Electoral College Map...we need a centrist candidate to win the rustbelt to stop Trump.

[Demsrule86]

Please consider that in 18, it was moderates that flipped the house. We need to attract independents and maybe some anti-Trump Republicans.


<div align="center"><a href="https://www.270towin.com/maps/mPGyB"><img src="" width="800"></a><br><small><img style="vertical-align: middle;" src="" alt="" /> Click the map to create your own at <a href="https://www.270towin.com/maps/mPGyB">270toWin.com</a></small></div>

https://www.270towin.com/maps/EVBLo You can change the map here

[Socal31]

1. Of course...but it's not popular to say.

[Demsrule86]

2. If you look at this map without a candidate who can attract rustbelt voters we lose.

[Socal31]

4. There's a long way to go.

Looking forward to the debates.

[Demsrule86]

5. Look at the map. It is there in detail...you have to win the rustbelt...a debate isn't going to

change that...you either nominate a centrist or Trump wins the electoral college and we win the popular vote.

[Socal31]

8. Gross over-simplification.

[Demsrule86]

18. It is a simple thing...we need to attract rustbelt voters in order to win the presidency in every

election. That is a fact We didn't do that last time and we lost.

[Lazy Daisy]

32. Last time we had a centrist candidate

Time to push. Excite people. Bored masses don't vote.

[Demsrule86]

57. Wrong a centrist candidate didn't lose. A candidate who was beat up before the general

in a divisive primary and by Republicans for decades lost. It wasn't centrism that lost it was the fact that both the moderates in the rustbelt blamed her for NAFTA (unfairly) and she had bee demonized for decades by Republicans...OAC is undergoing the GOP attack now. Also, some Sanders voters enough to put Clinton in the White House voted for the Green slime Jill Stein.

[Lazy Daisy]

90. OK let's go with your logic

for the sake of argument lets say she was "beat up" in the primaries. What exactly did she get beat up with? BEING CENTRIST.
For not going far enough with healthcare policies, education policies, financial (wall street & elite) policies. She lost because the voters that SHOULD have voted for her were NOT excited enough to vote for her. They either stayed home or voted Green.

By the logic of DU, centrist are the ones who are pragmatic and would hold their nose to vote for any D on the ticket including Bernie or Yang.

[Demsrule86]

136. Clinton was the only candidate who could win a general

thus, destroying her ruined out chances...both the green slime and the GOP played a role in this.

[Power 2 the People]

149. +1

Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

255. ZING!!! No more centrists... it's time a true progressive, like Bernie, had a turn

to take us to the Promised Land!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Demsrule86]

287. I do not believe Bernie can win a general. If I did, I would vote for him...

In the primary even though I dislike him. I want to win. I will vote for him in the general of course if to my surprise he wins the nomination.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

289. That's fair, guess we just disagree.I'll take my chances w/ a progressive over a centrist every time

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[R B Garr]

115. Exactly, all those breathless TPP exclamations were really

backhanded slams at Bill Clinton /NAFTA. It was so obvious. A way to run against Bill and Hillary. Divisive and you have nothing to show for it now.

[Demsrule86]

137. Yes..so now we have a gifted Democratic presidential who

Is demonized as well and we got Donnie shit for brains

[TheFarseer]

188. I can't for the life of me understand

Why Trump was facing a complete revolt from his party, with many asking him to step aside for another candidate, and yet he was able to win. But Hillary fans break out this lame excuse that she faced a primary. When is the last time a non-incumbent didn't face a primary? Sorry if there were honest differences between the candidates that people pointed out. Its called campaigning.

[artislife]

348. She wasn't an incumbent, was she?!

But the anger of anyone challenging her was there before the season even got started. But that election is over.


Biden is too old. He cannot convince me he can go two terms and running for one is just running for to be a lame duck. I am not going to vote in the primary for Bernie, either. I caucused for him last time, but I don't see him making 8 years either. Not that either of them is going to die, I hope not, but neither of them will not be in top form. We need a president who has the stamina to make 8 years of good decisions for this country and planet.

I want Inslee because of his number one issue but he is not making much headway. There is still time but it will probably be another election of mailing in a ballot without a lot of enthusiasm.

[borgesian]

123. "Last time we had a centrist candidate."

If at first you don't succeed, try again...

[Demsrule86]

138. Not accurate,

Clinton was not a centrist actually. And look at the map, no far far left candidate will win

[borgesian]

153. So someone to the right of Clinton.

Who does that leave? Biden is in the same ideological realm. Maybe that guy from Colorado. He's been generating plenty of enthusiasm, but I can't seem to recall his name...

[Demsrule86]

164. We are talking about 2020. It will be different this time. We need someone who can appeal to the

Rustbelt...the far left or socialists can`t do this,

[Demsrule86]

179. Someone who is not far left...a progressive can win. But our issues are important ...we run on the

ACA with a public option so we don't fall into the 'Democrats want to take your work placed insurance away...death panels await', you know this will happen. We run on issues that there is a consensus for...

[MFM008]

329. She was widely

Proclaimed as a centrist and a moderate.

[Demsrule86]

330. She was demonized by THE GOP for years and of course during 16 as well, she was the first

to try for universal healthcare...a plan that would have worked. She was no moderate, but unlike some she understood what was possible.

[Demsrule86]

269. People who live in the rustbelt won't vote for far left or a socialist list in a general.

You may be excited and lose...but big tent works.

[treestar]

266. +1. The EC allows the swing states to pick the POTUS.

Those are the swing states.

[Demsrule86]

268. Yes they do.

[demosincebirth]

328. You are right

[at140]

84. Simple facts don't require complicated verbage!

[Demsrule86]

140. My verbiage is simple. You twist the words because you want to believe the

country moved left. But it is not true. The success in 18 of moderates shows this clearly. as does the map. The map is the map. You won't win the rustbelt by running as any sort of socialist.

[Agschmid]

63. You are the authority on what appeals to the rust belt?

Really?

[Demsrule86]

76. I live in Ohio...so yeah I know people in the rustbelt...I have worked elections for years too.

The last time we carried Ohio, Obama was on the ticket...and he won in 12 in large part because of Romney's attacks on Ohio manufacturing when he was an equity guy. Also, Obama was a moderate. Has it escaped your noticed that the rustbelt was lost to us last time?

[sacto95834]

105. Yes I did

Did you notice that HRC is also a moderate? So why do you think we lost Ohio in 2016?

If you lost Ohio in 2016 with a moderate Dem what makes you so sure we will win in 2020 with a moderate Democrat? Perhaps that model doesn't work?? I think it's who you run as the candidate and their ideas rather than a moderate Democrat label.

[Demsrule86]

141. Clinton was not a moderate and she entered the General badly damaged

By a divisive primary and years of GOP demonization. Consider you have to win a primary to be the nominee.

[sacto95834]

169. I'm going take this as a joke...

HRC was certainly a moderate. She said so. Don't know who you consider a moderate if not HRC. To find someone more moderate you might have to look at Republicans.

[Demsrule86]

175. Everyone (who wins) moves right in a general...she didn't win but it is the only play in a

center left country. Clinton went for single payer in 93...way before Bernie ever brought it up.

[Sugarcoated]

185. Unfortunately Hillary's unfavorables were too high

I'm from Montgomery County, PA, just outside of Philly. My husband, my brother, in-laws, neighbors, friends, husband's buddies from his NE Philly neighborhood, some of his blue collar co-workers (my guess, 50/50 Dem-Repub), of the Democrats in our network, most voted for Hillary reluctantly, voted 3rd party or shockingly, only voted down ticket. I was really taken aback and had underestimated the dislike some had for her. As we all have witnessed the destruction of America I've heard some say "If only Joe had run". Yes, music to my ears because I love him and that's the reality in states like Pennsylvania and the other rust-belt states. Biden is loved here in PA, and connects like a laser with the other midwest and rust-belt states folks. I personally don't think he's a true centrist, but that aside, his favorables are high. He's a very well liked politician.

I love Hillary, too, but Joe would've lit a fire under my ass and, IMO would've, and WILL take Crooked Don the bully behind the bleachers metaphorically, in the debates.

[Demsrule86]

214. I think joe has moved left too. But has credibility with

The states we need to win,

[Sugarcoated]

226. I've heard and read, can't remember where,

you might know and can reacquaint me with the source(s), in states like Texas and Utah where Trump isn't as strong as other red states Joe has polled surprisingly well against him. IOW he is perceived as not too liberal to moderate Repubs, Dems and Indies in those red states that are eager to vote for anyone but Trump but wouldn't pull the lever for one of those "Socialists". Joe's other great quality, his ability to connect and speak to working class folks is a huge plus in winning these voters.

[Demsrule86]

245. I think that is accurate.

Those of us who can see what sort of candidate we need have to vote and nominate an electable candidate

[Agschmid]

112. No it didn't escape my notice, but also look at who the rust belt actually voted for...

[marylandblue]

3. We don't need a centrist, we need a transformative candidate.

One who will rebuild the liberal coalition and redraw the map. Sounds pie in the sky right now, but this is how we got FDR and Reagan. It's time for the pendulum to swing back again. Can't say for sure it will, but it's trying.

[Demsrule86]

6. That is not possible in time for 20. It will take years. And if Trump re-elected,we are screwed

[marylandblue]

12. What's not possible for 2020? Getting a President and Congress who can really get things done?

It's happened before and has created some of our most influential Presidents. Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan were all outside the mainstream a few years before they were elected. In retrospect, the signs of their coming were clear, but the people living through it didn't realize it. I believe we are at such a time again.

If I am wrong, then yes we are screwed. Even if Trump loses, a non-transformative Democrat will be no help. It will just be four or eight more years of deadlock, followed by someone worse than Trump.

[Demsrule86]

22. What we need mostly is Trump gone and in order to select judges the Senate...but the most important

thing is to get Trump out of there...stopping Republicans is just as important as our policy. A Democrat can do nothing without a house and a senate....and I would take lame duck Obama after 10 any day of the week to Trump in office now.

[Demsrule86]

80. I hope we get both the Senate and the house...but looking at the map...a Senate win

may not happen. However, if Trump loses to any Democrat, he won't be writing executive orders and all his shit can be overturned by new executive orders... He won't have veto power, we will... The Republicans can't appoint judges which is huge. we get control back of Justice...no matter what candidate wins if Trump loses WE ALL WIN!

[zaj]

45. Reagan lost once

We can't afford that.

[Demsrule86]

81. We can't afford to lose the next election.Ginsberg is not going to last another four years- I fear.

If they take her seat....we are screwed six ways to Sunday.

[Moostache]

111. or at least 6 to 3 for the next 30 years...n/t

[Demsrule86]

124. That is a nightmare,

[George II]

280. To be honest, there never was a "liberal coalition", there was a left-leaning coalition. Remember..

....the majority of the Democratic Party and Americans are what people call "centrists".

FDR wasn't a liberal, and Ronald Reagan certainly wasn't either. But remember, we're just a little more than two years after a highly popular and, considering his handicap in Congress, a very effective Democratic President. It's not like trump has been president for many years.

[Demsrule86]

285. If we get Trump out, we can take steps to minimize the damage.

We have to stop him 20.

[doompatrol39]

7. O.K. I'll bite....centrist how?

What group of Democratic constituents should be asked to compromise with regard to the issues they count on the party to stand up for?

Unions?

Women?

People of color?

LGBT folks?

People in desperate need of affordable healthcare?

What exactly does "centrist" entail? Who exactly are we willing to throw under the bus and ask to compromise in our quest for "centrism"?

[Demsrule86]

11. Biden can win the general...he can win in the states we need. Beto has a shot. Amy klobachar has a

shot. Although I worry the US is not ready to elect a woman and I am a woman We almost lost Minnesota last time. Mayor Pete could carry those states although it is a risk to nominate an openly Gay candidate...there is still much bigotry against LGBTQ. We need to win those states. Look at the map.

[marylandblue]

16. I don't think Mayor Pete is as big a risk as it appears.

It's really just a vocal minority that has a problem with homosexuality now, and they are not voting for any Democrat. The disaffected and moderates will vote for a gay man who speaks to their needs, and Mayor Pete does that very well.

[Demsrule86]

23. We don't know that for sure. It is a risk...I think about the Bradley effect.

I love Mayor Pete.

[marylandblue]

27. In that sense, almost all of our candidates are risks

They are each unprecedented in their own way. Even Biden has to fight agism and a long record that can and will be used against him.

[Demsrule86]

31. That is a good point. However, picking a far left candidate will undoubtedly lead to a loss.

I say that as a progressive. I wish it wasn't so. We have to win...and if we get the senate we get some stuff done...if we don't, we stop Trump and the Republicans. Maybe we put on our big girl and boy pants and vote in the Midterms and not blame whomever is the president for stuff that is impossible to get.

[TheRealNorth]

64. The thing is

When say some far left, they only mean economic left. Rust Belt voters tend to be more to the left on economic issues and conservative on social issues. That's why Hillary struggled in the Rust Belt. (Along with Russian social media interference). People remembered NAFTA, and if there was any policy agreement I had with blue collar conservatives, it was about NAFTA and trade issues.

Can we agree that attacking Democrat candidate's as "too far left" just feeds Republican talking points? Can't we just talk about the merits or demerits of the Green New Deal or Free College for All without resorting to labels?

[Demsrule86]

83. I am not attacking anyone...but if you run a candidate who is for reparations, basic income,

pro-globalism and Medicare for all (which would cause people to lose workplace insurance), and wants to dissolve ICE and hates capitalism, you will lose in the Rustbelt.

[TheFarseer]

189. You're not totally wrong but i have to say

You are using Republican framing on the Medicare for all, "hates capitalism" and disolve ICE points. I think you right on basic income and reparations. Pro-globalism though - dems have been the pro-globalism party the last however many years, so I'm not getting your point there.

[Demsrule86]

195. Medicare for all has a 17% approval if workplace insurance goes away. It would

Be a disaster for us. Americans will not support socialism and will not vote for anticapitalists, Polls show that dissolving ice won't work well either. My suggestion is if we are stuck with what I consider an unnecessary agency that we can't easily get rid of, then reform the hell out of it. let's play this smart.

[TheFarseer]

227. But you're using republican framing

No one is proposing actual socialism. They can say raising taxes on the rich regulating corporations and even single payer health care is socialism, but that's not even close to actual socialism.

Getting rid of ICE and giving their duties to another government agency so it can be reformed almost sounds like a republican idea honestly.

It sounds like you're using a push poll to dismiss Medicare for all. If you tell people they can't be dropped from their health plan, it will make American business more competitive if they don't have to pick up health care costs for employees, we can negotiate drug prices and they will probably get a raise in place of company paid health care then it sounds quite a bit better. I think we will have a hard time winning if we always agree to republican framing of the issues.

[doompatrol39]

265. Those are awesome Republican framing/talking points you've got there.

"hates capitalism"

And conveniently enough, it's mostly the prominent white males that fit that very specific parameters you are using as "centrist".

Isn't it also funny that Hillary wasn't for any of those things and was pretty much as economically centrist as you could possibly get as a Democrat and she still lost the rustbelt?

[Demsrule86]

270. We must win.

I also mentioned Amy Klobuchar. I do not know that this country will elect a woman . And I am a woman and want to elect one. But we have to win or it really is over for our party and this country,

[doompatrol39]

24. Did not answer my question...

...which Democratic party voting base will be asked to compromise? All equally? Some more than others?

What middle American Republican voting voting block are we going to try and appeal to? Religious bigots by being anti-LGBT? Big business by throwing unions under the bus? Women by making overtures to "pro-life" groups?

[Demsrule86]

61. I said everyone. I would vote for Sen Sanders whom I dislike if I thought he could beat Trump.

Beating Trump is what matters...let's not have a repeat of 16 where some go off and help elect Trump by voting for the Russian princess Jill Stein or this time Schultz.

[George II]

281. Right on all points. We can't trust next year's election in the hands of someone who won't attract..

...a big majority of Democrats and a majority of "independents".

I've said this a dozen times on this site, if we can't win against opponents that are to the right of our candidates, what's the point of moving FURTHER "left" and running against opponents who would be even further to the right of our candidates?

We have to look at who is getting the votes in certain areas of the country and why, and find candidates that fit that profile. We saw it in our own primaries in the middle of the country last year. We had a number of "centrist" candidates and incumbents who were challenged by "progressives". Almost ALL of the "centrists" won their primaries and eventually won their general elections.

Candidates can have all the best intentions and best policies in the world, but they won't accomplish a damned thing if they don't get elected.

Put another way, do we want candidates that agree with the "progressive" wing 100% of the time who have 10% chance of winning, or do we want candidates that agree with the "progressive" wing 70% of the time and have 70-80% chance of winning?

[Demsrule86]

15. Trump hurts the groups you mention far worse than any of the Democrats. And if you look at the map,

it is clear what states must be won in order to turn Trump out of the White House...compromise is always necessary.

[doompatrol39]

20. O.K. my question still stands...

...who is going to be asked to suck it up and compromise because they'd be worse off under Republicans? And if so, how far do we go? Should the effects of compromise be across the board? Or do some groups get to take more of a hit?

[Demsrule86]

25. Everyone...no one ever gets everything they want...and getting Trump out is all that matters.

Getting the Republican out in every election is always the most important thing and when we learn that as a party, we will have a chance to advance our policy.

[Demsrule86]

143. Not a socialist.

[doompatrol39]

264. Aaahhh...I see what you did there.

So clever.

[Demsrule86]

271. Haha...it varies ...some one that is progressive but in a big tent middle kind of way

[doompatrol39]

273. Like Hillary was? (n/t)

[Stare Decisis]

9. You are wrong.

Centrism won't save this country or this planet so there's no point to it. We need an ascendant electorate so that we can govern.

[Demsrule86]

13. The only point of this election is to get Donald Trump out. He is a threat to country and the

planet. It is never a waste elect Democrats and turn evil Republicans...any Democrat is 10000000000 times better than a Republican.

[Stare Decisis]

21. You are not hearing me.

They will never like us so we have to get more of our people to vote that requires excitement. Strategically your path is how we lose. See Kerry, John.

[Demsrule86]

26. You won't get our people out in the rustbelt states with a far left candidate and you will lose the

independents and we lose. This is our reality...has been for a while.

[Stare Decisis]

30. Please define our people.

[Demsrule86]

34. Democrats in the rustbelt tend to be moderate and we need independents...consider that we took back

the house with over 32 moderates.

[Stare Decisis]

38. I wonder if John Crawford would agree with you.

[Demsrule86]

65. Oh please Moderate Democrats want to stop police shootings of POC...and it will get

worse if we re-elect Trump...you know Trump think folks can be stripped of their citizenship and guess who that would be...POC. Trump must go.

[True Blue American]

232. True!

[George II]

279. What is an "ascendant electorate"? And the OP was talking about our candidate, not electorate.

[exboyfil]

10. Couldn't said it any better

Look at the 2016 map. The three lost firewall states and hold Minnesota but lose New Hampshire - 274 votes


Do you want to rely on Florida or even worse Texas or Georgia? Maybe Arizona is in play?

[Demsrule86]

17. I like Amy a great deal...

[Bradshaw3]

139. AZ might be in play with the right nominee but don't count on it

Or FL or GA for that matter. I see too many talking about GOTV winning those states. It's fool's gold. We have to win back the upper midwest. The rest is gravy.

[exboyfil]

144. Maybe our candidate will decide to visit Wisconsin during

the general election this time. I personally would park my VP candidate in Milwaukee or another central location and visit the four states constantly. No more Beyonce and star power just old fashioned campaigning.

I think you know who I want on the ticket as VP. I don't see the stars aligning for President this time.

[Bradshaw3]

163. Agree that old fashioned campaigning is needed

And a focus on WI, PA and MI.

[Demsrule86]

145. We won the Senate seat and MCsally lost once. This shows how a good

candidate can win. Run on healthcare-public option and lowering medicare age to 50 or 55.

[Bradshaw3]

162. Senate and off-year is different than presidential

Sinema ran as a centrist and McSally had lukewarm support from the right. Kelly can definitely beat McSally, unless the Dems run a presidential nominee who will hurt him. Winning AZ for president is possible but should not be counted on.

[Demsrule86]

177. If we run a good candidate we mght get coattails. McSally still has lukewarm support IMHO.

[dawg day]

14. I would just point out that Buttigieg is NOT particularly centrist

And he was elected mayor of the prototypically rust-belt city of South Bend, IN.

People who voted for Trump in 2016 in Michigan and so on and might vote for him again are UNREACHABLE. It's far more important to attract new and younger voters and stop wasting time trying to attract people who think Trump might deserve another term. They aren't going to vote for a centrist either.

and I am a Rustbelt centrist. Clinton was a centrist, I note, and she lost those states. Sure, sexism played a huge role, as did Russian cheating. But her being a centrist didn't counteract those, did it?

No one is going to vote for or against Trump because of policy considerations. If you vote for Trump, you're doing it because either you're a Republican who always votes Republican (unreachable by any Dem), or voting for him specifically because of some (cough) personal reason, like you like the way he hates the same people you hate. Unreachable.

We should support the Democrat who reflects our own values. One of these acceptable candidates will win the nomination. Centrism shouldn't be the most important consideration. Whoever gets new voters in-- that's important. And that might be someone who focuses on what's good for people, which might be a form of progressivism.

But the ones who would vote for Trump again? Forget them. They aren't going to be brought back into the land of the sane.

[Demsrule86]

28. That is untrue all three PA, WI and MI elected a Democratic governor in statewide races

in 18. That means that we can take those states with the right candidate.

[earthside]

19. Up to 375 Electoral Votes

If any of the most probable candidates for the nomination is the nominee, then it is going to be a blow-out.

The Trump base is only about 30 percent and shrinking. If Trump gets 100 percent of the Republican/Trumpican vote he still loses.

I understand understating the Democrats chances in order to forestall overconfidence ... but honestly, upwards of 60 percent of potential voters loath Trump.

[Demsrule86]

29. It is not about popular vote or polls ....look at the states that always go Republican...he could

win. And it is an up hill battle for us as the electoral college and incumbency favors Trump.

[earthside]

219. The Democrat will win.

Yes, even the Electoral College.

Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, likely Georgia and North Carolina.

I am an optimist to be sure.
Indeed, I think there is a reasonable chance Trump will not even be on the ballot in 2020.
And a Trump scandal that causes him to resign or not seek reelection will even further doom what is left of the Republican Party.

[Demsrule86]

247. I hope you are right.

[SHRED]

33. Can we get the Popular Vote Compact enacted before 2020?

[Demsrule86]

41. Only blue states have done this...which is so stupid it makes my teeth ache...we lose

if we don't win the popular vote but the GOP wins whether they get the popular vote or an electoral college win. In case people missed the of point this, blue states have done this not red states. Thus we now have an additional way to lose.

[Luvapottamus]

35. New Deal/ American System

Democrats can win the rust belt by returning to American System Economics.

Henry Clay
In Defense of the American System

February 2, 3, and 6, 1832

From the nation's earliest days, Congress has struggled with the fundamental issue of the national government's proper role in fostering economic development. Henry Clay's "American System," devised in the burst of nationalism that followed the War of 1812, remains one of the most historically significant examples of a government-sponsored program to harmonize and balance the nation's agriculture, commerce, and industry. This "System" consisted of three mutually reenforcing parts: a tariff to protect and promote American industry; a national bank to foster commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other "internal improvements" to develop profitable markets for agriculture....

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Speeches_ClayAmericanSystem.htm

American System (economic plan)

Main points
The establishment of a protective tariff, a 20%–25% tax on imported goods, would protect a nation's business from foreign competition. Congress passed a tariff in 1816 which made European goods more expensive and encouraged consumers to buy relatively cheap American-made goods.

The establishment of a national bank would promote a single currency, making trade easier, and issue what was called sovereign credit, i.e., credit issued by the national government, rather than borrowed from the private banking system. In 1816, Congress created the Second Bank of the United States.

The improvement of the country's infrastructure, especially transportation systems, made trade easier and faster for everyone. Poor roads made transportation slow and costly.

This program became the leading tenet of the Whig Party of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. It was opposed by the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan prior to the Civil War, often on the grounds that the points of it were unconstitutional.

Among the most important internal improvements created under the American System was the Cumberland Road...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)

Democrats opposed it initially, but the New Deal changed that.

Middle America will vote for New Deal.

Not necessarily a Green New deal, but some elements of that.

We need to reinstate Glass-Steagall, put in door to door fiber optic internet, expand AMtrak to every medium sized city(it doesn't even go to Wyoming and some other red states yet)

And reinstate tariffs.

[Demsrule86]

42. I agree with everything you say...although Tariffs are more complicated these day. Trump's tariffs

really hurt autos.

[Luvapottamus]

168. Yes they are

more complex now.

Tariffs can hurt agriculture too if not structured right.

But the basic needs are these:

1)Manufacturing shouldn't have to compete with cheap labor or lax environmental standards.

2)Agriculture needs steady prices on inputs and sales.

Those are two different sets of needs and trade policy should be attuned to that dynamically.

But there is another problem with manufacturing in particular, corporate perfidy. US corporations will do anything to increase profits, including offshoring manufacturing, so there should be some penalty for that behavior.

Patent forfeiture comes to mind.

If you decide out of greed alone to move your engine plant to Indonesia, well maybe we should auction the patents to a company that wants to build them here?

Offshoring manufacturing for foreign markets makes sense environmentally, but goods we use here should be made here.

[Demsrule86]

176. I agree completely. The patent idea is brilliant.

And maybe companies that move overseas should be tariffed just like any other foreign manufacturer.

[Luvapottamus]

224. Tariffs

Yes, we see eye to eye.

But here's what I think about tariffs:

It's not intended to be punitive. You don't just slap a tariff on China to punish them for something.

The purpose it to protect industries and capabilities here. So the revenue should be targeted to infrastructure improvements
that enable the industry to compete.

For example if you tax German Cars to Protect detroit:

Spend that revenue fixing their water system, making electricity more abundant and cheaper, providing access to raw materials, expanding their rail and ports...

And when an industry is healthy you can lower the tarrif.

Another example:
California grapes
Chilean grapes

I buy California grapes in the summer, Chilean grapes in the winter.

No need to do tariffs on that if it's a fair trade.

But the purpose of protectionism generally is two-fold:
1)Independence from foreign suppliers. We need to be able to produce everything we use, plus a surplus so we don't run trade deficits.
2)Monetary Velocity.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V

The term "velocity of money" (also "The velocity of circulation of money&quot refers to how fast money passes from one holder to the next. It can refer to the income velocity of money, which is the frequency at which the average same unit of currency is used to purchase newly domestically-produced goods and services within a given time period.[3] In other words, it is the number of times one unit of money is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time.[3]

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

Blacksmith buys clothes from the mercantile, merchant gets a tooth pulled at the barber, barber buys eggs and milk from the farmer, farmer gets his mule shoed at the blacksmith....

Cash is a reusable resource, if you don't spend your whole paycheck at dollar general. Look at the chart i linked at FRED^^^^most paychecks are being flushed directly to china via Wallstreet.

Local economies need local monetary velocity.

MV is prosperity.

[Demsrule86]

246. I agree Trump hurt manufacturing with his tariffs. It is complicated

And a dummy like Trump is clueless.

[33taw]

36. Glad the convention is in Milwaukee. I hope the candidates show up in these states.

And not just the big cities. Maybe a few moderate sized venues as well.

[Demsrule86]

44. Absolutely we need a grass roots effort in every state. I have long admired Dean's 50 state

strategy...we had the biggest win I ever remember.

[33taw]

107. I live in a red county in rural WI. When we promote our values, we do really well.

When we just promote D vs. R we are toast. In non-partisan races, the democrat backed candidate wins nearly every time.

[Demsrule86]

122. A national election will involve party.

[ucrdem]

37. Texas would solve a lot of problems.

I'm pretty sure Beto will be on the ticket.

p.s. K'n'R

[Stare Decisis]

40. I find that highly improbable.

[ucrdem]

46. It's happened before.

But I agree that it would be a long shot and take a lot of effort on many levels.

[Demsrule86]

55. It could happen. It is an honor to have a president from your state...and Beto almost defeated Cruz.

However, we can't count on it.

[Demsrule86]

286. Virginia was improbable too ...until it wasn't.

[Demsrule86]

47. We can't count on Texas even if Beto is on the ticket. But I believe he would help in the rustbelt.

[Stare Decisis]

51. BETO being on the ticket in any form is highly unlikely.

[Demsrule86]

68. I disagree. Hd is my second choice after Biden. I think he could win.

[John Fante]

236. It's a great position for him (and us).

Groom him for a presidential run somewhere down the line. Beto is formidable as is and his greatest claim to fame right now is narrowly losing to Cruz.

[ucrdem]

53. He would help in Ohio for sure.

I think Biden/Beto would be hard to beat even by the cheater-in-chief.

[Demsrule86]

69. That would be a great ticket for the rustbelt and if we win Ohio, Trump is toast

No Republican has ever won the presidency without Ohio.

[Autumn]

52. I'm not sure how a man who lost to Ted Cruz can carry Texas.

[ucrdem]

60. Well he would have more stature than he did last year

and he'd have Joementum to give him an extra push, at least if he's #2. At the top, it's harder to say.

[Autumn]

66. Yes he's more known, but I don't see how that would make a win against Trump a sure thing.

[Demsrule86]

70. Having a president that comes from your state is a very prestigious thing... so I think it could

happen.

[Gothmog]

39. trump could easily win 2020 unless we select an electable candidate

[Stare Decisis]

43. For fuck's sake how does someone like trump get elected

Yet flat out brilliant people have to worry about their electability?

[Demsrule86]

50. Look at the electoral college map.

[Gothmog]

58. Most POTUS are re-elected for second term unless the economy is bad

Here is a report on a number of studies showing this. 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

[Demsrule86]

72. That is true too. Although his economic policies particularly the steel tariffs and the China tariff

have hurt the Mid West.

[Gothmog]

79. From the Hoarse Whisperer

trump is taking credit for the Obama economy

Link to tweet

[Demsrule86]

93. The thing is the economy is not great in Ohio. We have lost more auto /parts plants from

Youngstown to Cincinnati. We will lose Parma in Cleveland as well. Trump came here and blamed the unions...won't sit well. As an auto wife for 30 years, I can say with confidence...autos are the first to show signs of recession. I think the economy is not great now and will be worse by 20. We have the highest number of three month past due auto loans, housing starts are down...reminds me of 2017. Autos have lower their expectations already for expansion. So Trump may be dealing with a bad economy. He has destroyed Obama's economy. Also consumer debt is high...the signs are there.

[Demsrule86]

48. That is my point. I hear people basically saying anyone can beat Trump...that is not true. It will

take the right candidate and a big effort to defeat the electoral college and incumbency advantage Trump has.

[dalton99a]

71. And Republicans will do everything to protect their idiot.

[Demsrule86]

73. That is clear. These folks don't care about the country. Trump is a traitor but he is their

traitor.

[Gothmog]

298. I agree

[Demsrule86]

306. He could win if we choose a candidate that moves too far left in a primary.

[shanny]

49. We had a centrist candidate last time.

And in 2004.

[LongtimeAZDem]

56. Yep, and unfortunately, the rabid attack from the far left will probably hurt this time too

[shanny]

59. "the far left"

always makes me laugh out loud

thanks!

[LongtimeAZDem]

62. I don't know what else you could call the socialists, but it's sad that you're amused by this

[shanny]

229. we have social democrats, not socialists

it's sad that you can't see this (and sadder that some of them can't be bothered with the correct terminology--looking at you, Bernie)

[TwilightZone]

159. Jill Stein is far left.

Would you disagree? She certainly contributed.

[shanny]

172. Really?

I wondered about that, so I looked at the platform for the Green Party in 2016 Do you know what was in it?

--Enact an Emergency Green New Deal....
--Redirect research funds from fossil fuels to renewable energy and conservation....
--End destructive energy extraction....
--Protect our public lands, water supplies, biological diversity, parks and pollinators....
--Support a strong, enforceable global climate treaty....
--Support organic and regenerative agriculture....
--Protect the rights of future generations....
--Enact stronger environmental justice laws, to ensure low income and communities of color are not disproportionately impacted....
--Invest in clean air, water, food and soil for everyone. Clean up America.

There's more of course, including support for labor, ending poverty, health care as a right, education as a right, a just economy, a just immigration system, criminal justice reforms, peace and human rights.

Granted, it's a wish list...and many items would be disruptive, BUT I would argue, less disruptive than tRump has the capacity to be and in fact disruptive in a good way. In short, I didn't agree with all of it but I certainly didn't find it very scary. At all. I found it something to aspire to. Apparently I'm not alone, because many of these issues are now at least being debated in the "mainstream."

[still_one]

181. The Green Party has NO Credibility. In those critical SWING STATES, the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE

lost by less than 1%. Jill Stein received 1% of the vote in each of those CRITICAL SWING STATES

It didn't take much.

With Comey, the media trashing and people like David Sirota, Nina Turner, Briahna Joy Gray, all who VOTED FOR JILL STEIN, and through media outlets, social outlets, and newspapers, encouraged people NOT to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016.

Your characterization that the "moderate lost", which is a bullshit characterization by the way, conveniently leaves out the sabotage, and undermining that these so-called progressives did to influence people NOT to vote for the Democratic nominee, and it didn't take much, 1% in those critical swing states

In addition, every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, establishment republican in 2016, and THOSE DEMOCRATS WERE PROGRESSIVE BY ANY STANDARD

When Jill Stein said their is not difference between the republicans and Democrats, and that the Democratic nominee is worse than Donald Trump, that **** THEM.

[shanny]

196. Sorry, but in a democracy people get to vote for whomever they please.

Even when it is a horrible mistake. It's that freedom thing, you may have heard of it: in essence it is the right to be wrong.

As for Hillary being a moderate, I've made my case on that. If you care to refute it, have at it.

Regardless, remember when the black guy with the funny (Islamic!) name won by 10 million votes? That race couldn't be stolen--unlike 2000 or 2004--because it wasn't close enough. Even in 2012, when it had become apparent that Obama was more moderate than many hoped, it still wasn't close enough to steal. 2016 was. Any one of the things you named might have beaten Hillary against a half-way sane and competent opponent; it took all of them for her to lose to tRump. That says a lot to me about the nature of our candidate. You can disagree and call it a bullshit characterization or anything else you like, it's a free country. Doesn't make it true.

btw, regarding progressive Democrats running for Senate in 2016 I've got two words for you: "incumbent" and "coattails"

[still_one]

198. Here is Hillary's voting record. You made no case. That is the typial green party all or nothing

rhetoric

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

The same people said the same thing about Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, which makes me wonder if they even know their voting record, or do they live in the same bubble.

Obviously your convenient memory forgets the big advantage President Obama had, the economy imploded under bush. That is why it wasn't close. Remember bush. That was another Ralph Nader Green Plate special, with his is no difference between republicans and Democrats trash talk

and with your characterization that President Obama is a moderate, another falsehood, tells me exactly your perspective

[shanny]

230. your ignorance of how Obama considered himself tells me all I need to know about your perspective.

https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080

buh-bye

[still_one]

262. No, your ignorance astonds me. It is where a person stands on the issues

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm


buh-bye to you

[Cha]

258. If stein hadn't of LIED her Fucking head OFF

she wouldn't have SUCKED so many voters in. So yeah, they can "vote how they please" and stein can LIE her Fucking head OFF and we got Fucking trump.

Link to tweet

The Hatemongering really worked.

Second, a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters weren’t big fans of Clinton. So Stein campaigning on the idea that Clinton and Trump were similar made it harder for Clinton to win over those voters — even if Sanders voters didn’t vote for Stein, they may have stayed home out of disgust.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/

[BlueFlorida]

276. Why would anyone

defend Jill Stein against Hillary Clinton on a Democratic forum?

[shanny]

294. Maybe because I wasn't.

I said the platform has many non-scary, even mainstream ideas and worthy aspirations. Which it does.

[Cha]

259. You're Absolutely Right, stillone. Stein's RF LIES

about Hillary and trump being no different helped get trump Rigged in.. and she has Blood on her hands, too.

Link to tweet

The Hatemongering really worked.

Second, a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters weren’t big fans of Clinton. So Stein campaigning on the idea that Clinton and Trump were similar made it harder for Clinton to win over those voters — even if Sanders voters didn’t vote for Stein, they may have stayed home out of disgust.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/

[Cha]

257. It was stein's RF Fucking LIES about Hillary

and trump that assisted Russia in the Rigging in of trump.

Link to tweet

The Hatemongering really worked.

Second, a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters weren’t big fans of Clinton. So Stein campaigning on the idea that Clinton and Trump were similar made it harder for Clinton to win over those voters — even if Sanders voters didn’t vote for Stein, they may have stayed home out of disgust.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/

[BlueFlorida]

295. This is exactly how it happened n/t

[TexasTowelie]

204. Meanwhile, adjectives such corporatist, establishment, centrist, third-way, and elitist

make me wince. The back-stabbing is why Democrats lose elections.

[shanny]

218. If you mean back-stabbing by some of our politicians, I agree. eom

[TexasTowelie]

231. No, back-stabbing does not apply to only politicians.

If someone is going to place labels on groups of people, then they shouldn't be surprised or offended when someone responds accordingly. As the old sayings go, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." and "an eye for an eye" both come into consideration. Back-stabbing is not limited to one direction, particularly if one side is going to need the votes from the other in order to succeed.

[at140]

91. HRC was first to push single payer!

Is that legitimately centrist? And she did that way back during first term of BJC.

[Demsrule86]

94. HRC was not a centrist she was demonized by the far far green slime left and the Republicans

for decades. She would have been a great president.

[BeyondGeography]

103. She was perceived as such

No matter how many policy points you put out there. She had a major perception problem, and that was known going into 2016.

I don’t think ideology matters that much. How the candidate is perceived, on the other hand, matters a lot. There wasn’t much to separate Obama from Hillary policy-wise, but who captured more voters in ‘08 and why? It had zero to do with ideology.

[Demsrule86]

106. That is such nonsense...she lost in rustbelt states where centrists win...She faced a two

pronged attack - bitter primary voters who voted for Stein and middle class folks who decided to give Trump's populist promises to save manufacturing a try. Also, NAFTA hurt her unfairly as she was not even elected then. And Trump promised to get rid of NAFTA. Also she had been demonized unfairly by some on our side and Republicans for decades.

[BeyondGeography]

125. Centrism schmentrism, she lost where people were most desperate for change

and by a wide margin those voters went for Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Which candidate quality mattered most?

Can bring change
(39% - the highest rated quality in 2016)

Clinton 14%
Trump 82%

[Demsrule86]

127. She lost because of NAFTA.

And the fact she was demonized during the primary and for years before.

[shanny]

116. Way back in 1945 Harry Truman pushed for a national health insurance plan,

Nixon wanted universal health insurance with government subsidies and in 1974 Ted Kennedy pushed single-payer...so whether HRC's health plan could be considering ground-breakingly progressive is a matter for debate.

What isn't open for debate is that she openly campaigned for the "moderate Republican / suburban" vote in 2016 (Arizona, not Wisconsin, remember?)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trump-clinton-electoral-college/506306/

Maybe Chuck Schumer said it best:
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

so yeah: centrist

[Botany]

54. No we need clean elections and that the people can vote and their votes will be counted.

n/t

[Demsrule86]

75. Look at the map in the red states we are going to lose more than likely so we must shore up

the Rustbelt. Clean elections are needed but won't save us.

[Botany]

128. I am sick of bringing a gun to a knife fight.

16 million voters were removed prior to the 2016 election ...

https://thinkprogress.org/states-purged-16-million-voters-from-the-rolls-before-the-2016-election-1c5688dcaad7/

Ever since they passed HAVA (Help America Vote Act) we have seen a red shift in voting outcomes
that does not match the demographics and or the issues that American care about.

[Demsrule86]

130. I know but we can only fix this by winning states.

[Botany]

135. I understand but to win those states we need to push 24/7 the following:

Everybody should be able to vote and have their vote counted. I think the democratic party
and our candidates should give up on the 30% of racist sexist dumb asses and work on getting
the rest out to vote and have their voted counted. We should work on a vote early and vote on
paper program. Hell, Obama and in part Hillary (trade policies) helped to save the GM plant in
Lords town, OH and yet > 50% of the white male UMW workers there voted for Trump because
he let them know that it is OK to use the word n****r.

[Demsrule86]

146. What you say about Lordstown is untrue. And you need the rustbelt

to win. Look at the map.

[comradebillyboy]

67. I don't know if we need a 'centerist' or not, but I do know a socialist

will lead us to electoral disaster

[Demsrule86]

74. Indeed. I actuall prefer moderate...because moderates hold progressive views in many cases

on certain issues such social security and universal healthcare

[Fiendish Thingy]

77. Nope - I say we find the right progressive Democrat

To win the hearts and minds of the working class in the rust belt, while at the same time exposing the harm Trump has done to these same working class voters.

We don’t need a bland centrist, we need a bold, even radical progressive who will energize the voters.

[Demsrule86]

89. You need someone who can win the rustbelt...a radical progressive will surely lose.

[Fiendish Thingy]

118. Is this the same rust belt that rejected Paul Wellstone?

Or Sherrod Brown? Or Rashida Tlaib? Or Ilhan Omar?

We must be bold and fearless, not bland, timid and status quo.

[Demsrule86]

120. House seats are not statewide. BROWN WAS AN INCUMBENT

who appeals to union/working folks, he took moderate positions like a public option not Medicare for all. May I remind you of the great progressive Feingold ( love him) who lost twice in wisconsin. And the GOP slime who is still there in the US Senate.

[BlueWI]

190. Feingold ran stand pat campaigns

in an era of dynamic change. His style was perfect for the era when clean government and bipartisanship were the gold standard for an effective political persona. But he was not as strong when the emphasis shifted to leaning in to your base, identity politics, and use of social media to maximize turnout and voter engagement. Sanders won big over Clinton because he had a better sense of the issues and climate in this Rust Belt state, and there's a map to a win in 2020 if we learn some lessons from his 2016 approach.

I honestly don't think you can trot out a simple formula to win. How many non-centrists have Democrats nominated since 1960? Arguably, the only ones are McGovern, maybe LBJ if only domestic policy is considered, maybe Obama if we compare him to Hillary Clinton, but not when he's compared to the liberal candidates in this year's primary. And there were different results each time when the centrists ran. Six wins among four nominees (Carter, Bill Clinton, LBJ and Obama if we count them as centrists; and this is with Bill Clinton benefiteing from the Ross Perot campaigns and winning without a popular vote majority in either 1992 or 1996). Centrists have seven losses (Carter, Humphrey, Dukakis, Mondale, Kerry, Gore, Hillary Clinton). So, centrists do not have a net winning record since 1960, and there weren't enough left-leaning liberals nominated for a fair comparison.

Regardless of this history, every presidential year we get this tack - don't nominate the far left, the far left cost us the election, etc. The liberal part of this party has faithfully voted for the Michael Dukakis, Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Walter Mondale-centrist candidates for my whole adult life, in greater numbers than moderate or conservative Democrats have voted for the nominee. The left delivers the highest percentage of Democratic votes and gets steadily scolded for not favoring centrist candidates.

There is no easy formula. Inspiring candidates and inspired, focused campaigns with a clear agenda and good advertising and optics, win.

[Demsrule86]

202. I don't agree. Feingold's loss shows Sanders would not have won a general

The idea we would have won with a more leftist candidate is not true. Look at the Senate map and the 18 midterms. We need to run on the ACA with a public option and fixing the ACA...maybe lowering the Medicare age..Beat the GOP over the head with their attacks on social security.

[BlueWI]

211. A couple of points.

The Feingold-Johnson election happened in a non-presidential year, which has lower turnouts from two key constituencies for Wisconsin Democrats: millennials and urban voters in the two biggest WI counties: Dane (Madison) and Milwaukee counties. The governor election also happens in non-presidential years, which helped Walker in his races. The Reagan Democrats that you seem to prize are a factor in Wisconsin, but I don't think that you gain all that much in this demographic with a centrist. My two tips for presidential candidates in WI are: 1) come as you are/be what you are, and 2) tell us the plan. Do those things as literally as you can, and you will win in WI on the Democratic side.

Would we have won in 2016 with a more "leftist" candidate? Impossible to say, but we, in fact, lost with a more centrist candidate. Obviously the reasons for the loss can't be boiled down to Clinton's ideology, but from my observations as a political junkie and frequent volunteer in a purplish region in Wisconsin, there was significantly less enthusiasm for Clinton than Sanders. I am pretty confident that Sanders would have won crossover votes and slightly expanded the Democratic base in WI in 2016. He's still leading in polls now over Biden in WI by a pretty significant margin. I am not supporting him this year because there are more options for the liberal Democratic voter this year, but there are lessons to be learned from Sanders' appeal to a large number of Democrats and crossover voters in 2016. Inslee to me has a great combination of clear communication, a defined legislative agenda, and an ability to win the Rust Belt and its Reagan Democrats, with none of the baggage of Sanders and even Biden.

Last point for this thread: broad brush thinking about who's electible hurt us last time. We need to drill deeper into voter behavior in all the key states, and candidates need to be better prepared to work with the cultural conditions in these states. We need to build on what activists in each state have learned over time, moving closer to the 50 state strategy, rather than relying on broad brush predictions that proved faulty in 2016.

That's it - going to meet a friend and write postcards for our upcoming local races. If we want to win, put the work in!!

[Demsrule86]

239. Feingold Johnson happened in16 . So this blows a big hole in your theory. that

a progressive nominee could have won Wisconsin in 16. If it was just Hillary, Feingold would have won. He is a wonderful progressive. Feingold lost in a presidential year too.

[BlueWI]

274. You're right about the second Feingold-Johnson election

being in a presidential year. The Tea Party uprising defeated Feingold in 2010, and the drop in enthusiasm for the top of the ticket and a stand pat Senate campaign led to a 2016 loss. As the numbers I posted earlier showed, there was a much bigger drop in the Democratic vote than there was a gain in the Republican vote. This shows that neither Clinton nor Feingold tapped deeply enough into the crossover vote and less frequent voters in the Democratic base that turned out for Obama.

Also, the comparison is facile between Feingold and Sanders. Yes, they are both progressive in a general sense, but so are Sanders and Obama. Hardly interchangeable.

[Demsrule86]

291. And it says to me if Feingold loss Sanders likely would have lost too.

I just think the combination of populism and demonization of Hillary with stupid folks who claim to be progressive voting for Jill Stein,...we were cooked. And there was outright theft in the cities - both Milwaukee and Detroit .

[Demsrule86]

129. And wellstone was years ago-different time.

[Demsrule86]

305. All were elected the first time years ago.

Better to win. We run left and we lose.

[Fiendish Thingy]

308. Yeah, I guess you're right

Best to stick with safe candidates like Mondale, Dukakis, etc.

We don’t want to rock the boat, shake things up, or change the country, we just want to win, nothing more.

[Demsrule86]

310. We don't want to give Trump for more years so yeah play it safe.

[John Fante]

303. There are no radical progressives in this race.

[Demsrule86]

304. There are some who can easily be painted that way,

[John Fante]

307. Conservatives painted Obama as a marxist socialist communist. It didn't

work then, so why would it work now? Obama actually lost luster when the perception that he was a moderate took hold.

[marylandblue]

309. Obama was good at messaging, so it was hard to pin that label on him

I don't think Obama lost much luster when people found out he was a moderate. I think he lost it when he had to actually govern against a resistant GOP and a strong media campaign against the ACA.

[Demsrule86]

311. Trump is better at it and we don't have an economic debacle and president with 28 %

approval.. we won' the midterm with moderates.

[John Fante]

322. More 4D chess crap. I'm pretty much done here.

[malchickiwick]

78. Just a Friendly Reminder: Russian Meddling Easily Flipped Enough Votes in Three States in 2016.

Any hand-wringing suggesting that we need to jettison key constituencies in order to win those states back should at least acknowledge the criminal foreign interference and collusion that occurred last time around. No??

[Demsrule86]

87. And we will face that again I think. However, Jill Stein took enough votes to have

caused Trump to lose. Consider Trump won by less than 70,000 votes in three states. Democrats must vote for anyone nominee. But I love Warren and don't think she has a chance in hell to be elected in Ohio.

[malchickiwick]

99. I disagree. I think EW's message will resonate in the Midwest.

Plus, what if she puts Sherrod Brown on the ticket??

[Demsrule86]

102. We lose two Senate seats under that scenario. I think EW has been demonized as Hillary was and will

not win a general although I like her. Both Sherrod and Elizabeth hail from states with Republicans governors...we must get the senate to appoint judges. Thus although I love both, they are not my first choices because of electability (Warren) and the loss of a Senate seat(both).

[Demsrule86]

209. She will be East Coast and is a bad fit for the rustbelt.

Also some of her policies will be seen as socialist. The GOP will make certain of that.

[KPN]

326. Jill Stein didn't get centrist votes.

[Kurt V.]

82. the candidate that generates the most enthusiasm, which translates directly to votes,

will win.

[Demsrule86]

85. No...that electoral college map says otherwise. We have a narrow path to victory...thus

we must consider electability not who has the biggest rallies.

[Kurt V.]

109. did you look at that website's final 2016 prediction. It's embarrassing.

[Demsrule86]

126. I merely wanted to try the map...wining states and can seeing

how we win. You can play with the map and post it.

[Kurt V.]

134. we're all in to beat the orange menace. thanks for posting

[Demsrule86]

151. I want Trump gone...yellow dog voting time!

[Amimnoch]

86. NONE OF OUR CANDIDATES ARE CENTRIST!!!

I totally get what you mean, but none.. not a single one of our candates are actually centrist. Most have a cherry picked issue or 2, maybe even 3 where they aren’t as far liberal or progressive as others. A few have supported a bill, or taken a position or 2, or 3 that aren’t as far liberal or progressive as the others, but none are actually politically “centrist” when measured as a whole.. NONE of them.

If we get our candidate into the Oval office, AND we give them a Senate and House that will pass liberal or progressive legislation, will any of them refuse to sign said Democratic Party passed legislation? Hell fucking NO, they won’t. ALL of our candidates will happily sign any said legislation.

If we get our candidate into the Oval office, AND we fail to give them a Senate and House that will pass liberal or progressive legislation, will any of them fail to VETO Republican legislation that harms the platform of the Democratic Party?? All of our candidates will vehemently Veto any such legislation.

I do 100% absolutely agree that it’s all about that map. Our economy is still booming overall (Thank you President Obama!), and it’s hard as hell to unseat a mid-term incumbent president during a booming economy. These “purity tests” weaken our candidate.. any of our candidates for those critical state runs in a general. In the rust belt, it’s GOT to be about offering a way that either brings in industries that will alleviate the economical pains in that region, or some alternate solution that will help them. Our candidate also will need to hit very fucking hard against Cheetolini’s failed promises to keep industries/factories from shutting down.

[Demsrule86]

95. I agree with everything you say. Perhaps I should say perceived centrist...those who can run

from the middle and attract rustbelt and independent voters...who are still progressive.

[Amimnoch]

97. Thank you :)

I know it’s nitpicking on semantics, but that whole “centrist” false narrative just drives me nutts

[Demsrule86]

100. I like Beto too. He is my second choice...honestly I am pretty much liking him

as much as Biden. I guess I use centrist as a term to differentiate candidates. I will vote for the Democratic nominee and pray he/she wins.

[TwilightZone]

160. Agreed on "centrists"

Similar thoughts from my post in another thread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=36172

[WeekiWater]

88. I think you make a good point but I don't think it is an absolute point.

If Warren would stop pushing specific policies and speak in general terms she could take the rust belt. She speaks extremely well in general terms to what the rust belt likes to hear.

Unfortunately, Warren has decided to get mired down in extremely detailed policy positions.

[Demsrule86]

96. Always better to leave room for the big picture general.

[SKKY]

92. Um, no. Just, no. Before everyone loses their shit about our need for a centrist...

...candidate, let me remind everyone of something. WE LOST THE ELECTION BY 80K VOTES!!!!!! Let me say that again. 80,000 VOTES!!!!! We don't need a centrist candidate, we need a candidate who can turn out the vote.

[Demsrule86]

98. Look at the map. It is not about the number of votes but how the electoral college works.

a far left candidate will not carry the rustbelt nor woo independent voters in important states. We could easily lose again in the electoral college and win the popular vote. The Republicans are confident that we will do so by picking a candidate who can not win in the electoral college.

[SKKY]

114. Exactly. 80K votes, spread across 3 states, that would have flipped the election...

...for Clinton. We had a very weak candidate, going against a candidate that "caught fire" at the right time, and still it came down to 80K votes. We don't need to do THAT much to win this thing. Actually, we'd have to do more to lose it than to win it.

[Demsrule86]

191. Incumbency has its advantages. Thus we need to select our candidate carefully, ..

One that can win in those states on issues that resonate with voters,

[OneBro]

101. Meh. Get out the vote and stop voter suppression.

Hillary won but for voter suppression and republican collusion with Putin to undermine our elections. Democrats have a nagging habit of beating ourselves silly to coddle one “independent” while ignoring the 20 Democrats who would vote but for suppression.

An anti-Trump, pro Reagan/Bush, anti-human rights republican is STILL a republican, even if his belt buckle says “independent.” I’d just as soon leave those rotten apples on the ground.

[Demsrule86]

104. Since it unlikely we can fix any of the above by 20, we have to over- achieve to win this election.

And I would point out that we won over 32 house seats in districts carried by Trump in 18 so you are wrong. We can win some of these voters and the electoral college map shows we are doomed to lose if we don't.

[OneBro]

108. Perhaps.

If we have unlimited resources, I totally agree that we should try to win them over. But did pro-Trump voters really vote blue, or did we win the House by turning out our own voters as pro-Trumpers stayed home.

[Demsrule86]

110. Nope look at the house results. These are moderates who won in Districts that Trump carried

in 16 - some by double digits. We can only win if have a big tent 50 state approach.

[Gothmog]

113. Opinion: The myth of ideology, and why Democrats' energy isn't all on the left

Link to tweet

The vast majority of Democratic primary voters then and now do not identify as democratic socialists. Perhaps Sanders capitalized on unaffiliated anti-establishment types and Democrats who preferred him despite his ideology and not because of it. Move forward to the 2020 contests. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is providing the most substantive, interesting agenda that committed progressives could hope to see. Yet she is lagging in the polls. If this was all about progressive ideology and policy plans, she’d be running rings around the rest of the field.

As for Sanders, he benefits this time around from 100 percent name identification. However, the flip side of 100 percent name ID is that he’s no longer new, no longer saying things no one else will. He’s just as much of a democratic socialist as he was in 2016, but in the space of a few days we’ve seen that the “energy” isn’t all on the left; it’s drifting toward a centrist, young, optimistic candidate. Voters follow the energy and the ethos. They don’t carry around a thermometer gauging where on the scale of ideological purity each candidate rates.....

All you need to be is progressive enough to win a Democratic primary. Seeming more moderate than the Sanders clan is an advantage in the general election.

Why are pundits, the media and party insiders so convinced that ideological extremism equals energy/success? Part of it may be wishful thinking for progressives. However, part of the difficulty is linguistic. "Moderate” sounds to many ears to mean mild-mannered, prone to compromise and wishy-washy in beliefs. Nonsense. If ever there was a radical moderate, a fervent centrist Democrat, it’s O’Rourke. And gosh, he’s showing that can be exciting.

I doubt that sanders is going to be the nominee

[Demsrule86]

132. Great article, Thanks.

[Gothmog]

142. The concept that we can nominate an extreme candidate does not work in the real world

If we nominate sanders, then trump will be re-elected because sanders would be destroyed in the general election

[Demsrule86]

147. Yes. He would lose badly.

[Gothmog]

350. Do you want to be WOKE or do you want to win?

Link to tweet

[R B Garr]

117. Agreed, socialism is not an option to discuss in the Rustbelt

and beyond. Even liberal California didn’t vote for socialism. Stick with more traditional approaches in the Rustbelt. Trump will call everything socialism anyway. That’s how much of an opening he thinks he has with it now. Disaster.

[Demsrule86]

133. I agree completely. Let's not hand the GOP a weapon to

beat us with. Socialism is not acceptable to a majority of Americans.

[moose65]

119. Define "centrist"

Which Democratic ideas should our candidate throw aside? Which Dem voters should he or she piss off? If people want conservative policies, then they will vote for a conservative. Democrats need a candidate who can excite our OWN voters and also win over independents and politically disaffected people. We don't have to pander to conservatives to win.

[Demsrule86]

121. I already did.

[moose65]

148. Oh really?

I just went back and read EVERY comment you've made on this thread. In none of them do you actually give us your opinion on what a 'centrist' believes in or why you think a centrist is better. You say "Look at the map" a lot, and tell us that a progressive can't win, but as in a lot of things, "centrist" means different things to different people. Which candidate is a 'centrist' to you? You don't think Hillary was a centrist? In my opinion, ALL of the Presidential candidates we've had lately have been centrists - Hillary, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc. Some of them won and some of them didn't.

[Demsrule86]

156. There is no one size fits all but I will try,

Support the ACA with a public option and the lowering of age for Medicare. Support manufacturing with some sort of plan. No free college, it is a non-starter especially without income limitations. But do adress student loan issues. No basic income but raising the minimum would helpful. Don't say you want to abolish ICE or capitalism. Run on reasonable steps with details explaining how you plan to deal with climate change. I am on a cell so it is hard to type but you get the idea. Also infrastructure is a big issue everywhere.

[moose65]

170. Thank you for that reply

What you said there is very reasonable. I don’t think any candidate has said anything about abolishing capitalism! As for your other things, I agree, although those ideas will get our candidate branded as a flaming lefty socialist.

[Demsrule86]

173. The GOP will say what theyt will say but the ACA is already popular and people want it improved.

Trump ran on better health care not abolishing it...one of our most successful memes in 18 was health care...they call us socialists, and we beat them up on healthcare and Trumps social security and Medicare cuts. I think we can win. Trump has a narrow path...he needs to win as he did last time and he barely won in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. With the right candidate, we can beat Trump this time. Let's not kid ourselves, Trump could win but I think we have good shot of stopping him.

[notinkansas]

131. umm...not so much

Status quo/centrist candidates didn't do nearly as well as progressive candidates in '18.

[Demsrule86]

150. I would kill for status quo at this point. Let's see how about not running on

socialist ideas ....no Medicare for all but a public option, no basic income but a higher minimum.you get the idea.

[Demsrule86]

152. That is untrue. The seats that flipped were centrist...more than 30

[mr_lebowski]

154. For the record, when a Website tells you 'here's the code to put it on your website' ...

That literally means it's code you put into YOUR websites HTML code. It's not what you need for a message board like DU.

Here's the part to make the picture work on DU w/o a whole bunch of ugly looking crud around it.



If you right click, choose 'copy image URL/address', and paste it somewhere, you'll see it matches exactly what's in between the double quotes in the img source tag in the original monstrosity you posted.

You'll notice that everything BUT that URL, is all the extraneous text all around your image. Which you can remove after the fact, using the Edit feature of DU, once you post and realize your post looks like crap.

All you need to post a picture is https colon whackwhack blahblah/blah.png or jpg or gif.

NOTHING else is necessary, anything before or after just pollutes your post and does nothing.

[Demsrule86]

157. I know. I was lazy. Sorry.

[mr_lebowski]

161. All good ... just wanted to be sure you know how to do it :)

Also I might have a little pet peeve

[Demsrule86]

178. I am embarassed to admit I do know how, and it does look like crap. I was on a cell which is a pain

but still, I should have done it correctly Mea Culpa.

[John Fante]

155. Progressive policies

(AKA: normal sane policies in any other part of the civilized world) are very popular right now. Taxing the rich, Green New Deal, Medicare-for-all, etc. The policies Trump champions are largely UNPOPULAR.

Why would a candidate who champions progressive policies (like Warren) be at a disadvantage? Why would Biden, who voted for NAFTA, the Iraq War, etc., be the only candidate with a shot? He is popular right now, but so was Hillary before she began her campaign.

[Demsrule86]

158. Why isn't Warren doing better?

Medicare for all is not popular when people lose work insurance. A green new deal is being used against Democrats in the senate...McConnell is holding a vote, and you need to define rich...running on taxes is tricky.

[John Fante]

171. A) It's early, Warren has time to catch up.

B) Bernie runs on similar policies and he's solidly in 2nd place right now. Kamala runs on similar policies also.

C) Medicare-for-all or some variation is widely popular. 56% support it in a latest poll.

D) I couldn't care less what Mitch McConnell thinks or does. Whatever the Democratic platform is, Republicans will try to use it against us. It's irrelevant.

E) Only Trump could deliver tax cuts and have them be unpopular. Higher taxes for the rich has 76% support: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2019/02/04/support-for-tax-increase-on-wealthy-americans-poll

You're advocating for staid centrist policies that will serve only to breed apathy from our voting base. That's EXACTLY what Republicans want - their bothsideism rhetoric can flourish in that environment.

[Demsrule86]

174. I don't think EW can win a general. She has been demonized as Hillary was.

[John Fante]

235. How so? Hilary was pilloried for nearly 25 years before running in 2016,

and she was a household name for at least that long. Warren isn't remotely close to Hillary's level of fame or notoriety. The fact that Trump called her "Pocahontas" will only serve to remind non-Trumpers what a racist asshole he is.

You think Biden won't get the treatment from the right-wing media? He has many more questionable decisions on his past relative to Warren (voted yes on Iraq, the Anita Hill fiasco, his crime bill, etc.), so he will be easier to attack on that front. Throw in his moderate policies on climate change, healthcare, taxes, and you have a lukewarm Biden is very popular right now, but so was Hillary before running in 2016. Then it all went south.

[Demsrule86]

242. The pocohontas thing and the GOP have been after for years,

Also I don't think her platform can win the rustbelt.

[John Fante]

301. The pochantas thing.

So you think a bigoted slur will cause her to lose. Wow.

Biden has far more negative baggage than Warren. Not even close.

[Demsrule86]

333. I never thought Hillary would lose but she did so yeah that sort of thing can work.

[BlueWI]

165. Who did better in these states in 2016 - the "centrist" or the "leftist"?

Sanders won in MI, WI and MN (big), and came close in Iowa. I think Clinton won in Ohio and PA (can't recall), but I believe the margin was very close.

From my perspective in WI, the missing ingredient for the nominee last time was populism - an ability to appeal across political lines, age lines, and class lines with a sensible message, along with a clear sense of what the electorate's concerns are. In my limited observations so far, I think that Buttigieg and Inslee will be best at this, and Kloubuchar, Warren, and perhaps Harris and Sanders are next in this ability. It takes a lot of skill to stay connected to the issues faced by ordinary people outside of the privilege and visibility that a long tenure in office gives you. That's one of several reasons why I'm not supporting Biden in the primaries.

I hope to post and learn as much as possible about issues rather than the horse race in these months before the earnest beginning of the campaign. These predictive analyses are unconvincing, and overreliance on analytics cost us big last time.

[TwilightZone]

166. Apples and oranges.

Primaries and the general election are two very different things.

[BlueWI]

182. Perhaps...but

losing by 13% or more in the Wisconsin and Minnesota primaries was a pretty clear sign of potential trouble in the GE in 2016. In purple states where you lost in the primary, better have an improved strategy for the GE.

[Demsrule86]

207. Not really. Plenty of candidates have lost states n the primary and won them

In the general...like Obama.

[BlueWI]

212. Look at what actually happened.

Big primary loss in WI followed by surprising electoral loss in November for the first time since 2000. It pays dividends on election day to understand local and specific conditions and learn from them.

[Demsrule86]

216. I don't see it that way, we barely lost Wisconsin. And stein voters are to

bame.

[BlueWI]

233. Well, let's add facts and think a bit further.

The Green Party got more votes in 2016 compared to 2012 in WI (about 24,000 more votes, 31,000 total).

Trump got more votes in 2016 than Romney in 2012 by a small margin (about 2,700 votes out of 1.4 million). Essentially, there were the same number of Republican votes in both elections.

Clinton received fewer votes in 2016 than Obama in 2012 in WI (about 238,000 fewer). And arguably, she's a more centrist candidate.

So why does the Green Party, in your reasoning, get all the credit for the loss, even though the Green Party votes were much fewer in number than the dropoff in votes for the Democratic nominee?

Sure, if every Green Party vote went to Clinton, Clinton would have won. But that didn't happen, as it would never happen. In fact, Trump was probably hurt more by the Libertarian Party in 2016 (104,000 votes versus 20,000 in 2012) than Clinton was hurt by the Green Party in 2016 (31,000 votes versus 7,000 in 2012).

It is persistently attractive to many to make the Green Party the scapegoat, but would be easier to earn back 12% of voters who abandoned the Democratic ticket in 2016 than to earn 100% of Green Party voters, who are a small margin of the electorate to begin with.

[Demsrule86]

244. The number of votes that went to Greens would have elected clinton.

And tell me how the Russian princess knew what states to zero in on. I don't know how those scumbags have the nerve to call themselves Green. They are responsible for electing Republicans who destroy the environment. They are not our allies and gave us W twice and now Trump. Greens can fuck off .

[Demsrule86]

199. Primaries are meaningless...I believe Sanders would have lost a general.

You have to win a primary in order to run in a general.

[BlueWI]

203. Clinton lost in the general - in the actual election.

Clinton won only in safely blue states, other than maybe Virginia. Sanders would have probably been fine in CA, NY, OR, CO, and other states where Clinton won.

Sanders won WI in a walk and MI by a hair during the primaries. I live in WI and enthusiasm was high for him, along with a solid statewide organization. That's why he's polling very well in 2020 here too.

I supported Sanders last time but not this time, so I am not saying this to support Sanders. But I think we should base our conjectures on how each state voted, leaving no piece of evidence unconsidered. The determination to oppose Sanders leads to mistaken assumptions that can hurt our strategic thinking.

[Demsrule86]

205. If you can't win a primary there is no reason to believe you would win a general.

Feingold lost in Wisconsin remember.

[BlueWI]

234. I do remember.

See my critique of the Feingold campaign in #190.

[Demsrule86]

243. He was progressive and should have won.

A similar nominee would have lost too.

[Demsrule86]

267. You have to win a primary. Also Hillary won red states in 08 and Obama

Still won the general. Hillary didn't expect Obama to get her voters himself...didn't say it either. She worked her heart out for Obama...no convention drama either...they were a team.

[progressoid]

167. Like Al Gore and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and...

[Demsrule86]

208. What do all those candidates have in common. They were fucked over by

The far left Green slime. They are example of why Democrats and those who call themselves progressive must end destructive message voting and support the Democratic nominee in all elections. The world vwould be different if Democrats had supported each of these candidates and if the Green slime who care nothing for the environment stopped supporting Republicans.

[progressoid]

217. Guess what. There is going to be a Green candidate again in 2020.

So if you think they are the problem and you want "Democrats and those who call themselves progressive" to support the Democratic nominee in all elections, running a centrist won't work.

[Demsrule86]

248. I have hope that folks won't be stupid enough to vote for a spoiler Green

Especially after the Russian princess stein screwed Democrats with the fake recount.

[Garrett78]

180. 4 articles on so-called "independents":

https://www.thenation.com/article/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/1/22/10814522/independents-voters-facts-myths

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/independent-voters-are-overrated/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-on-politics-column-20180301-story.html%3foutputType=amp

[Demsrule86]

200. I find the nation unreliable and ended my subscription after their vicious attacks on our 2016

Nominee. Independents vote for both parties regardless of their political leanings,

[Garrett78]

263. Your objection to The Nation aside, I suggest reading any of the 4 articles.

So-called "independents" aren't who you and many others think they are. Simply put, they're strong partisans who simply like calling themselves "independent."

[Demsrule86]

272. They may be partisans but don't call themselves Democrats or Republicans for a reason.

They are unreliable and do switch back and forth.

[BlueWI]

183. One last comment...

Presidential elections are statewide; Congressional elections are by district.

Maybe this was mentioned up thread, but it's another factor to keep in mind.

[Demsrule86]

193. It was mentioned but is a good reminder. Those elected in 18 were

from districts Trump carried and were mostly moderate. What is really encouraging is that PA,WI AND MI elected Democratic governors...statewide races won by Democrats in states Trump won last time that led to his electoral college win, and states he must win again in 20 to have any path to victory, This is a good sign for the good guys...Democrats

[Demsrule86]

290. And the Senate /statewide map is worse for us than the house. Look at the map,

The point is we won in districts Trump won 16. If we can keep this up, we win 20. But these were moderate candidates.

[pansypoo53219]

184. BS. the moron ran on populism here. of course he was lying for votes.

[Thekaspervote]

186. Absolutely! But no, it's not a popular thing to say

[TheFarseer]

187. Hillary was a centrist candidate

And did NOT win the rust belt. Not a single state in the rust belt.

[Demsrule86]

192. She Also had NAFTA thrown at her, she had been demonized in the primary and by the GOP

For years. She was under investigation and treated badly by Cormey and yet she nearly won the 80,000 votes that would have put her in the white house. she won the popular vote,. She wasn't really centrist either and was attacked by Russia too, Don't fall for the mistaken belief that this means, these states will support a far left candidate. Jill Stein was a spoiler not a winner. She elected Trump. Let's not allow this to happen again.

[TheFarseer]

194. I agree we need to beat Trump.

The Comey thing sucked, but I hate to break it to you a Green candidate runs in every presidential election and they get less votes than the Libertarian. You dont see Repubs complaining about the Libertarian. Russia supported Trump and they would have crapped on any Dem. The Repubs will attempt to Demonize ANY of our candidates. It sucks she actually won the popular vote and lost but I truly believe the difference in the Rust Belt was Trump was very against Free Trade agreements and Hillary didn't make it clear where she stood.

[Demsrule86]

201. Greens mattered in 16. We must beat Trump. And Stein peeled off

Progressive and Democratic voters.. enough to elect Trump. I despise Stein.

[TheFarseer]

222. That's possible but

You don't know they would have voted for Hillary or at all. Besides, Gary Johnson got over 3 times as many votes - from people that would have theoretically voted Trump otherwise, and he overcame that. I just don't think it's helpful to lean on excuses like that.

[Demsrule86]

241. Greens exist to help Republicans beat us,. They are worthless scum.

[John Fante]

238. Biden voted for NAFTA.

That will absolutely be brought up in 2020.

[Demsrule86]

240. She was a Clinton. It is different. And she had been demonized for years.

[aidbo]

197. Why would you think we need to attract anti-trump Republicans?

Trump has a 90% approval in the Republican Party, so you want to go after their 10%? There are almost no anti-trump Republicans, they only exist on cable news.
And trying to attract republicans will inevitably turn off some parts of the democratic electorate. Better to let anti-trump republicans vote 3rd party (or for the democrats if they really are anti-trump), but there’s no need to try to attract them.

I would think it would be much more effective to activate non-voters and independents.


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/10/the-case-for-centrism-in-the-trump-era-is-hilariously-weak.html

[Demsrule86]

206. Some have left the GOP because of Trump. This is the lowest number of

Republicans ever. We won GOP votes in the midterm and if we are ever going to win 60 votes in the Senate we have to have a 50 state strategy and go after all votes.

[Autumn]

210. No we don't. We need to elect someone who addresses their needs and concerns. Like healthcare,

a living wage, jobs and affordable education. That will do the trick. And centrists aren't the only ones who own that, a progressive will do just fine.

[Demsrule86]

213. A candidate who appeals to the rustbelt can do all that. A candidate that can't

Win an election could be pure and perfect and it won't matter in the end. Look at the map. consider the 2018 house wins. We must choose an electable candidate,

[Autumn]

215. It doesn't have to be a centrist is my point. Every candidate we have running is not only

electable but they are each and everyone highly electable. No one is looking for pure and perfect, well except for a few. You have said nothing that convinces me that we must elect a centrist. All people, even people in the rust belt want the same thing as anyone does from any other area. They want a candidate that addresses their needs and concerns. jobs, healthcare, a living wage and affordable education and a better life. The Democratic party platform does that. A progressive as well as anyone can go there and and talk about what they are offering. The candidate just has to be willing to go there and campaign and put boots on the ground.

[Demsrule86]

249. I don't agree.

[Autumn]

250. That's fine because I don't agree with your premise that we must elect a centrist.

[Demsrule86]

292. If we run anyone but a moderate, we lose in 20.

That is what I think, it comes down to three states...PA,MI and WI. Sanders and Warren will both lose a general in my opinion.

[andym]

220. Jobs-- especially jobs

that pay well and that can confer a sense of pride. People in the rust belt see those slipping away. Not easily solved, and certainly haven't been hearing too much focus on these yet.

[Autumn]

221. That's something that needs to be addressed. And it the last election it was not addressed

by the Democratic candidate in important states in the rust belt.

[andym]

223. Hillary Clinton talked about job retraining programs

Last edited Sun Mar 24, 2019, 02:35 AM - Edit history (1)

which is one good approach, but there must be others. Where are the employers going to come from? How can they be encouraged to set up shop or expand? Is there any hope for the steel industry? The coal industry (need coal to make steel)? etc. Green industries? ...

[Autumn]

225. The future IMO needs to be Green industries. No way around it.

[Demsrule86]

260. And how will you keep green jobs from moving overseas exactly?

[Demsrule86]

261. Retraining is a dirty word in the Midwest. Thousand were retrained for jobs

That were non-existent ,paid for shit or were shortly shipped overseas. Seriously NEVER talk about retraining.

[Polybius]

228. Like who?

Define centrist. Joe Manchin?

[IronLionZion]

237. Because that worked out so well for Hillary when she won all those rust belt states?

[AlexSFCA]

251. the worst assumption. It never worked.

Biden ran many times only to prove he is not a viable candidate as soon as debates start.
Hillary would have lost in 2008 also if Obama didn’t get the nomination.
Centristst is a weakness not strength. Centrists do not inspire, do not generate enthusiasm. They don’t have vision or their own policies.

[vlyons]

252. No, we need a great message about an great agenda of positions that will help Americans live better

* Raise the minimum wage to $15/hr
* Reverse Trump's job killing farm killing tariffs
* Affordable healthcare
* Affordable higher education
* Corporations and ultra rich pay their fair share in taxes
* Cut the obscene military budget
* End these endless wars
* End voter suppression
* Infrastructure investment
* Green energy investment
* Broadband investment

[riverine]

254. Obama did ALL of those things

although the federal minimum wage was last raised in 2009 just not to $15.

How did that "message" work out?

We lost Congress.

But Obama did the right thing and I will forever support him.

[vlyons]

256. How did it work out?

Obama won -- twice

[guillaumeb]

253. Now all that remains is to define the term "centrist".

Good luck.

[BlueFlorida]

275. The socialists

will make us lose the election for the next 100 years.

Centrist Democrats is the ticket.

The socialist panacea of nationalizing corporations and making everyone poor will not be attractive to the electorate. Fortunately, not even many socialists except the ultra-extreme-left think that and are relatively moderate.

[Demsrule86]

284. This is true. We need a candidate that the GOP can't succeed in painting as

A socialist ...their twisted view. They will try to destroy any candidate we put up. Let's not help them. No October surprises. Our candidates must be vetted and release 10 years of tax returns in my opinion.

[Gothmog]

346. Messina Says Sanders Can't Beat Trump

I agree with Jim Messina on this https://politicalwire.com/2019/04/17/messina-says-sanders-cant-beat-trump/

Jim Messina, who managed Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, told ABC News that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) cannot beat President Trump in 2020.

Said Messina: “I think if you look at swing voters in this country they are incredibly focused on the economy. I think today you look at it and say that Bernie Sanders is unlikely going to be able to stand up to the constant barrage that is Donald Trump on economic issues.”

[Demsrule86]

347. I agree. If Sanders is the nominee we lose.

[mainstreetonce]

277. The Reublicans I hear from might go for

Joe. Amy or. Pete

[Demsrule86]

283. That is what I think too.

[George II]

278. Yes, those terrible "centrists" will save our Party and our country. We need them!

[Demsrule86]

282. We do. We have to get Trump out.

We can't have 4 more tears with this would be fascist.

[bullwinkle428]

288. Howard Schultz would certainly define himself as a "centrist". Which begs the question,

how big of a centrist tent are we ready to stake up?

[Demsrule86]

293. He is no centrist or moderate Democrat. He is a spoiler independent like

Green scum. He is basically a rich guy asshole. He wants to reelect Trump. He lies about Starbucks too. My future daughter in law works there. She and others are kept part time so they can't afford the insurance. Also in Ohio, workers are paid $9.00 an hour. Walmart pays better and Schultz made the insurance worse in 16,..now you pay more for good coverage...marketplace approach. We should boycott shitty Starbucks.

[Gothmog]

296. The Democrats Trump Fears Most

trump is worried about three possible Democratic nominees https://politicalwire.com/2019/03/24/the-democrats-trump-fears-most/

“President Trump has publicly boasted that he could beat any of his 2020 Democratic challengers. But privately, several members of the Trump campaign see a few who could pose a threat to his re-election, and are in the early stages of building out their strategy for attack,” Axios reports.

“The three candidates that seem to concern the Trump campaign most are Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Beto O’Rourke. That’s in no particular order, and you’ll get a different answer depending on who you talk to.”

[Demsrule86]

321. Those are who I would expect him to fear.

[Gothmog]

297. If the economy is strong, trump can win

[Gothmog]

299. Donald Trump has a plan to win re-election with just 45 percent of the vote

We have to nominate a strong electable candidate or trump may win

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.

[dalton99a]

300. Which means we must make Trump 1000X super-radioactive

By All Means Necessary

[Gothmog]

314. Trump's Fate Now Even More Squarely in Hands of the Voters

I really like Larry Sabato. Sabato thinks that being radioactive may not hurt trump http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/trumps-fate-now-even-more-squarely-in-hands-of-the-voters/

2020 should be a close, competitive, high-turnout election with both sides energized, given what we know today. But lots of factors can tilt the result one way or another. What’s not going to change is Donald Trump. People decided a long time ago what they thought of him, and it has hardened into concrete for the millions who love him as well as the millions who hate him. While we do not know in detail what the full Mueller report will say, the Barr summary, whatever its biases and omissions, suggests what we already thought was the likeliest scenario: The fate of the Trump presidency is on track to be decided at the ballot box, as opposed to a courtroom or impeachment proceeding. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but like Coca-Cola, it’s the real thing.

I agree with Sabato that there is nothing that will change the opinion of the trump base.

We need to GOTV like crazy and not count on converting trump supporters

[Cosmocat]

323. I like Larry, too, but I have been saying that since the day after the 2016 elections ...

nm

[Demsrule86]

320. I know that is what he is up to. But if we vote it won't be close.enough

To steal.

[Gothmog]

324. You are preaching to the choir

Even in Texas, we are planning to fight trump as hard as possible and to put Texas into play

[doc03]

302. And won't win running a Socialist or a gay

candidate. Sorry but that is my opinion like it or not.

[Gothmog]

313. I would campaign like crazy for a gay candidate but you may be right

I am the father of a gay daughter and would fight like crazy if Pete was the nominee. I fear that you are correct

[doc03]

315. I live on the border of PA,OH and WV. These f---g

bigots fear anybody different from them be it gay, anyone other than white and anyone that doesn't speak hillbilly.
I don't think Joe Biden is the answer either they associate him with Obama.

[Gothmog]

316. I am in Texas

I fear that you are correct.

[Demsrule86]

319. I don't disagree.

Sad though.

[Blue_Tires]

312. What we NEED is a complete overhaul of the Electoral College

before it fucks us a third time in 20 years...

I mean Jesus, if the GOP got the popular vote but lost the EC vote, they would have BEEN blown this shit up back in 2001 and it never would have happened again.

[Demsrule86]

317. It is in the Constitution .

Nothing can be done.

[Blue_Tires]

318. Something can always be done

it only requires a plan and the will to see it through

[Demsrule86]

325. Amendment that will go nowhere. Maybe we try to make it work for us,

And did you know a number of blue states have made it so the electors go with popular vote but no red states have done so. So now we can lose two ways...so stupid.

[KPN]

327. No, we need a candidate who generates

enthusiasm. That or those candidates will become apparent over the next 12-15 months.

[Demsrule86]

336. The midterms showed we need moderate votes

[KPN]

339. The midterms were local districts and states.

We’ll see how those results play out in the primary. Obama wasn’t a moderate.

[Gothmog]

331. Washington Post-'Electability' and 'Bernie' don't belong in the same sentence

Link to tweet

“A combined 58 percent of voters are either uncomfortable (37 percent) or have reservations about (21 percent) Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid. For Elizabeth Warren, it’s a combined 53 percent. And for Kamala Harris and Beto O’Rourke, it’s 41 percent of voters expressing either reservations or discomfort.” Given that the overwhelming number of voters know who Sanders is, there is no excuse — as there is for other candidates — that they have insufficient information to decide whether to vote for him. Sanders is about as well known as former vice president Joe Biden, yet the poll shows that Biden’s comfortable/uncomfortable rating (48/48) clearly outpaces Sanders’s (37/58).....

Sanders’s age, the “socialist” moniker he embraces and his 2016 campaign problem with women are not going to change during the race. It’s unlikely his personality or his familiarity with foreign policy will improve, either. (The guy is 77, and if we have learned anything from Trump, it is that septuagenarians don’t change their personalities nor attend to habitual deficits in knowledge.) Oh, and on Sunday he again promised to release his tax returns, which he promised over a month ago would be “soon.”

[Demsrule86]

334. I don't think Sanders can win a general. I will vote for the nominee but

Barring a miracle Sanders would lose.

[Gothmog]

337. I will support the Democratic nominee

Electability is my main criterion. We have to beat trump. We to nominate someone who can and will beat trump

[Auggie]

332. Kicked and recommended

[Demsrule86]

335. Thank you.

[Auggie]

338. I don't necessarily think we need a centrist candidate as much as we need ...

one that can capture the imagination of the midwest or one that creates an authentic message of change or hope. Maybe it's a centrist message. Maybe not. But holy cow, just get out there, especially places like Flint, Lordstown, etc.

[Meowmee]

340. I agree nt

[Gothmog]

341. If sanders is the nominee, trump wins

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

342. According to this study trump could win

There are posters who believe that we can nominate the most liberal/socialist nominee as possible and that candidate will easily win because everyone hates trump. It is their position that this is a historic opportunity to nominate someone would otherwise not be electable. This theory is wrong in that most POTUS are re-elected if the economy is good. Here is a scary study that shows this

Link to tweet

There are good reasons to doubt this study

Link to tweet

I do not believe that trump is assured of winning. If we want to win, Democrats need to nominate a strong nominee who is NOT too far out of the mainstream

[Indygram]

343. Better yet...why not a candidate that can win the rust belt AND deliver Texas?

Democrats really need to completely and utterly HUMILIATE Trump and show the corrupt Republicans that America will NOT stand for this crap ever again.

To do that Democrats MUST find the best all around candidate.

That means it's important to think ahead about what Trump and Republicans can and will say and do to attack each potential nominee. What will the ads look like and will they or won't they turn off any voters and make them stay home.

[marylandblue]

344. The actual attacks are irrelevant, what matters is the response.

Trump claimed Cruz' father killed JFK. He attacked Ben Carson for NOT stabbing someone. His goal is not to attack for something the other person did or didn't do. The goal is to humiliate the other candidate and make then look for not responding effectively. They can't ignore it and they can't get upset about it.

What do you think your candidate will do when the attack comes?

[Gothmog]

345. According to Jim Messina, trump will beat sanders easily

Link to tweet

Political adviser Jim Messina, who managed former President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, answered a question Wednesday that has been on the minds of Democrats looking ahead at the 2020 presidential race.

"Can Bernie Sanders beat Donald Trump?" ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl asked Messina on the Powerhouse Politics podcast on Wednesday.

"No," Messina responded.,,,,

"I think if you look at swing voters in this country they are incredibly focused on the economy," Messina replied. "I think today you look at it and say that Bernie Sanders is unlikely going to be able to stand up to the constant barrage that is Donald Trump on economic issues."

[Gothmog]

349. The choice is Woke of Win

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[regnaD kciN]

351. You mean, just like we did in 2016...?

[Fiendish Thingy]

352. You mean centrists like Rust Belt reps Rashida Tliab and Ilhan Omar?

Yes, we need a candidate very much like them.