Dem Rep. Debbie Dingell: Trump Could Win in 2020 'If We Don't Nominate the Right Candidate'

[highplainsdem]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/dem-rep-debbie-dingell-trump-could-win-in-2020-if-we-dont-nominate-the-right-candidate/

Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D- MI) said today that President Donald Trump could very well win re-election depending on who her party chooses to run against him.

Chuck Todd asked if Biden is right about the Democratic party still being the Obama/Biden party or if he’s just hoping for that to be the case.

Dingell said, “I’m from the midwest, and I’m going to tell you––I told you for three years… that President Trump could become president because he listened to people in the midwest, he talked about economic issues, he talked about issues that mattered to working people. I’m going to tell you now: President Trump could win re-election if we don’t nominate the right candidate.”

As far as the question of the Democrats being the “Obama/Biden” Democratic party, Dingell said, “It’s a party of working men and women that want somebody to care about them that are going to talk about the issues that matter to families across this country.”

Todd brought up the controversy surrounding Biden’s inappropriate touching of women. He asked if him joking about it today was just way too soon for him to bring it up in a lighthearted context.

“It’s his first public event,” Dingell responded. “I’m not going to judge him on it or not on it. The crowd reacted. Joe Biden is Joe Biden. If he runs for president he’s going to win because he is Joe Biden. He’s got to respect people’s space, he’s got to understand that there are some people––and he’s acknowledged it––that don’t like it, but his strength is his empathy.”

-snip-

Video at the link.

[UniteFightBack]

1. I saw this interview. She is right. We can not afford to fuck around. nt

[still_one]

2. Even if we have the "right candidate", unless we GOTV, we can lose

[at140]

3. Well Duh!

Right candidates win 90% of elections.

[msongs]

4. yeah amazingly enuff lol nt

[Cha]

10. Yes, Debbie Dingle was saying we have

to get that "right candidate" as primary voters. That's our challenge.

[Tucker08087]

5. Yes, he listened to them and talked about their issues.

And then he lied through his teeth and told them what they wanted to hear and they believed him. So we need someone who can somehow crack through both thick skulls and bullshit at the same time and show them that they are worse off for their past support of Trump. The facts are there!

[Cha]

8. Exactly, Tucker.. that's what I was thinking

when I read the OP.. ".. he Lied about Economic Issues.." and they should have discovered that by now.

[at140]

15. Smooth bullshitter is a huge plus

Trump has occupied the WH with that!

[David__77]

6. Glad to hear phrase "working men and women."

Class is a critical issue on which to forge unity and win. I think Biden could definitely do that. Technocratic perspectives won’t do it.

[workinclasszero]

7. Good thing we have two already in the race that can beat Trump, and one in the wings....

Poll: Trump trails several Democratic prospects in 2020 match-up

By STEVEN SHEPARD 08/22/2018 05:49 AM EDT

The 2020 presidential election is still more than 800 days away, but a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows President Donald Trump with paltry levels of support when matched up with nearly a dozen would-be Democratic opponents.

Against the two best-known candidates — former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Trump trails 12 percentage points and is mired in the low 30s. Biden leads Trump, 43 percent to 31 percent, and Sanders’ lead over the president is virtually the same, 44 percent to 32 percent.

Trump also trails Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — the first-term senator he has mocked as “Pocahontas,” which Warren calls a racial slur — but by a smaller margin, 34 percent to 30 percent. A plurality of voters, 36 percent, are undecided.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/22/trump-2020-democrats-matchup-790890

[Andy823]

18. This is from August 2018

The fact is we have a lot more than just "2 men" who can beat trump. We have a great group of women who can beat him also.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. PPP Jan 2019 ...still old, I know

Beats trump by

Biden 12

Sanders 10

Harris 7

Warren 6

Gillibrand 5

[Cha]

9. Sounds like Debble knows Joe Biden..

Yes, it's getting that "right candidate" that is our Challenge as Voters in the Primary.

THIS!!

“It’s his first public event,” Dingell responded. “I’m not going to judge him on it or not on it. The crowd reacted. Joe Biden is Joe Biden. If he runs for president he’s going to win because he is Joe Biden. He’s got to respect people’s space, he’s got to understand that there are some people––and he’s acknowledged it––that don’t like it, but his strength is his empathy.”

[StevieM]

11. Trump did not win on economic issues, no matter how often people claim otherwise.

He won because of Comey and Putin.

[Demsrule86]

12. It wouldn't have been close without economic issues.

[StevieM]

13. I am not sure what you mean by that, but in a round about way I agree.

If the race was decided based on economic issues alone we would have destroyed Trump. Without our advantage on those issues Trump would have won in a landslide. The FBI made sure of that with their illegitimate actions.

[Demsrule86]

14. The midwest does not have a good economy...left behind.

So when Trump promised to send help it, mattered. He is now a liar and we can use this with a candidate midwest voters believe care about them

[Awsi Dooger]

20. If the race was decided on economy alone, Trump would have destroyed Hillary

There are very faulty memories here regarding how the economy was viewed in 2016. The right track/wrong track number was 2/1 underwater all year. The Republican pundits on CNN and MSNBC are disgusting but they were correctly making that point all year regarding the right track/wrong track ratio, and that it gave Trump a chance no matter what the race looked like on the surface.

Rachel Maddow and others were grinning while waving state poll numbers in the air but they were somehow oblivious to the big picture. For whatever reason the Obama second term turned off white voters without a college degree to such extent they were singleminded and furious, determined to take it out in the polling booth. I probably had a better grasp of that than most Democrats because I met dozens of white guys like that in the Las Vegas sportsbook scene beginning in 1984, and many of them became long term friends. Several of them voted for Gore and Obama but switched to Trump in 2016. One of my long time best friends and I no longer communicate because of how enthusiastic he is for Donald Trump. It is indeed cult like. He thinks Trump is among the handful of greatest human beings of all time.

The 2016 national presidential exit poll revealed what happened: 62% said the economy was "poor" compared to only 36% saying "good." That right track/wrong track percentage held in the same range as all year: 33% "right track" and 62% "wrong track."

Numbers like that meant Hillary had very low margin for error. The economy was picking up but it hadn't translated to public opinion yet. Trump has essentially inherited Obama's economic uptick. Now he has taken steps to destroy it, like a typical Republican, but we are at the mercy of the calendar. It would be completely unprecedented for a presidential incumbent to lose if the economy is viewed as strong. That's why I am no longer going to participate in the primary debates. Simply not worth it. I'll just sit back and see what happens. We need a combination of the economy noticeably slowing in 2020, along with nominating someone with enough charisma to withstand the GOP smear campaign. Minus both of those variables playing out in our favor, the situational landscape indicates Trump is more likely than not to win. Frankly I'll be surprised if he doesn't win. That's why there is no reason for me to post here frequently. Nobody wants to hear that Trump is likely to win, and I fully understand that. I always default to situation first and don't care about day to day variables.

I love Hillary but she made an incomparable gaffe by deciding not to campaign in those upper midwestern states, despite those states having a makeup of 85-90% whites in their electorate. That type of error should not have been possible, given the indications coming out of the 2014 midterm. White unrest was headlining every article analyzing that midterm.

Statewide polling can be awful. I have made that point since joining this site in 2002. I started betting on politics in 1992 once I noticed how inept state polls can be. Difficult to believe we forfeited a presidency largely because we were stupid enough to rely on state polls, instead of looking at the very basic stuff like demographic and ideological percentages in those states.

Minus Comey, Hillary wins very narrowly.

[StevieM]

22. She spent more money than Obama did in Michigan and Wisconsin.

She had more ads on the air. She had a larger ground operation in both states. And she actually did hold rallies in Michigan.

It is true that she didn't hold rallies in Wisconsin, but I doubt that would have effected the outcome. In the final days of the race, when Trump finally thought he had a chance of winning, because of Comey, the first thing he did was cancel a rally planned for Wisconsin.

As for the economy, it speaks very highly of her that she was more trusted on the economy than Trump, in spite of those numbers you cited. Then again, maybe it speaks ill of Trump.

I do agree about one thing: Trump is counting on Obama's strong economy to get him re-elected.

[at140]

16. The critical states were PA, WI & MI

In 2016. Basically a rust belt. The bullshit about bringing manufacturing jobs from China was what sold there. I doubt 50% voters even know who Comey is, and 75% couldn't name dictator of Russia.

[StevieM]

17. No, but they know the lies the Comey helped to spread

Last edited Sat Apr 6, 2019, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)

about a ridiculous, fake scandal about an email server.

And that issue trumped economics, where we were more trusted.

I also disagree that those states were more critical than Florida and North Carolina.

[at140]

19. PA, MI, WA were flipped from long time reliable democratic states

FL & NC have gone red more often than blue, if by very small margins.
No one was counting on PA to go red. That is what made it critical.

[peggysue2]

21. Joe Biden's strength is indeed his empathy and his experience

And as is often the case, his opponents will try (are trying) to turn those qualities into a weakness. That has been the narrative for the last week.

It will be up to Joe Biden to walk the fine line of speaking to those voters, like the men at the Electrical Workers' Union conference (the guys who laughed at Joe Biden's quips) while convincing others that he does understand that reining in his touchy-feeley nature is important, something he's willing to do.

That's the challenge Joe Biden faces now and will be on-going throughout the pre-primary and beyond.

But here's the thing: Joe Biden is a professional with years of ducking and bobbing bad PR and worse press. If there's anyone who can thread that needle, speaking to a wide swath of the American public, it's someone like Joey Biden. That speech at the Electrical Worker's conference was excellent, strong. It was undercut by the hugging nonsense, but the Democratic message was center stage from workers' rights, union protections, climate change mitigation, education, etc. and the vision thing: we are a country who has done big things in the past. We can and must write our own narrative for the future. Not by shrinking from the world but by opening our arms.

He's got the message. He's got the juice and a fighting spirit. I believe he'll meet the challenge.

Time will tell.