "elitist" and "establishment" )? It's the reason that how a bill is named can make or break public approval of it.... As you recall, Obama had to distance himself from Reverend Wright. He had himself photographed drinking beer to disprove the claims of "secret Muslim." Imagine if they had a photo of him praying in a mosque....

We need a candidate, like Sanders, who will go out and present policies that are popular with Americans, popular with blue collar workers. Who will fight!

Any and all of the Democratic candidates will do that. Some have a far better record of actual achievements in that area than Sanders, and have been in politics for a far shorter time.

Sanders won 10 primaries in 2016. He also came very close to winning the nomination against HRC.

No, he lost by nearly 4 million votes. That's not close at all. And his performance against his opponents in the Iowa caucus this year was weaker start than 2016.

What Sanders did in 2016 was impressive given what he was up against.

You mean being up against the most qualified and vetted POTUS candidate in history? Bernie and Trump had the support of Russia and the GOP and still she beat both soundly in terms of the choice and confidence of the people.

And yes, had Nader been the Democratic nominee, he would have gotten more votes and support than he did as a third party candidate.

My questions weren't about the number of votes he got. Here they are again for your review, and another chance to answer:

Are you saying that there would still be a Nader 'movement' if he had run as a Democrat? Why could he not sustain it past his candidacy for POTUS?

[ehrnst]

28. OK....

I never said voters who called Obama a socialist voted for him. Not once.

Your own words....

Keep in mind, a lot of these blue collar voters and/or swing voters that are talked about have voted in the past for candidates labeled socialists by the right. They called Obama a socialist and even a communist! And yet those voters still voted for the "socialist" candidate.

(2) I disagree that any and all of the Democratic candidates will do what Sanders can do. I don't see a Biden building the type of movement Sanders has and will continue to build. I don't see Klobuchar inspiring voters like Sanders does. Etc.

I said that they would all, as Democrats fight for the same things. You don't agree?

(3) Again, Sanders came very close to winning the Democratic nomination in 2016. He gave HRC a run for her money. And in Iowa, he won around 6,000 more votes than any other candidate. These are just the facts.

He lost by nearly 4 million. And he does better in caucuses where many voters are marginalized, and an enthusiastic few can wear down a group of others. When it comes to individuals going to the polls, HRC was way ahead.

(4) Drop the Bernie Sanders and Russia talking point. It isn't helpful and only serves to divide Democrats with false information.

It's not my "talking point" - it's a finding in the Mueller Report. To say that it didn't happen is spreading false information. Again. It's clearly a sore point, but to falsely accuse Mueller of lying doesn't give you much credibility...

And once again, Nader ran as a third party candidate. That is not the same thing as running as the Democratic nominee.

Flog away at that Straw man all you like, but I never said anything to the contrary...

I have no clue what would have happened if Nader had ran as a Democrat and whether his movement would have been sustained.

I'm just pointing out so many of the same things were said about Nader starting a movement, and inspiring youth, etc. But it fizzled. I think the same thing will happen once Bernie has retired from the Senate.

[ehrnst]

31. What do you mean, "no one gave him a chance?"

No one stopped Sanders from running on the Democratic ticket- in fact he needed to be given an ultimatum by Tad Devine to convince him to do so. No one stopped him from campaigning. No one prevented him from debating. The Democratic Party could have told anyone who wasn't already a Democrat that they couldn't run on the ticket. Our party graciously allowed him to do so, despite the things he had said about the Democratic Party in the past. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.

Where does it say in the Mueller Report that the Sanders campaign had "the support of Russia." It says that Russia targeted Sanders supporters in an effort to help Trump by creating a wedge among Democrats. It never says that Sanders campaign had the support of Russia, which is what you claimed. That is a false claim.

Let me help you out. If you weren't afraid to read the links that I posted, you'd know:

The document, which spells out in detail how the Russians worked to support Trump’s campaign, alleges that on or about Feb. 10, 2016, the Russians internally circulated an outline of themes for future content to be posted on social media accounts.

“Specialists were instructed to post content that focused on ‘politics in the USA’ and to ‘use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump – we support them),’” the indictment said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

Got that? So before you go calling someone else a liar, you should get your fact straight. It's less embarrassing that way.

You know who else was said to have started a movement and inspired the youth? Obama. Sanders is and can do the same thing.

Bernie Sanders is no Barack Obama. Barack Obama is joyous, fun, young, worked well with people, had charisma, the respect of his peers, emotional intelligence, had the ability to listen, a sense of humor, had the ability to admit when he was wrong and apologize, had intellectual agility to move beyond talking points, and enjoyed interviews. He walked the walk by creating the day of service, and his family has been right there every single year since. He doesn't consider "pleasantries" like smiling and wishing someone a happy birthday to be a distraction from doing the work of a progressive - he believes it's a necessary part of it.

So there's that.

[Dem4Life1102]

20. New voters? Young voters?

Sorry but I’ve been hearing that argument for 30 years. It never happens. It’s a pipe dream.

[ehrnst]

23. I don't suppose you have the statistics to quantify that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_vote_in_the_United_States

[Dem4Life1102]

29. Doesn't prove your point

It only shows that younger voters voted for Obama not that the turnout of younger voters increased.

[ehrnst]

22. Whereas Hillary has actually inspired women, especially younger women

to get into politics and run for office - successfully!

That's how real change gets achieved.

[hangaleft]

2. I analyze it as a process of elimination

Last edited Thu Feb 6, 2020, 07:27 PM - Edit history (1)

In my view (I’m far left):

Bernie doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. America simply won’t elect a socialist president.

Pete doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. America simply won’t elect a gay man president.

I don’t agree with either attitude. But, that’s the reality.

Personally, I eliminate Biden and Klobuchar because I believe they’ll be “leave the past in the past”-ers. WE. ARE AT WAR. Republicans are not our opponents. They are the enemy who are out to destroy us and everything we stand for. A candidate who fails to recognize that is a non-starter for me.

Which leaves me with Warren. Good on the issues. Likable. A woman. Electable. Nothing for Trump to ridicule (except that ridiculous Pocahontas bullshit).

Warren is our best option IMO.

I will, of course, support and vote for whoever our nominee is. I just hope it’s not Joe or Amy. We need a warrior!

Edit/Additions — I believe Warren’s gender is an attribute, not a detriment. Not only do I believe America is ready for a woman, I believe America *wants* a woman president. (I’m a man, btw.)

Moreover, I left out another reason why I feel Warren is our best chance at beating Trump — She’s liberal enough to attract the support of hardcore Bernie supporters (who stay home or vote third party if Biden is our candidate), but not so far left as to alienate moderates or independents.

[Piratedog]

4. Same thing with warren. Folks won't say they won't elect a woman in punlic

But I’m not sure they will vote for a woman in the booth

Shouldn’t be that way but it is

[ehrnst]

15. Hm... the GOP voters supported a woman VP, and there were GOP women POTUS candidates.

No candidates who identified as socialists, though.

I don't think that being a woman has half the baggage of being a self-described socialist.

[ehrnst]

24. Agreed (nt)

[Piratedog]

5. It's the middle 20% we have to win. Not the edges

I never thought trump would win for all the reasons he shouldn’t have won. Problem is that people vote against their own best interests, are gullible as hell, defer to their fears, and many don’t do the right thing when no one is watching.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

6. Biden is the Democrat who is far the best able to beat Trump.

Everyone knows this, yet we are fucking around as if we want to blow this thing.

[hangaleft]

7. Frankly, I think our most electable candidate is no longer in the race

Kamala Harris.

I prefer Warren, and have supported her candidacy for the presidency since she announced her candidacy for the Senate.

But I truly believe Harris had the best chance of winning.

BTW, I am among the “everyone”s, and I don’t “know this”. In fact, I think Biden would be a weak candidate.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

8. Good grief, even those polled in Iowa named Joe Biden most likely

to beat Trump.

Then they failed to pick our strongest candidate.

It seems like many have a death-wish, or something.

Hard to watch.

[judeling]

9. The Key to beating Trump is to let Him Beat himself.

A candidate that does that right will have no problem with the Base or in the States.

Most of our candidates are capable of it. But the key is to goad him into overstepping and then do it again. Tie policy to his vanity.
You get him to piss off the suburbs then, you get him to piss off rural America, rinse and repeat.

He does it normally, but we just haven't had a single voice to take advantage of it. Everyone thinks he will control the narrative but a candidate that controls him actually does. When he gets into a cant back down corner then you tie the local Republican to it and have them do your work for you.

I'm not talking policy or appeals to the base or anything else but Trump himself. That is all it takes.

[DeminPennswoods]

10. The way to beat Trump? Follow the model of Joe McCarthy

While there are some valid comparisons of Trump to Nixon such as the crime, the cover up, the "enemies list" and so on, Trump's real comparison is with Joe McCarthy. Keep in mind that Roy Cohn was mentor to both men.

Both McCarthy and Trump were/are demogogues gleefully spreading lies and innuendo. While Trump has Twitter, McCarthy had the Senate HUAC committee where he could supoena anyone and charge them with being "communists". During McCarthy's time, the main media were televison, radio and daily newspapers, but like today, they could not resist McCarthy or the sensationalism of his charges. Senators, congressmen, civil servants, WH employees, artists, film makers - no one was safe from McCarthy and they were terrified to be named or supoened by HUAC because it could - and did - cost them their jobs or careers. This is the same situation today as Republicans are terrified of Trump's mean tweets or off the rail rantings.

Like any bully, when confronted with strength, McCarthy was exposed and his power almost immediately withered. This won't have a chance to bappen until Dems nominate their candidate, but during the debates, whoever the nominee is needs to confront Trump right from the start by walking over to him, invading his personal space and calling him out to his face. Trump will be shocked and move back or away, thus exposing him as a coward. Just like that female AfAm pastor did in 2016 when Trump visited her church.
The boil will be lanced and wither away.

[Cosmocat]

11. IMO

In descending order to the best shots ...

* Bernie as our POTUS candidate is a disaster of epic proportions. Republicans have REALLY wanted him as the nominee all along, the socialism thing was always an issue but with the country turbo charged with stupid, it would be an epic ass kicking and the end of our democracy.

* Biden was the best shot, but he got Hillaried. People just don't get how republicans have long and now 45 and Russia, etc. can dirty up our candidates. Joe did not run the best campaign and had $$$ problems, so he had a weak jaw, but the Ukraine thing knee capped him. He had to come out strong to keep the $$$ coming and keep the inevitable tag. Could possibly pull a McCain, but too many other strong candidates most likely.

* Klobochar is the least known entity. He COULD have the image to win the battle ground states, but just can't know. As with Pete and Bloomberg, she would benefit from not having long term bullshit cast on her by the right and 45.

* EW as my first choice before flipping to Pete. I like her a lot and think functionally she would be a good candidate, but she fell prey the default this country has for mysogony, went a little to far to left and also got skunked a bit by 45's attacks. Still has a shot, but has to get her down trend turned around.

* Pete has a bit of the BHO vibe, and is a better personal matchup with 45 cause he not old like everyone else, is so darn brilliant and engaging, and has a decent war chest. Pete seems like the best shot at the battle ground states how he is and how is positioned.

* I counted Bloomberg out from the start, but he might be our lifeline. He has endless $$$, and has shown more chops than expected. As an actual billionaire who knows 45 better than any other candidate, and so rich he has less weak spots, if everyone else falls flat or to rescue us from the Bernie disaster, he might be the lifeline. With time I have come to the place where I would almost prefer to have him be the guy in the epic, life and death, final battle with the jackass.

[Kurt V.]

27. by knowing that the corruption of our institutions is standing in the way of even the

simplest reform. from responsible gun laws to climate change. being able to clearly articulate
that message and provide the plans necessary to defeat it. There's only one candidate that does that.

[redqueen]

33. This is one of the many reasons I like Yang.

He gets independent and republican supporters.

Several of our candidates do - Biden and Bernie included. But for me Yang had an extra characteristic the others don't have - he's an outsider.