Some facts we must consider

[Charlie G]

Last edited Tue Mar 19, 2019, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)

We can debate the policies and what not of our candidates, but none of it makes any difference if Donald Trump is re-elected. Impossible you may say, but on Mon Oct 31, 2016, I was accused of trolling and kicked out of DU (Username viguy2016) for saying Donald Trump was going to be elected. I am a past officer of a Union and I knew what my members were saying. There is still a strong possibility Trump will be re-elected, even as he shows he is totally insane.


The people here on DU are not typical Americans, we follow the news and care about politics. Most people do not; unless it in some way, it will effect them. Leave me alone, don't bother me unless it is within 2 months of an election. Then it is a sport. Even then they will tend to vote for the status quo by re-electing a president unless their personal economy is bad. (Obama, GW Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, Ike, Truman, FDR)

We have to assume the states Hillary carried are our base which we will win in 2020 no matter who we put up against Trump. It does not matter if we win them by 1 vote or 10,000,000 votes, they will count in the same way. Therefore we do not have to excite the people in NY, CA, MA, Ct, WA, OR, NJ, IL etc. They are ours anyway.

However, these are the states which will have the greatest voice in picking our candidate. But the states which will choose our next president are OH, PA, MI, WI, FL, all of which went for Trump in 2016. These battleground states tend to be moderate politically and historically pro-union. We are crazy if we put forth a Health Insurance plan that does not allow for private employer-provided insurance. Benefits are the main reason Unions give when they organize employees. Whoever is our candidate must be able to take three of these states away from Trump.

So the question that must be answered is, which and how will the candidate win the necessary states to defeat Trump. Sadly I think our strongest candidate has already dropped out of the race. The only way Sherrod Brown could be our candidate is if the convention deadlocks. What do you think? Who should be our candidate and why?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I think your reasoning is absolutely watertight.

Right now, however, I cannot answer your very good question. But I do agree with your premise.

[Sherman A1]

2. It's a long way to the primaries

this is the time to discuss ideas, policies, plans and agendas, not so much the time to look for the winning candidate. That happens when people coalesce around the ideas presented by one or another. Which one can bring ideas to the table that people want and who can energize the debate to convince enough people to vote for them in the primaries. It may not be Candidate A or B or C who can do that.

It takes both ideas and salesman(or woman)ship to accomplish the above then when the electorate is energized they turn out with both effort, money and votes. Now we sift through the various concepts in order to find who we believe comes closet to our views, the rest comes later.

[Amimnoch]

3. We are totally on the exact same page.

It is ALL about this map:




I am not supporting the one that I think would be our best president. If I did, I'd be all in for Elizabeth Warren.

I am not supporting my favorite candidate. if I did, it would be Buttigieg.

I am supporting the one that I think is most likely to turn enough of that red to blue and hit that magical 270 number that ousts orange Pissolini. So, as of right now I'm in it for Beto.

1. Beto has as good as any of the others of switching WI, MI, OH, PA. In particular I think he'll be able to swing OH and WI.
2. Florida has been, is, and I fear will continue to be a complete wild card with enough ratfuckery to keep it out of anyone's reliable flappable column.
3. Texas.. my single biggest reason. Texas is the ONLY one of those red states that, if it flips, alone will change the outcome of the whole election. Trump could keep FL, PA, OH, MI, and WI, but if Texas flips, and the rest stays the same, he's out of there.
3.a. If Beto is on the ticket, the GOP will HAVE to dump a huge amount of money into fighting a GE battleground in Texas.. that means less money they have for the traditional battlegrounds of OH, PA, FL, WI, MI. So, even if Beto doesn't actually flip Texas, he can hit the GoP's coffers enough to put these other states even more in play.
3.b. Texas now has a strong Senate contender to go up against Cornyn. A strong Texas Democrat running for Senate + a Texan on a presidential ticket.. Texas is VERY much in play.

Although I'm loath to pick a candidate on such shallow crap.. he's got that "it" factor. He has that Kennedy like knack for energizing people.

Any of our candidates can win or can lose. I think he's got the best stacked deck in our favor though.

[onit2day]

9. Funny, you never said one thing Beto stands for. That 'map' is not democracy it's manipulation

and is the worst way to elect a president. I refuse to stand by it and see it as criminal. It's only been this way from gerrymandering and voter suppression since this is the only way republicans win. I encourage people to stop going along with it or putting faith in it. People are waking up to this electoral college manipulation of voters intent.

[Amimnoch]

11. That map is reality. Welcome to it.

Worst way, or best way, it’s the ONLY way to elect a president.

When the General Election is over, the one that gets a count of 270 of those electoral college votes IS the President of the United States.

It’s not “criminal” it’s Constitutional. It’s in the 12th amendment. Has BS proposed the Constitutional amendment to Congress yet? Guess what? Has to pass both chambers by a super majority. I don’t suppose you have the roll call of members that would support it? Neither party has the madate numbers to make a change to our Constitution at this time, so that amendment isn’t going away. Try to make it work, get a Democratic Party president again, or keep on keeping on with Republican ones. That’s the option.

The electoral college doesn’t have a damn thing to do with Gerrymandering. Gerrymandering affects the number of Representatives from a state for the House. Gerrymandering doesn’t affect the Senate, nor the Presidency selection since those are determined on a state level. Now, similar to gerrymandering, there are states that will put plenty of working voting booths and precincts in some areas and less in others in a very pathetic attempt to suppress voters, but that’s not gerrymandering.

I do agree with you on voter suppression. That needs to be fought tooth and nail. Only way to fight it is... Getting Democratic Party members elected who will take action against it. Again, Republicans are NOT going to fight voter suppression, it keeps them in power. Ours is the ONLY party fighting it.

As for what I said about Beto, this isn’t a thread on positions, the OP asked a specific question about winning, and I gave my own, personal, answer. But there’s PLENTY of threads on Beto’s positions if you’d like to check any of them out.

[Awsi Dooger]

4. Anyone who says "landslide or "only way we can lose" should be wearing a clown hat

This site has great political posters but incredibly poor grasp of the nation. I'm convinced too many here simply don't have right wing friends or acquaintances. Otherwise all you have to do is talk to any of them and the overflowing praise and benefit of a doubt for Donald Trump is front and center. They don't follow or acknowledge any of his problems. Nothing is going to dent his support.

We are 100% reliant on the apolitical independent voters remaining against Trump instead of returning to his camp like 2016. Nothing else matters. It is fragile at best. If that approval rating moves up to 44% on 538 instead of 42% then it means enough independents have returned and now our small current advantage is gone.

For years I thought Hillary would lose a tight election in 2016. Simply no upside based on her polarizing nature, and poor situational environment based on unrest among working class whites. Every analytical article out of the 2014 midterms focused on that white unrest and how it would impact 2016. Consequently I didn't plan to follow 2016 at all. Hillary is my favorite and I didn't want to be devastated. Not until they nominated Trump and he imploded in summer did I think Hillary might be able to narrowly get away with it. I was never banned here but I am always chastised when I insist our huge poll leads are partially make believe and don't match the foundational math. Hillary was never going to win big in 2016, not when independents were split with slight advantage to Trump. Turnout dominance is always the most laughable concept of all.

Hillary would have escaped, minus James Comey. He changed the course of history. One simplistic act.

Now we have to defeat an incumbent. That is uphill, no matter what it looks like well in advance. I think Beto is the best option. Frankly I don't think any of our candidates has an ideal resume. That is another foundational reality after failing to prioritize and win meaningful governorships in swing states.

I just have to hope good overcomes evil and we somehow pull it out.

[extvbroadcaster]

5. Beto has the crowds

I think we need an uplifting candidate. The OP is right, most voters don't pay attention. They have done little or no research when they step in the voting booth. And they make some poor assumptions. If the GOP nominated Trump, and the world has not melted down, he must be ok! Trump says it is all fake news, and those libtards are lying. And on and on. Next, your average person is not that bright. And people are lazy. Or too busy to vote. And on and on. Wrap it all together and Trump could win again. So we need an uplifting candidate like Beto that can be the anti-trump. Just to illustrate my point, back in the Reagan days I had a co-worker that I would sometimes engage with on political discussions. No matter what problems I pointed out about Reagan, she would always respond with "but he won't raise taxes" - she was like a parrot. She was one issue, and that was it. Remember Trump with his Supreme court promises, his coal mine promises, his factory promises, etc.? Many voters will stick with Trump on one issue things (foolishly thinking Trump cares one bit about anything beyond Trump.) We need a candidate that can offer hope and maybe people will go for that instead of "doubling down" on Trump. Just like those suckers in his casino, it's stupid to bet that Trump will do anything beyond enriching himself.

[MH1]

6. Very well said.

I agree that Sherrod Brown was our best candidate for prez, and I haven't figured out who is next in line. I know some who definitely aren't though, due to the map as much as any other reason.

I think one thing we can all start doing or planning for at least, is the GOTV in those key GE states. We cannot take certain traditionally dem-voting groups for granted. For example, in PA we need huge AA turnout in Philly and Pittsburgh. Probably similarly in large cities in the other swing states.

One of the challenges presented by our wonderfully diverse primary candidate choices, is to ensure the natural affinity groups of those candidates don't feel disenfranchised by the process when their candidate doesn't become the nominee. And we can be sure there will be ratf*ckery specialists trying to ensure exactly that.

[CDerekGo]

7. At this point

There are just too many candidates to parse through. Though I've always liked Elizabeth Warren, as well as Kamala Harris even before they announced their intention to run for President, I truly cannot fathom seeing Bernie as a viable candidate. Yes, I'm an old white man, but I never, ever want to see another old white man in the White House. Or maybe that's just me.

I've followed Beto through his Texas Senatorial campaign, and truly hoped he'd win against that sniveling, weasel of an individual cruz. But, to be perfectly honest, I'll just stay here, on the sidelines, watching, and learning from each and every candidate. I'll stay away from the overblown hype that is basically most of the media, and research on my own. I'll listen to the Candidates speeches, go fact check along the way.

Once the Primary hits, I'll make my decision when that Ballot is in front of me, not before.

[onit2day]

8. Never gonna happen. Only risk is if we run a no change moderate. People are tired

of the status quo, same old same old lets not make waves type candidate. The climate crisis alone demands immediate action if we are to survive. One would think it would be obvious by looking at all the polls of what people claim they want to happen. Principles before personalities. We have enough of the best candidates to beat this Trump cult. He is the world's biggest asshole from which he can no longer hide. Our desperation is not one of candidates but one of an emergency situation demanding bold action. Trump is self defeating and self destructive and we must keep him from taking others down with him. Even the billionaires are going WTF? Even Fox is abandoning Trump. Let's make sure we don't give them a Trump lite or a Bush lite. We need a fearless progressive Like Warren or Sanders. Sherrod Brown is right where he needs to be for all of us right now.

[onit2day]

10. Easy answer: Our strongest candidate is the one we all get behind.

[allgood33]

12. That is why we must have a candidate who offers Medicare as an OPTION, not a MUST.

Warren, Inslee, Buttigieg but I will vote for whoever our nominee is.