Tonight's special election shows we can't afford a risky nominee in 2020

[5starlib]

Trump still can get those hayseeds to turn out and it's going to be hard to win in FL, NC and GA, though not impossible. We can't think that we can put up ANY nominee against Trump and they will win. We need to select a nominee that shows strength in the swing states than can win the election. We need a nominee that can in WI, PA, and MI...period. I don't care about getting a nominee that's uber popular in Seattle, L.A., SF, and NYC. I don't think nominating a socialist-like/revolutionary type candidate is going to win in 2020. I think tonight was a reality check.

[empedocles]

1. YES!

[Turin_C3PO]

2. We did fine tonight.

We turned a bright red Trump district into a purple swing district.

[5starlib]

3. True enough, but we should've won

[EndGOPPropaganda]

5. R+12 district because of extreme gerrymander.

[Turin_C3PO]

7. Turnout should be higher for Dems in 2020,

so their’s a good chance we’ll take the seat at that point. And I agree that Biden will be the best candidate to win states like NC.

[JI7]

38. that's like saying Republicans should have won NYC

[Drunken Irishman]

9. I wouldn't say fine. Polls gave the Dems a chance...

In fact, the average of the last polls had McCready winning the race. He actually under-performed his 2018 totals across the board. This was a race where the Republicans got caught stealing and yet the Democrats struggled to flip it back.

Sure, the Democrat did better than in past elections but the dynamics prove it's not a sure thing that we'll win in 2020.

[blm]

12. He overperformed in Mecklenburg. GOP vote took a 10% drop tonight.

That’s huge

[Drunken Irishman]

15. And yet still lost by a larger margin than he did back in November.

[blm]

18. GOP took a huge 10% drop tonight in a very red district.

Too bad you can’t appreciate that.

[Drunken Irishman]

21. Not compared to 2018.

I would've hoped all the information of election stealing, Trump actively campaigning there, and the state of everything would've meant the Democrats didn't actually perform worse in that district compared to 2018.

[blm]

23. People are used to Nov elections. You WANT to see a horror story

here for Dem party, go ahead. Suit yourself.

[Control-Z]

33. What horror story?

Again, I don't understand what the message is. We can never believe we've got the win. They will cheat like they've never cheated before. We can't just have a higher vote count. We have to win by a bigger margin than has ever been necessary.

Complacency is our enemy.

[Drunken Irishman]

34. I wanted to see the Democrats win.

[blm]

36. Well, McCready is to the right of Biden, so what does that say?

Maybe Dems would have won with an energized, unabashed progressive?

[Doitnow]

49. Ditto. People will be more likely to come out to vote especially for someone who advocates what most

people want. Huge majorities are tired of waiting for resolutions to problems this country faces.

[empedocles]

115. 2018 clearly said the issue is trump, not policy. Dems did not flip all those trump seats

with policy. Was moderates who knew their districts - [and who are carefully avoiding the impeachment now issue].

[bigtree]

94. +1000

[rockfordfile]

183. All of us did

[Turin_C3PO]

16. But I imagine Dem turnout

will be better in a general election. Republicans, of course always turnout. But maybe we could win the district in 2020.

[elleng]

17. Right, and repugs under performed by 10+ points.

[Demsrule86]

24. We need to field candidates for districts that fit the district...we might have won with someone

else.

[AJT]

28. The Republicans were found to have committed fraud in the last election and still won.

That should be a wakeup call.

[NYMinute]

46. Fine is not good enough.

We have to win ... and OP is correct.

We lose if we nominate any ultra left revolutionary type.

[blm]

50. McCready ran as a centrist

[NYMinute]

55. He ran in North Carolina

A more left leaning candidate would have lost by 20 points

[blm]

59. Nah. Jeff Jackson would win in that district, and he's a progressive.

He’s like the Justin Trudeau of NC, and will probably be Senator Jackson in a few years. There isn’t a Republican in NC who thinks he could beat him.

McCready, as much as I wanted him to win and thought he could pull it off, was always just a little too careful about staying as close to the center as he could. Not very exciting.

[bearsfootball516]

90. That district is pretty moderate/leaning right. You have to play to your district.

If AOC had ran there, she would have gotten smoked. Meanwhile, if McCready were to move up to NY and primary AOC, he would get slaughtered. Different candidates have to run their campaigns based on their districts demographics.

[TheRealNorth]

190. I have no problem with McCready being the dem candidate for the NC 9th

But the OP was extrapolating the result to suggest that we must run a Presidential candidate that can win in the NC 9th.

[RhodeIslandOne]

182. There are people who think Beto is ultra-revolutionary.

So, move on?

[NYMinute]

187. Beto is a center-left progressive

He has an unorthodox campaign style but he is no revolutionary.

The only "revolution" that has succeeded in history is the American revolution and that was against a foreign power.

All other revolutions made people's lives worse.

The French revolution got rid of Louis but they got Napoleon who was no better.
The Bolshevik revolution got rid of the Tsar but got them Lenin and now Putin.
The Mao revolution got rid of the educated class and led to an authoritarian bloodbath.
The Iranian revolution got rid of the Shah but people got the Ayatollahs who are worse.

We don't need no revolution. We just want normalcy, decency, efficiency, equality and policies with empathy to help the underprivileged and those down on their luck. So let's keep the torches, pitchforks and guillotines locked up in the barn.

Biden-Beto 2020

[EndGOPPropaganda]

4. Welcome to DU, 5starlib!

[5starlib]

6. Thank you!!

[kaiserhog]

8. I fear the OP is drawing the wrong lesson.

To run for a return to 2016, I fear will result in four more years of Trump. By the way McCready was a very low risk candidate.

[empedocles]

20. The OP is not what the 40 or so vulnerable Dems will assume.

And, their situation is made worse by the purists attacking Dems who can win.

[kaiserhog]

51. Not attacking anybody.

I would advise you to do the same to Dems who may advocate more change. That makes things worse as well.

I also understand that different candidates with different views on some issues is what it will take to take control of the senate, this is especially true in our large, varied and somewhat fragile federal republic.

[empedocles]

88. The GOAL is getting rid of trump. The OP rcognized that. There are two radically

different elections with radically different constituencies - the Dem primaries and the general election.

trump has never lost sight of that and is already attacking the 'far left', like it or not. That is his best chance.

[Personally, I think single payer would be a great change, but the 2020 general election campaigns are not the right place to to push for those aspirations. The aspirations can come, after winning the Senate and beating trump].

My point is, let us not, as the OP suggests, risk making the same damn Dem 2016 mistakes that significantly helped trump win in 2016.

[KPN]

109. tRump calls Democrats trhe "far-left", as does the entire frigging GOP. But feed right into it if

you prefer.

[Doitnow]

120. Well, I remember tRump sounding just like Bernie toward the end of the 2016 election.....

(because Bernie was getting huge crowds with his message)....tRump was promoting almost word for word, progressive ideas that Bernie advocates....only tRump LIED. There must be lots of videos of same. Small wonder some Dems drifted to tRump. People want REAL change and thought they would get it with him.

That is one good reason we need a more forceful leader with progressive ideas. Look at the electorate. Huge majorities want the more progressive programs and someone to lead in the challenge. Rethugs have no second thoughts about demanding what they want. We can be just as demanding and demonstrating that we are willing to meet the challenge is what will get out the vote.

[TheRealNorth]

129. Exactly

If they want to start the name calling, you call them fascists and ask them why they have done nothing to stem the rise of neo fascist terrorism.

[empedocles]

130. trump is effectively scaring voters away from Biden with 'socialists' and ''far leftists' type Dems.

We have to deal with those problems - they are real.

[vsrazdem]

10. These districts will be redrawn for 2020.

[blm]

11. Trump won NC9 by 12%. Huge 10% drop. Panic posts are absurd

especially basing it on an election in a very red district that every Republican is supposed to win.

A 10% DROP in a very red district.

[Tiggeroshii]

14. hah i almost word for word said what you said without seeing your post!

[KPN]

110. Yup.

[Tiggeroshii]

13. His unpopularity is what brought him down from +12 to +2.3 in 2018 and now.

If the voters in districts like these vote anywhere close for trump as for their republican candidates, then it is unlikley he will be able to hold the +3% from 2016 for 2020. A Repug 2.3% win represents a 10% deficit for trump in a state he won by 12

[Gothmog]

19. I agree

We need an electable candidate

[JI7]

45. why was McCready not electable ?

[blm]

60. Not getting any answers.

I notice. ; )

[not_the_one]

22. Welcome 5starlib!

I will vote for WHOMEVER the nominee is in the GE, with no regrets.

But I will NOT vote for "more of the same" in the primary.

We are at an unprecedented crossroads. More of the same won't solve the problems that more of the same got us into...

And by more of the same, I mean a party that didn't address the issues, that neglected whole sections of the country, and that didn't have the spine to address an issue due to "political considerations" (meaning they weren't guaranteed a win). The party either does what's right, or they are not a party that deserves our support.

For 2020 I will give them ONE. LAST. PASS. due to the gravity of the election. But after 2020, no more "settling".

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. Your fear based defeatism is duly noted

In case you hadn't noticed, NC is a red state, and that seat hasn't had a Dem in it for decades.

It's quite illogical that you would use this NC race to justify nominating a "safe" candidate, someone like Mondale, or Dukakis.

It's much more logical to say that the election of Omar and Tliab shows that America is ready for bold leadership and substantial change.

Nominating a Status Quo incrementalist will suppress turnout in the general, especially among young voters. If we significantly increase the youth turnout, WE WILL WIN.

[MarcA]

27. Agreed. It's a fear based agenda. n/t

[blm]

31. Dan McCready is center left.

Probably a tad right of Biden and Bennett. Ran ads wanting to work with Republicans, too. I don’t get why the OP is saying this race is a warning for 2020.

[JI7]

47. the OP is just talking points without any context

it's what the media always does. but if one knows this is a longtime red district that trump won by double digits we would see it as a positive for Democrats when it comes to purple districts.

that Rachel who has been on Lawrence o'Donnell and has good outlook for Democrats said that Republicans will also have high turnout. so if course this will help red areas like this district.

[highplainsdem]

61. It's also a fear-based argument to say that nominating a more moderate candidate will suppress

turnout.

We simply DON'T KNOW in advance.

The most reliable guide we have is polling, and that can also be off, and if the polling shows a close race, it's usually within the margin of error and either candidate could win without the polling having been inaccurate.

Ideally, we nominate a candidate who wins match-up polls by margins well outside the margin of error.

That still doesn't guarantee victory. And polls can change a lot between nominations and elections.

But polling is still in demand because it makes more sense than just guessing how a particular candidate or type of candidate will affect which groups vote in which numbers.

[TreasonousBastard]

85. "We simply DON'T KNOW in advance."...

But we can't stop talking about it.

[KPN]

111. THIS

[democratisphere]

26. I thought we had already learned THIS in 2016.

Guess not.

[KPN]

112. In the GE?

[floppyboo]

29. McCready had no primary challenger. Where was the risk?

I think your OP title tells a tale. You seriously don't have anything to base your fears on. Perhaps a real progressive would have knocked that icky Repub off his feet!! Perhaps if the DNC got behind someone with a strong bold message, Trump's fear-mongering would have been more obviously fatuous.

[KPN]

113. We will never know, though I suspect the chances in NC were and are not good. At the same time,

running moderates has only done one thing -- help us sometime win a majority in one of the houses. In the past 24 years (a period over which massive damage has been done to the middle and working class via economic law passed in Congress), we've held the House only 25% of the time and the Senate 42% ... and that was by running moderates. What does that record say?

[roody]

30. McCready is socialist-like?

I thought he was more like Republican-lite.

[KPN]

114. And revolutionary!

So, the conclusion to draw by running a moderate (more like R-light in my book as well) who actually lost is that we need to run scared from anyone who supports expansion of Medicare as a means to provide affordable access to health care to all Americans, the goals of returning to more highly subsidized and therefore affordable public higher education, etc., because those are "revolutionary", "socialist-like" (what the hell does that mean other than socialist/communist -- pure fiction) ideas and will surely mean defeat (even though these weren't on the table with either of the candidates in this special election).

The conclusion: the only thing that will work is the thing that already didn't work!? Really?

[mbusby]

32. Close....

...but no banana. Close is only good with horse shoes and hand granades.

[JI7]

35. How was McCready a Risky Nominee ?

trump won this district by double digits.

[5starlib]

76. McCready was the ideal candidate, but the broader point is about 2020

This was a tough, but winnable district. McCready was showing ahead in the polls by a few points a few weeks ago and lost. I'm just making the point that a lot of people on DU think we can nominate a ham sandwich and Trump will still lose. There's still plenty of enough racists and bigots to make 2020 close enough. IMO, Biden is most electable according to most polls in the all important swing states. Warren and Bernie will not even sniff NC or GA. At least Biden can make it a go there.

[LiberalLovinLug]

37. Or....maybe people would actually come out to vote for a Democrat

If they had a platform that was very different than the Republican one it might inspire new and younger voters. ie...the old tried and true "If its a choice between a R-lite and and R you vote R."

[JI7]

39. this candidate was different. anyone who didn't vote does not care for a liberal agenda

this makes as much sense as the OP .

[Gore1FL]

40. We need a safe choice like Kerry or Clinton! nt

[True Dough]

57. That's right, there are no guarantees

We need to let the primary play out and then go forward with the BEST candidate. Early polling is not the determining factor.

[JI7]

41. so maybe we need to run Joe Manchin for President.

[JI7]

42. Can you tell us how McCready was a Risky Nominee ?

[quickesst]

43. you are right

We need a candidate who appeals to the widest swath of people. What I'm hearing from some as to the special elections tonight is:

" Trump won in 2016 by 77 electoral votes. This time he only won the presidency by 27 votes, and we should be proud of that."

This is one more reason we need Joe Biden to be our candidate.

We need to right this ship, do some much needed repair, and move forward from there.

[JI7]

44. what was wrong with McCready ?

[quickesst]

52. nothing as far as I know....

,,,, which had nothing to do with my point. Joe Biden can beat Trump. A couple of the other candidates can come close, and some will put it in his lap. Warren and Sanders may be fine people, but I won't find much solace in a close, but losing fight.

[JI7]

53. but the OP is about the race with McCready

[quickesst]

58. simply put....

I'm saying that if people are happy with a close loss in this race, will they be as happy in a close loss in 2020 if they sacrifice the greater good for their personal ideal. I would rather win outright than take a chance. It is my opinion that Joe Biden is the only sure thing we have.

[JI7]

64. this district does not make up the politics/demograhpics of the country as a whole.

it's like claiming republicans will be destroyed in elections because they did badly in California.

[quickesst]

86. this morning's New Hampshire poll....

.... has Joe Biden beating Trump handily. That same poll has Elizabeth Warren losing to Trump, and Bernie squeaking by.

[JI7]

92. Hillary won New Hampshire in 2016

[quickesst]

139. don't know what....

...... that's got to do with 2020, but..m'kay.

[TygrBright]

48. So... are you saying we can't afford "Mr. Open Mouth, Insert Foot"?

I agree he's pretty risky. But I think he should be given his chance along with the other candidates.

So who are you going to support instead, and when are you going to make the change official?

curiously,
Bright

[aeromanKC]

54. MSNBC reported that the Minority vote under performed

2020 will be all about GOTV across all demographics. A Biden/Abrams ticket sure would help in that!!

[pnwmom]

56. Or a Booker/anyone ticket. n/t

[ecstatic]

65. Jfc! It's always our fault and not the fault

of the majority who, despite what we've seen over the past few years, still want trump to stay in power. It's absolutely disgusting!

[SKKY]

118. So would a Harris/Buttigieg ticket.

Just sayin...

[aeromanKC]

144. with Biden SOS

Harris/Buttigieg with Biden SOS is my #1 choice extended ticket.

[SKKY]

184. If those three came together and made a deal for this...

...can you imagine? Ballgame. Everyone else could go home.

[Ford_Prefect]

62. If the system is rigged from within No One is beating the Republican candidate by simply showing up.

As it stands right now the system is still as rigged as it was in 2016 if not more so. The rethugs still control who may vote and whose vote gets counted in many states that matter most: Georgia and Florida for example. Texas and other states will purge voters as much as they are able to along with any other quasi-legal tactic they can use because the US DOJ will not interfere.

The Russians, and anyone else with enough money (Mercer, Koch and other like minded oligarchs), can perform all kinds of back door interference along with propagandizing social media. McConnell has made it so along with Trump by erasing funding for any kind of voting security along with disabling the offices at Homeland Security, FBI and DOJ which had the job of defending the voting system or identifying threats to it, or identifying and countering internet borne propaganda.

To continue acting as if this is yet one more election ergo it must be won by a traditional sounding candidate is the height of ignoring the elephant, nay Gorilla in the room.

We are not in a "regular" election. Any candidate who does not reflect that difference is doomed. We will need a candidate and party who reflect the dire truth of where we are and where we MUST go and exactly how we can go forward. Soft ball answers and missed steps will not inspire the kind of turnout we very much MUST have.

What this election showed was that overwhelming turnout MUST happen. It didn't in NC. It was an off year, out of season election where much confusion still surrounds the actions of the GOP and the previous candidate who caused it. If you need to blame hayseed Republican voters then you don't understand NC politics at all. The Democratic party in NC sadly has a few issues as well, including some of the leadership who still imagine they can get by on a Republican-Lite agenda. That if anything is one of the lessons.

[ArcticFox]

69. You make good points

Unfortunately, I don't see many people recognizing this.

I worry about the plan to replace Trump by election rather than impeachment. With the paralysis currently on display, I doubt anyone will lift a finger, even if Republicans blatantly cheat.

The 2020 election could literally be our last.

[Duppers]

63. +1000

We have to appeal to the semi-hayseeds on the fence. They love "macho characters."

[Bradshaw3]

66. Biden may be a risky nominee

For a number of reasons, including more missteps at the debates, which would be a reality check. If you are trying to include Warren as a "socialist-like/revolutionary type candidate" then your post is a big fail. She can definitely win the rust belt.

[ArcticFox]

70. Warren or Sanders

Either of them is a better candidate than Biden. Together, they would dominate the general election.

[Cha]

168. No they're not.. Not imo. Biden is leading in

the polls and so is his health care plan.

Biden's a much better candidate.

Link to tweet

[5starlib]

78. There's ZERO evidence Warren is doing any good in any Rust Belt state

Not one...not MN, WI, PA, MI, or OH. She is getting huge crowds in Portland, Seattle, and SF. She is doing poorly in swing states that matter in the EC. There's a poll out showing her losing to Trump in NH of all places. Warren is maybe a 272 EV candidate on a perfect night, close enough for Trump to steal it.

[Bradshaw3]

137. There is ZERO evidence for your claims

Zero, as in none.

[LanternWaste]

119. Remove 'Biden', insert 'any other candidate' and your posts means just as much... or little.

You fail to support any of your hypotheticals with data or evidence.

Again.

[Gothmog]

126. Joe Biden's appeal actually isn't a mystery

Link to tweet

Biden shows reverence for the most popular Democrat around, former president Barack Obama; others find fault in everything from the Affordable Care Act to immigration policy. Biden does not bombard voters with a torrent of multi-part plans; he gives them a few basic positions and defends them. Biden does not campaign from the neck up; he campaigns with his heart on his sleeve. Biden is deeply optimistic; his opponents think Americans are the problem, not Trump. (I don’t suggest that his opponents are wrong, merely that their stance apparently isn’t as popular as they thought.) Biden wants normalcy plus reform; his opponents want a peaceful revolution. Biden knows people want to be heard and seen; his opponents (with the exception of Sen. Kamala D. Harris) don’t fully grasp this. They want to “help," to pepper people with ideas and a to-do list, while Biden takes the time to listen to them. (Think of the well-meaning friend who has a thousand suggestions when you are grieving and you’d rather they just shut up and commiserate.)

This is the grouchy-white-guy-in-the-diner problem all over again. Reporters are blinded by their own age, background, education and geography. Instead of going to West Virginia diners to find the Trump voter, reporters should go talk to the residents of The Villages in Florida, the African American churchgoing ladies and the buttoned-down professionals in the affluent suburbs (the Romney-Clinton voters). These people have endured a noisy, offensive and intrusive presence in the White House. They don’t necessarily want a different noisy, intrusive presence — even one they agree with on substance.

Part of the “mystery” of Biden’s appeal would be solved if the moderators flipped their questions, as one smart Democrat not in the Biden camp put it. Instead of asking Biden or another moderate, “Why aren’t you going with the big, bold idea of Medicare-for-all?,” the moderators might consider asking Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), “Why blow up Obamacare, and why don’t you trust people to choose Medicare if given the option?” Instead of assuming that extreme proposals are the standard, requiring the moderates to explain why they are such wet blankets, the moderators should press the super-progressives on questions such as: What makes you think that voters want to go through another health-care makeover? Why should poorer people pay for richer people’s health care or subsidize their college debt?

Better yet, ask the candidates to relate the personal story from a voter who moved them the most, or the last voter whose phone number they took so that the candidate could call later, or the most insightful thing they have heard from a voter. It might reveal who is talking at voters and who is listening to them.

[Bradshaw3]

138. Has nothing to do with his riskiness as a GE candidate

A conservative opinion columnist gives and opinion that she likes Biden. WTH has that got to do with his well-documented flubs as a candidate?

[Gothmog]

140. Do you really think that this would be an issue in the general vs. trump?

Biden's so-called gaffes will not be an issue in the general election https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/democrats-battle-each-other-trump-s-greatest-ally-time-n1042191#anchor-Whatabouthisgaffes

But if Biden’s gaffes were substantial news, why wasn’t there the same level of discussion on what President Trump said yesterday in Pennsylvania?

“That’s a lot of people back there for a — like an 11 o’clock speech. That’s a lot of people. (Laughter.) That’s a lot.” (In fact, the speech was after 2:00 pm ET.)

“This Shell petrochemical plant in Beaver County, Pennsylvania — I did very well here. We did very well. How many points did we win by? Does anybody know? I'll tell you. Isn't it, I think, 28 points?
That's a lot.” (Trump won Beaver County by 19 points in 2016.)

“I got sued on a thing called ‘emoluments.’ Emoluments. You ever hear the word? Nobody ever heard of it before. They went back. Now, nobody looks at Obama getting $60 million for a book.” (Obama signed his book deal in 2017, after leaving office.)

Trump’s two and a half years in office definitely have changed the political and media world.

Shouldn’t they also change how we cover gaffes and misstatements?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

No one is buying this.

[Bradshaw3]

141. Without a doubt it is a concern

Anyone who has seen Biden's stumbles should be concerned - unless they are diehard supporters who want him as the nominee no matter what. This "defense" of "well he doesn't make as many mistakes as trump" really misses the point: Dump's erratic and questionable behavior is many, many times worse than Biden's and will be one of dump's biggest weaknesses, I believe, when swing voters are deciding.

Nominating a candidate who the other side can say "look at his lapses too" - even if they aren't as bad as dump's will even out that weakness in some voters minds, even if they are wrong factually. Voters don't look that deeply into the comparisons like the ones you posted. They just think "oh they both make a lot of verbal and mental errors." In an election that could be very close, that is a concern. Biden really needs to step up his game in the debates and the campaign trail in the coming months.

[Gothmog]

142. In the real world there are more important things to worry about

Link to tweet

My response to both was the same, as it was when I was asked about the Biden issue on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports.” There is a racist sitting in the Oval Office implementing a white supremacist policy agenda. So, you focus on Biden’s mouth marbles, and I’ll keep my eyes on the prize. The prize being the eviction of Trump from the White House.

As Waldman also wrote, Trump “is waging a reelection campaign based on racism and fear,” not to mention being “the most prolific liar in American political history (he just passed 12,000 false or misleading claims).” And what makes the focus on Biden’s mouth extra aggravating is how it wipes our memories of the moronic things said by this president, as my follower @absolut_irish was so kind to remind Biden’s critics.

Link to tweet

Some of these are funny. Some are worthy of a cocked eyebrow. But they are not nearly as consequential as the racist and white supremacist beliefs parroted by Trump and the right-wing echo chamber that found their way into the manifesto of the suspect in the El Paso mass shooting, who told police his target was "Mexicans.” The atmosphere of menace and danger is now indisputable. Your time would be better spent worrying about the shredding of our values, ideals and the rule of law than the flubs of a particular candidate who would put an end to this shameful chapter.

[Bradshaw3]

146. Here's an opinion piece with the opposite take

Biden's gaffes are making him less electable:

https://www.salon.com/2019/09/04/amid-the-rising-tide-of-gaffes-is-joe-bidens-electability-gambit-starting-to-wither/

And, once again, you are employing this "well he's not as bad as dump" defense which has been shot down because GE voters won't make the distinction you are making and that could very well make Biden less electable than others who don't have his issues. Not to mention that just being not as bad as dump is a really weak argument for any candidate.

[Gothmog]

149. I stopped paying attention to Salon, the Intercept, Greenwald, Cen or TYT a long time ago

You will not convince any mainstream democrats with articles like that.

Again, in the real world this will not be an issue in the general election where is the only place that it matters.

Here is a gaffe that will be fun to use in the general election

Link to tweet

[Bradshaw3]

152. Attacking the messenger doesn't dispute the message

You haven't answered a single point about Biden's flaws as a GE candidate, just saying it doesn't matter, don't like the messenger, change the subject. It really doesn't speak well for your candidate and makes my concerns even more valid.

And comparing Salon with the Intercept just shows ignorance of those publications.

[Gothmog]

157. LOL

I will be having lunch with Joe Biden on Friday at a fundraiser. Biden is the most electable candidate that the Democratic Party has available.

Meanwhile in the real world

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

143. Biden voters do not care

Link to tweet

[Bradshaw3]

145. Unfotunately Biden voters aren't even the majority of Democratic voters, much less GE voters

And this thing about "oh they don't care" is also a problem. How far are you willing to take that? To the same extent dump voters do? It's a very short-sighted position and one that could cost the election - hence the concern over him.

[Gothmog]

150. According to Nate more Democrats are closer to Biden than sanders or warren on the issues

Link to tweet

In addition, no one will win the Democratic primary without the support of African American voters

Link to tweet

[Bradshaw3]

153. Changing the subject shows the fallacy of your "points"

What you posted has nothing to do with the points that were brought up. You obviously are a diehard partisan who would be happy to nominate a candidate regardless of the GE outcome.

[Gothmog]

159. Meanwhile in the real world voters know that Joe Biden is the most electable candidate

Link to tweet

?

[DallasNE]

67. NC-09 Is Nothing Like MI-Wi and PA

The Republican candidate was a white nationalist and ran about 15 points better in the rural part of NC-09 than did Harris in Nov. 18. The Democrat ran about 5 points stronger in the college educated suburbs than in Nov 18. Even with that the white nationalist still ran 10 points worse than Trump in 16 and Romney in 12. It looks to me like the losses were greater than the gains for the white nationalist.

I am also not sure why all of the Democrats except Biden is deemed "risky". Let the voters decide. I am far more optimistic about our slate of candidates because the demographics strongly favor all of our top candidates. I will be fine with any of them, including Biden, even though he is not my top choice.

I also think there are a lot of serious red flags on the economy and by spring we could be mired in a recession so Trump is self-destructing. That hasn't been factored in at all.

[betsuni]

73. "Biden is the DNC favorite. He's the preordained nominee. The big donors know he'll vote

their interests."

More RIGGED-BY-DNC-BEHOLDEN-TO-BIG-DONORS nonsense. If you have any evidence of rigging and big donors changing anyone's positions, please let us know. It never comes because it's a fantasy.

[ArcticFox]

77. Maybe I'm pessimistic

But when I look at his history and hear him say "the votes just aren't there" for things that would help relay people, it just doesn't inspire me.

[betsuni]

80. It's like America's Next Top Model or American Idol or Masterchef.

Many people think because they have the inspiration and passion to model or be entertainers or artists or chefs, they should be. They don't have the talent, the votes just aren't there. That's reality.

Republicans are dead set on making the U.S. a banana republic. This is not a normal country anymore. Please don't blame Democrats, they don't have the power to change it until they have large majorities in the legislature.

[treestar]

84. You have to be the change

if the votes aren't there, you need persuasion to change people.

[Cha]

163. Wow!

Where in the hell did they come up with that?!

[treestar]

83. What proof is there of that?

Again this claim that the DNC influences the vote so much that they practically choose the candidate.

In Bernie vs. Hillary at least it made some sense. Hillary was more of a member of the party.

But using this stuff now does is just making it a formula for going after the front runner.

[KPN]

68. Stop with the bullshit right wing language --

“Socialist-like/revolutionary type candidate” my ass! Are you a frickin’ Democrat or not? Two months here at DU and you’re spouting this crap? Certainly makes me wonder.

Geezuz!

[5starlib]

74. I'm an African-American, proud center-left member of the Democratic Party

BTW, Bernie calls himself a socialist!! I didn't come up with that. He's the one that espouses a revolution. That's not Republican talking points.

[KPN]

106. One, no he doesn't. Two, you didn't limit your comment to Sanders.

As far as I can tell, your language, especially “revolutionary” was intended to evoke negative images (e.g., Che Guevare, Fidel Castro, etc type images) and divide us here at DU. And frankly, you’re doing a good job. Your post included Warren, Harris, Yang, Booker at a minimum in your comment. You clearly used standard conservative right wing terminology to evocative. It’s BS, has no place at DU and serves to divide.

[betsuni]

75. He just talked about revolution:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1287271710

He has consistently said that the revolution is more important than the presidency: "This campaign was never just about electing a president of the United States, as enormously important as that was. This campaign was about transforming America."

[KPN]

105. BS. The word "revolutionary" connotes

an insurgency — it’s a loaded term. It provokes images of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Ayatollah Khomeini. Big difference between “transform America” by voting for transformative ideas and “revolutionary”! Obama even often talked about wanting to be a transformative president during his 2000 campaign. Did he not? So you gonna lump him in there with Bernie or any other “socialist-like/revolutionary”?

There’s no room for this kind of mislabeling of Democratic candidates here at DU. It’s defenseless so just stop. And it was applied to candidateS — not just Sanders. Warren? Harris? Yang? Booker?

Hell, it’s no different than labeling Joe Biden as, say, a corrupt career politician! It’s not true and it’s meant strictly to impugn and evoke a negative image.

Just stop with the BS negative and divisive conservative right wing language!

[5starlib]

121. Well you should tell Bernie to stop talking about a revolution

He says it in nearly every stump speech!! Quit trying to blame me. He's the one who says it. And Bernie said he's a socialist out of his own mouth.

[KPN]

123. Bernie has never said he is socialist. He talks about his organization "Our Revolution" not

about revolting. He talks about transforming the rigged economic system in the Us and transforming it to a system that works for everyone. He doesn’t talk about a “revolution”.

Are you here just to divide? I’m not a Bernie supporter, but I will support and defend him or any other candidate being slandered with obviously conservative right wing fear mongering language? And this post and perhaps others of the relative few you’ve posted here at DU are meant specifically to divide.

[5starlib]

124. I'll wait for your apology...

"In 2016, our campaign began the political revolution. Now, it is time to defeat Donald Trump, complete that revolution and implement the vision we fought for."

[link:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/25/its-time-to-complete-the-revolution-we-started|

Bernie: "Why I'm a Democratic Socialist..."

[link:https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/10/13/sanders-democratic-debate-bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-5.cnn|

Now stop slandering and personally attacking me.

[betsuni]

134. Some Sanders supporters don't seem to know him.

Last edited Thu Sep 12, 2019, 01:30 AM - Edit history (1)

He repeats the same thing every time he speaks. I find that his supporters don't know him odd.

[KPN]

156. I'm not a Bernie supporter. I'll defend him, yes, because I admire his tenacity in

addressing and speaking plainly and openly about inequities in our socio-economic system over the past 40 years, as well as his consistency and authenticity. He has done much to enlighten many over the course of years.

If you find him odd, I'm sure he doesn't really care. He's not hung up with his detractors.

[betsuni]

158. No, that's not what I meant.

I edited to make it clearer.

[KPN]

161. What don't his supporters know about him? What makes you or anyone else think that you

know him better? You have your perception, those who appreciate Sanders have theirs. Why would you not understand that as being normal?

[KPN]

154. Lol. Keep dreaming.

You are the one who called Sanders a "revolutionary", not him. He has never used that term about himself. Stop making stuff up. Two, I stand by my statement that he has never called himself a "socialist". He has called himself a Democratic Socialist -- big difference, look it up. Three, you have some nerve accusing me of slandering you when you are the one doing the slandering here. You intentionally slandered Senator Sanders with this OP.

[betsuni]

133. Here is Bernie saying "I am a socialist."

Your claim is that he has never said he is a socialist. This is incorrect.

[5starlib]

135. Thanks!

Thank you Betsuni

[betsuni]

136. You're welcome!

[KPN]

160. Have you ever really listened to Sanders? Have you ever listen to how he defines or describes

a socialist? Have you ever listened to him discuss the difference between the classical definition of "socialist government" and being a socialist or, as he has clarified his political leanings many times since this ancient video, a "democratic socialist?" Basically he says, if you support and believe in public schools, you are a socialist; if you believe the government should build and maintain roads and transportation infrastructure, you are a socialist; if you think fire and police departments should be publicly funded, you are a socialist; ... and the list goes on and on.

It strikes me that Bernie detractors prefer to focus on divisive labels rather than the admit any merit to his thinking. That's a shame. It holds us all back in my opinion, us being middle and working class Americans and those who value and respect them and their right to a fair deal.

[betsuni]

169. "It strikes me that Bernie detractors prefer to focus on divisive labels"

Establishment. Centrist. Neoliberal. Corporatist. Wealthy elite. Liberal elite. Coastal elite. Republican lite. Lesser of two evils. Third Way. Identity politics. Complacent. Milquetoast. Status quo. Beholden to Wall Street and wealthy donors and lobbyists. Corrupt. Spineless. Ideologically bankrupt. Weathervane. Bought and sold. Paid shills. Rigged!

Right. Bernie supporters never use divisive labels.

[5starlib]

181. Mic drop

I couldn't have said it better myself Betsuni!

[KPN]

185. Lol. I guess I should have been more specific. And

I already told you i’m not supporting Bernie.

The OP was off base, divisive and I have no reason to believe the divisiveness was not intentional. Go ahead and try to discredit and ridicule all you want — any way you want. I stand by my comments.

[betsuni]

189. "I'm not supporting Bernie." "Go ahead and try to discredit and ridicule all you want"

[Hortensis]

191. KPN, those are all examples of government services provided

in places and times by governments like the U.S.'s capitalism-based one, Russia's socialist state, Sawdi Arabia's absolute monarchy, Uganda's dictatorship, Kaiser Wilhelm's and later Hitler's Germany, Louis XIV's France, Julius Caesar's Rome, China's Quin dynasty long before the birth of Christ, and on and on.

Sanders is trying to defuse the word "socialist" by deceiving people into believing good old Mom and apple pie were really always socialist and therefore they are too. And he should be called out for it. If telling truth about his doings is detraction, that's entirely on his head.

Sanders should be educating people as to what socialism and its democratic socialism form really are. After all this time, it's outrageous that most his own supporters haven't known he advocated socialism or what socialism was, and in millions of cases still don't know.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

[Cha]

166. lol..Yes there is BS in his own words actually

saying he is a "socialist".

[betsuni]

174. Remember, revealing quotes is "bashing."

[Cha]

177. lol.. oh "revealing" quotes,

is it? good dawg almighty!

[betsuni]

178. And the billboard truck is fake news!

You "Bernie detractors" should leave Bernie alone because the things he said are not what he means!

[Cha]

180. Ah yes the revealing mobile vetting machine..

Reminds me.. it needs a good kick..

Thanks! Did he leave us alone?

[KPN]

186. .....

Really? Have the last word.

[betsuni]

188. Have the last word and refute anything on that billboard truck.

You can't. it's all true!

[KPN]

155. No, you stop calling him a "socialist-like/revolutionary". Your words verbatim. Are you on the

side of our Democratic candidates or not. Your word choice absolutely makes me wonder.

[TheRealNorth]

132. +1

As someone who was brought up in the tradition of Milwaukee Democratic socialists, I find the OP offensive.

[KPN]

162. As do I obviously.

[treestar]

82. any worse than "corporatist, Establishment candidate?"

Some pretty good liberals have been called that.

[KPN]

104. You must be kidding! Yes ... it's GOP talking points labeling.

Enough said.

[5starlib]

122. Yes, how many times has Biden been called the "Establishment" on here?

Lots of times. It's a loaded term as well.

[KPN]

167. Loaded? He is part of the established party leadership and has been for years.

[Buzz cook]

172. Biden is an inside the beltway elite.

He has spent decades in positions of power in Washington DC. He is one of the most senior and powerful democratic politicians in the country.

How is that not establishment?

[betsuni]

175. "Establishment" clearly means "corrupt" the way it's being used.

Creating an enemy. Establishment = Them. Anti-establishment = Us. Divisive and destructive.

[Joe941]

89. Wrong. We need to be more visionary. Go Bernie!

[KPN]

107. I believe you posted this in response to my

Ccomment mistakenly. No?

[Gothmog]

127. Economic models point to a Trump blowout in 2020.

I have seen similar studies. It is not a given that trump is beatable in 2020. If the economy is in good shape, then there are models and studies that show that trump can win. Obama left trump with a great economy and trump may not screw up the Obama economy before 2020 and get re-elected.

Link to tweet

I am not counting on the Obama economy faltering and so I am worried. We have to defeat trump

Trump could prove these models wrong by being the biggest asshole in history. Again, historically presidents tend to be re-elected if the economy is in good shape at the time of the re-election and even trump may not e able to screw up the Obama recovery

We need to work even harder to defeat trump

[empedocles]

131. Some Elliott Wavers predict a near term dji drop, followed by new highs in 2020.

[KPN]

170. I am equally worried. And I'm particularly worried about Joe Biden being our nominee. The polls

show him doing well against tRump, but so did HRCs. I think American voters want new people in DC -- it's as plain as day to me. I'm worried Biden will be viewed as just a continuation of what so many people are already unhappy with politics in DC.

[Cha]

164. Stop insulting her.

[KPN]

171. I disagree. What I saw was insults ... and I said so. If you see that as insults, I can't help

that. I can either keep my mouth shut, or speak up when I read something that I believe is off-base.

ps -- I see you edited. I stand by what I've said.

[Cha]

176. Congratulations.. you saw I edited.

[BootinUp]

72. Yeah, reality checks can be helpful. Nt

[rpannier]

79. It's why I'm not supporting Biden for the nomination

I'll vote for him in the GE, but that's it

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. Precisely why Biden won't be the nominee.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[Gothmog]

95. If sanders is the nominee, trump will win 45+ states

There is too much oppo out there on sanders that will give trump the win

[ms liberty]

87. Yea, bullshit. McCready worked hard to avoid calling hinself a democrat

His main message was that he would work with Republicans and Democrats- and he always put Republicans first in that comment. He did everything he could to appeal to centrists and conservatives, and he never staked out any positions. He avoided calling himself a Democrat. His freakin ads were useless; the Repubs were calling him Dan McGreedy and accusing him of being what they are, but he did not really fight back against them. Is it any wonder he lost? His loss is about a wasted chance for a democratic house gain that was squandered by a milquetoast of a candidate It was not a message to democrats about the presidential race, not in the way you seem to want it to be.
I'm just glad that I don't have to hear to that stupid freakin McGreedy jingle anymore.

[blm]

97. That's an accurate assessment.

[cwydro]

91. "Hayseeds." Nice insult to NC duers.

I have both friends and relatives in both NC and SC. None are “hayseeds” whatever that means. They are all Dems with professional jobs. It would be great if people could refrain from regional insults.

[blm]

96. Yes. Probably designed to do so.

Smelling like seventhson around here.

[cwydro]

100. Spot on.

[bigtree]

93. Nonsense. Republicans who succeeded in that election because more of them turned out.

...we're not trying to turn out republicans, so if you're calling progressive politics and initiatives 'risky' consider that this race was geared toward appeasing the right and failed to advance a Democrat with that 'moderate' strategy. Look around Congress, the blue dogs are a much smaller pack than they were a few years ago.

If you want more Democrats to show up, give them a candidate who appeals to Democrats. That's the way we win elections.

[Autumn]

98. Your fear voting suggests that we should only run Republican lights or conservatives.

Fuck that. I'm a liberal and I'm not going to attempt to advance conservatives values. Republicans winning in red areas has no impact on who our nominee should be AFAIC. Interestingly enough WI, PA, and MI were what was known as the Blue Wall. Until 2016. You might ask yourself why. Your fear schtick isn't working.

[Cha]

173. No.. it does Not "suggest" what you're saying at all.

We need to select a nominee that shows strength in the swing states than can win the election. We need a nominee that can in WI, PA, and MI...period.

[elocs]

99. Agreed. It would be a BIG mistake to think we can nominate anyone & they would beat Trump.

Yes, beating Trump is the floor but if you have no floor the ceiling is not going to do any good at all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

101. "Risky" is in the eye of the voter

Fairly or not Hillary Clinton was relatively unpopular with voters in 2016. Democrats knew that when we nominated her. Still she was seen as the "safe" rather than "risky" choice. Trump was the dictionary definition of a "risky" candidate.

In Democracies world wide, establishment identified political parties and candidates have not fared well in recent years. There is a restlessness in electorates inside advanced industrial and post industrial societies, an unease with politics as usual and traditional relatively centrist approaches to governing.

So what about Texas? Does that state fit the profile of a true blue area like Seattle, LA, SF or NYC? I don't think so. So why is a socialist-like/revolutionary type candidate like Bernie Sanders polling so well there?:

"The latest Univision News survey of Texas finds Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) doing best in a hypothetical head-to-head match-up against Trump in Texas, leading the president 48 percent to 42 percent.

Former Vice President Joe Biden leads Trump 47 percent to 43 percent, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has a narrow 44 percent to 42 percent advantage."
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/460727-biden-sanders-and-warren-lead-trump-in-new-texas-poll

Another Texas poll showed Biden and Sanders leading Trump by the same margin:

"General election head to heads
Emerson College polled 1,033 registered voters August 1-3. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/08/06/new-poll-biden-leads-o-rourke-in-texas-presidential-primary-race-against-sen-john-cornyn-wide-open/

Candidate Percentage vs. Trump
Biden 51% 49%
Sanders 51% 49%
O’Rourke 48% 52%
Buttigieg 48% 52%
Warren 48% 52%
Castro 47% 53%
Harris 46% 54%

Other polls show Biden running strongest against Trump in Texas, but with Sanders also beating Trump handily. Biden may indeed by our "safest" candidate. But maybe it will turn out he is not. I am not jumping to any conclusions either way. If there is one thing that pundits have been consistent about, it is there consistent misreading of the American electorate dating back to when it was assumed that a man named Barack Hussein Obama could never be elected President.

[redstatebluegirl]

102. Absolutely!

[Desert Dem]

103. Who, in your mind, is risky? Inform us more.

[Act_of_Reparation]

108. Trump's policies aren't what got him elected.

[TheFarseer]

116. McCready ran as a centrist

Clinton was a centrist. What is your point? Safe doesn’t win because they will just say a centrist is the worst baby killer Communist you’ve ever seen anyway. I’ve seen centrists trying to claim they are just as Republican as the actual Republican lose time after time in my state. To be fair, I can’t conclusively prove a more left candidate would do better but you definitely have no proof a centrist is a shoe in.

[Ford_Prefect]

148. Exactly. Republican-lite won't cut it this time.

[SKKY]

117. 77,740 votes people. That's all we have to overcome.

Two questions:
1. Has Trump flipped anyone over to his side who voted for Clinton?
2. Has Trump expanded his base?

We had a risky candidate last time and just barely lost. Any of our top five would wipe the floor with 45. I actually expect him to not participate in any of the debates because the difference will be just that stark.

[Gothmog]

125. Trump can win with 45% of the vote

Link to tweet

And that’s why, as Axios reports, they are planning to hold on to the minority of voters who support the president while working overtime to launch a scorched-Earth campaign against the eventual Democratic nominee.

“The GOP]is going to make whoever the nominee is radioactive well before they get the nomination,” one former Trump campaign aide explained. “That’s Trump’s strategy. Stay at 45-46 percent [in the polls] and just make the other guy radioactive.”

Given Trump’s own unpopularity, the campaign reasons, the only way to get him back into the White House will be to convince swing voters that the Democratic nominee will pack the Supreme Court, end the Electoral College, and grant reparations to black Americans.

Throughout his first term, Trump has consistently posted lower approval ratings than any of his predecessors. FiveThirtyEight’s average of public opinion polls at the moment gives Trump an approval rating of just under 42 percent with a disapproval rating of 53 percent.

[TheRealNorth]

128. You could argue the opposite

McCready was a moderate and couldn't find a way to win. Hillary wad the moderate and she lost. As Jim Hightower once said, then only things you find in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

I think it's okay to be a moderate, but you got to be a strong moderate (And by strong, I don't mean by joining the Republicans and beating up the left side of your own party).

[gulliver]

147. We can't afford even half a point.

Nothing is worth four more years of this nuttiness from Trump.

[oasis]

151. K and R

[Buzz cook]

165. Nonsense

First who gets to define "risky"? You? Is anyone except Biden risky?
Polling data now shows that Trump loses to the top 5 democrats. Sanders leads in Texas in one poll for heavens sake.

Your talking about a district that fell to Trump and Romney by double digits and has been reliable republican for decades. A district that had a massive rally just before the election and massive amounts of republican spending.

Given all those positives the republican won by just 2 points.

So keep your fear mongering and try advocating for your candidate. Because where I stand Biden looks like a poor choice for president.

[Cha]

179. lol.. some don't want this.. Thankfully most of the

voters in the polls do right now..

We need to select a nominee that shows strength in the swing states than can win the election. We need a nominee that can in WI, PA, and MI...period.

[Gothmog]

192. The hardest job for the next president may be fixing Trump's mess

This is one of the reasons why I think that Joe Biden is the best candidate. Who ever is the nominee will have to be prepared to fix all of the damage that trump has done to our government.

Link to tweet

Perhaps the most straightforward and least complicated undertaking, since it would be entirely within the next president’s purview, is rebuilding the executive branch from the corrupted ruin Trump will leave behind.

One of the most underreported stories about the Trump administration is its basic incompetence. Perhaps Trump’s biggest con of all was convincing his supporters that he was some sort of business wizard with a genius for management. In truth, the Trump Organization was a mom-and-pop family business that he repeatedly micromanaged to the brink of collapse. He is doing exactly the same with the government of the United States.

The White House itself is less like “The West Wing” than “Game of Thrones.” Courtiers vie for the favor of the Mad King, unable or unwilling to perform normal duties for fear of risking Trump’s ire. Usually, the White House is a place where information from outside sources is synthesized and digested so the president can make the best possible decisions. Under Trump, the flow is reversed — his whims, however ill-informed or contradictory or just plain loopy, are tweeted out and must be made into policy.

Agencies vital to our national security — including the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency — lumber along, month after month, without permanent leadership. “It’s easier to make moves when they’re acting,” Trump has said, but really the situation reflects his own insecurity. By keeping his underlings weak and beholden only to him, he limits their power — and thus hamstrings the departments they nominally lead.

Joe Biden is the best candidate to repair the damage done by trump. I think that the repair of this damage will keep the next Democratic President very busy.