Will a single-issue Democratic primary candidate rise to the top?

[MineralMan]

Nope. Not going to happen. The narrower the scope of the issues a candidate thinks are important, the fewer the people that candidate will convince to support him or her.

As individual voters, a lot of us have a single issue that is the most important thing to us. We each get one vote. But, there are dozens of issues people feel that strongly about, so, a candidate who focuses primarily on one issue will only find supporters who share that focus. It's not a campaign strategy that will lead to becoming the nominee.

[comradebillyboy]

1. Seems unlikely. Too many pressing issues that can't

be put aside in favor of a single issue.

[Turin_C3PO]

2. You're right, of course.

A candidate has to appeal to voters on a wide range of issues.

I will say I’m glad Inslee is so focused on climate change because I believe it to be a future existential threat. I’m hoping if/when Biden wins that he’ll find a place for Inslee in his administration.

[empedocles]

3. We need a very big tent.

[aeromanKC]

4. Already has

Single issue: most likely to beat Trump

[MineralMan]

5. Ah, well, OK!

Yes. That is the single issue, isn't it?

[uawchild]

8. It sure is!

And when/if that evaporates, when voters feel confidant that someone else can also safely beat Trump, what are you left with?

Bubkiss?

That's the problem with single-issue candidates. But to be fair, we're all joking. Biden isn't a single issue candidate. Eventually he will sink or swim based on the entirety of his positions.

All the candidates need to be strong on a broad slate of issues if they want to have even a chance of getting the nomination.

[Gothmog]

6. I doubt that a single issue candidate can win the nomination

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. I sure hope not.

Obviously not everyone has the same issue that is most important to them. I think we all, as Democrats, agree on at least the outlines, if not all the details, of certain issues: Health care, climate change, abortion, PoC and LGBT rights, etc., but your BIG issue might not be the same as mine. I agree that it isn't a good strategy for a candidate to concentrate on just one while giving little attention to the others. And yes, I understand, for example, Inslee's point that that climate change is the biggie in the sense that if the climate goes all to shit we won't be able to do anything about anything else. But the reality is that other things still matter to people and they want those issues addressed, too.

I suspect this is the reason the DNC doesn't want to hold a debate about climate change. It's not that they consider it unimportant (I, for one, would love for there to be such a debate), but that other candidates would also want separate debates about other issues. So besides the climate change debate maybe we'd also have a health care debate, a gun control debate, an abortion debate, a tax policy debate, a racism in policing debate, an LGBT rights debate, an impeachment debate, and so forth. As a practical matter it would be unworkable, people would watch only those relating to their pet issue, and with 24 candidates it would be chaotic and unhelpful.

[ancianita]

9. Name one candidate who runs on a single issue. Name one. This isn't just framing DU's views here.

We all know who you're talking about.

[Wellstone ruled]

10. Your post outlines the Facts.

Single issue voters were a killer last time around. You and I will do our best to change the minds of those voters,but a single issue Candidate is DOA. That idea will be the death of the Democratic Party.

[ancianita]

11. "Single issue" is the label we gave to Republicans over abortion's cover for controlling women, and

immigration's cover for racism.

This is not a fair or principled framing of any candidate in the Democratic Party.

How do you now say that our party has anyone who does that? It's not true and you know it.

This is a multiple candidate, multiple issue party, and everyone here is supposed to support all the candidates, not label any of their strategies, and thereby them.

DU discussions using the "single issue" label has got to stop.

[BannonsLiver]

13. There are single issue voters in both parties.

It’s a term used in political science as well. I’m not sure why you think it’s a slur other than the fact perhaps you’re under the mistaken impression picked up somewhere along the line that it is.

[ancianita]

14. Only this year: beating Trump. In other years, no.

[BannonsLiver]

18. No, you are mistaken.

People always have their pet issues. In some cases those issues can make them select a candidate, or select another one depending on the results. Your efforts to turn a commonly used word in political science into a slur is bizarre.

[ancianita]

27. No one says "pet issue" here, as in "pet peeve." Let's stay clear about the seriousness of the

Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2019, 06:41 PM - Edit history (1)

framing that's used here to exclude candidates rather than support them.

No one has to agree with candidates, but you won't see me or even a number of DU members set up a whole thread to set up single issues about the candidates.

"Single issue" is the common thread of Republican elections, so don't go telling me now that, now it's an okay poli sci term to call any issue a "single issue" -- you might as well tell me "both sides do it." WE Democrats don't use any "single issue" standard in judging our party's candidates. But I'll tell you which party does.

Single-issue politics are a form of litmus test; common examples are abortion, taxation, animal rights, environment, and guns. The National Rifle Association in the United States, which has only one specific interest, is an example of a single-issue group. What differentiates single-issue groups from other interest groups is their intense style of lobbying.

The term single-issue voter has been used to describe people who may make voting decisions based on the candidates' stance on a single issue (e.g. "pro-life" or "pro-choice", support for gun rights or gun control). The existence of single-issue voters can give a distorted impression: a candidate's overall views may not enjoy the same support. For example, a person who votes for a socially liberal Republican candidate, based solely on his or her support of abortion, may not necessarily share the candidate's other views on social issues, such as gun rights or family values.

From Wikipedia. Tell me again which party uses single issues.

[BannonsLiver]

28. K

[aikoaiko]

12. But single issue candidates can force the issues for the party.

Its not all about winning the primary.

[KayF]

15. a candidate with a defining issue can

Inslee with climate change, Warren with corruption in politics come to mind. Both of those issues could be seen to encompass more than the issues themselves.

[MineralMan]

19. Well, I think too much focus on a particular issue can

hold a candidate back in a serious way. Elizabeth Warren is doing OK and rising in the polls. She's not actually a single-issue candidate at all. In fact, she has position papers and plans for a wide range of issues, and I believe that's why she's doing well right now.

Inslee focuses hard on the climate change issue, and is stuck at 1% or less in the polls.

That doesn't mean that Inslee does not have supporters. He does. It's just that voters have their own issue priorities and tend to make choices based on those, as well. If one candidate's highest priority issue doesn't match, they look elsewhere.

Which is not to say that climate change is not a crucial issue. It's just not the only crucial issue in this election year. Pretty much all of the Democratic primary candidates take climate change very seriously, but most of them also have positions on multiple issues that are of concern to voters. That seems to me to be a more effective campaign strategy for a presidential candidate.

[Laelth]

16. Now we see an attempt to turn Democrats against Jay Inslee. WTF?

Dude, the more you pit Democrats against other Democrats--the more you attempt to turn us against one another--the more transparent you become. Jay Inslee is not a one issue candidate, and, even if he is, I suspect my children would appreciate his reminding the Democratic Party that climate change is the #1 threat to our entire species. Why attack him? Why bring this issue to our attention in the way you did in this OP? I have my suspicions about your motives, to be sure. After all, you and I have been reading one another's work (on multiple fora) for a long, long time.

Someone. Please alert on this post. I have had enough of MineralMan (one of the greatest concern trolls I have ever encountered on the internet), and I would be thrilled to have a jury consider this question. His latest OP, I posit, is a concern troll post, as is nearly everything else that MineralMan has ever posted on Democratic Underground.

So is this: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=145229

I could go on and on ...

-Laelth

[MineralMan]

17. What an interesting reply...

I posted my opinion about something here on DU. You disagree with that opinion. That's well within the purpose of DU and the Democratic Primaries forum. I don't mind if you disagree. Not at all.

But, then, you ask people to alert on my post, in hopes that a jury will decide to hide my post. That's a pretty strange thing to do, I think. Why ask others to do that? Why not alert on it yourself? I'm confused about those questions.

I will continue to post my opinions here. You can count on that. It's what I do on DU. And so will you, I imagine.

[Laelth]

20. I asked people to alert on MY POST, not yours.

I called you out, and I am pretty sure that’s a violation of DU rules.

No matter. I said what I needed to say. Hope you are well, old adversary.

-Laelth

[MineralMan]

22. Bye, now...

[Laelth]

23. LOL. You and I have been reading one another's work for about ten years.

I doubt that's going to change. Instead, I will say, "bye for now."

-Laelth

[MineralMan]

24. The difference is that I only post here,

and never call you names or call you out for posting your opinion.

[Laelth]

25. There was a time when you posted elsewhere.

Perhaps you only post here now, but there was a time when you posted on Old Elm Tree and elsewhere. I have no shame in calling you what you are ... a concern troll, as evidenced by your continuous pitting of Democrats against other Democrats, and by your constant attempts to divide us from one another. That, at least, is what I have seen over the past ten years.

My best to you and yours, old adversary.

-Laelth

[MineralMan]

26. Old Elm Tree, eh?

Yes, I went there for a few days to defend myself and then left. Why? Because a nice person sent me a thread from a private forum on that site, where I was doxxed and threatened by some members there.

I spent a little time finding out who the people were in that thread and gave that information to my attorney. He sent a couple of cease and desist letters. He is really good with those.

So, yes, I did go there briefly. I've visited some other sites, too, but without posting on them.

A dozen years ago and more, I used to troll on a couple of right-wing sites, as well. I stopped bothering with that when Obama was elected.

For ten years, now, I've only posted here. You seem to know a good deal about me. That's interesting, but only to a minor degree. The past is the past, unless it isn't, I always say.

[Honeycombe8]

21. Who are you talking about? nt