We don't know if 2020 voters will want a moderate consensus building candidate or a system changer

[Tom Rinaldo]

THAT is one of the main reasons why I am not firmly in any candidate's camp yet. Sure I know we have to win, that beating Trump is virtually everything. THAT is one of the main reasons why I am not firmly in any candidae's camp yet.

It is old accepted political wisdom that the path to the Presidency runs through the center in the General Election by attempting to win over the small sliver of genuinely undecided swing voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum. That accepted wisdom was definitely cracked if not shattered in 2016. What we went through in 2016 may cause the center to reassert itself as a counter reaction for 2020, or it may have been an indicator that we are seeing increasing turbulence in the electorate that has not yet seen its peak. Tried and true was not the winning formula in 2016. It is far to early to be seen what will be in 2020.

At this point I am throwing all of the various electability arguments all candidate proponents are making straight out the window. It is simply too damn soon to make that case for anyone. The first primary votes are still ten months away. The Democratic Convention is well over a year away. Most Americans are not focused yet on the 2020 election beyond a gut instinct on whether Trump is good or bad for America. The minority who think he is good for America are virtually all beyond our reach, unless reality intervenes with a crisis of some sort, like an economic recession. Beyond that there is no clarity over what type of President Americans want next, to a large degree because most Americans aren't thinking about that yet.

We are guessing what other people will be thinking a year and a half from now before the primaries have even begun let alone a general election. There hasn't even been one let alone a dozen Democratic Presidential debates. I am watching to see how broad numbers of people actually respond to our candidates, not predicting who we should support now based on projections of who the electorate will want later. And for the moment I am looking at our candidates on their own merits, not on who I think other people will appreciate the merits of in the future.

[MH1]

1. I agree, but it's "consensus", as in a variation on "consent"

Sorry, the spelling nazi in me just could not let that go.

[empedocles]

2. It seems that the choices are between a candidate who hopes to somehow change the system,

versus a candidate who works to build a consensus to actually change.

LBJ made tremendous gains with a consensus, but compromised a lot to get that consensus.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. If David Axelrod is correct that voters want the opposite of what they have

Then the conciliatory tone of Beto and Cory will carry the day.

[Girard442]

4. I don't think, after 2016, there is a center.

On the Dem side there may be moderate anti-Trumpers or anti-Trumpers seeking large-scale fundamental changes, but the swing voter who could be won over by either side is nearly extinct.

[GemDigger]

14. Not necessarily. There are still a lot of people that vote both ways in an election.

I was one of them. They may chose a republican for a couple of positions and a couple of democrats for a couple of positions for the ideas those people have. I believe in a strong military and somewhat reasonable fiscal conservatism on the right, social justice, personal choice and a bunch of other things on the left side. And for goodness sake take care of the Agent Orange victims from the war, the 9/11 responders who we KNOW DAMN WELL why they are sick and dying.

In defense of myself for being stupid for so long is the fact that I lived in the boonies, had only one tv channel, dial up for internet and getting the full story after work was time consuming and not fruitful. So I was stupid. I admit it, I was stupid. It wasn't until I moved into town, got cable and got rid of dial up that I woke up.

A trust factor for me now is very high on the list of requirements. We can't do shit internally until we shore up our geopolitical allies again. Get corruption out of government no matter if it is an R or a D before their title. We will need to rebuild our supply of money at Fort Knox because we know the R's are emptying our bank account before we can do anything internally. And then there is what comes first? Free education or infrastructure?

The middle of the road people are needed. It is basically in those red states that the middle of the roaders are located and have 1 tv channel, lovely am hate radio, dial up and Sinclair broadcasting.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Sometimes middle of the road is a stand in for not that engaged

When someone isn't that engaged in political details, centrist "moderation" can become a place holder default political position. But if something really impacts them personally and/or motivates them to become more personally involved, passions can lead to stronger views. Both Sanders and Trump caught the attention of some voters in the rust belt in 2016 in part by not seeming like more of the same, when more of the same no longer seemed to be working.

I don't know what quality will break through to currently less involved voters in 2020. It could be a sense of calm and decency, or it could be a call for totally new societal priorities, or something else. But striking a chord that motivates people to step forward out of complacency seems to be part of a current winning political formula.

[GemDigger]

18. Sometimes is not always and certainly not all people. That is a broad brush you used for a LOT of

people that you may or may not know still exist and how they think.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Sometimes means sometimes. I didn't mean everyone, nor did I say everyone

Nor did I even say "most" of those who might fall into that category. I literally meant some people, granted a significant number of people IMO, but not all or even a majority. I don't think that qualifies as using a broad brush.

[customerserviceguy]

15. I disagree

If anything, the number of swing voters has probably increased. How else do you explain this country electing (albeit with a minority) Trump after twice electing Barack Obama, his polar opposite?

Trump's lousy approval numbers stem from people who voted for him, but are ashamed or embarrassed to tell a pollster that they approve of him now. If those people feel reassured that a Democratic President will look out for them, too, then they will vote accordingly. If the nominee is made out successfully to be a bomb-thrower who will radically alter the America they know, they will re-elect Trump.

[Autumn]

5. The system is broken. A moderate concensus builder is not what we need to take on the

problems the asshole in chief and his cronies in the GOP have created.

[bigtree]

9. I've seen consensus building effectively codify bad decisions or law

...by not parties involved not acting decisively to undo or change them.

Principles compromised, justice delayed, reform watered down, protections eviscerated, basic needs unmet.

[Autumn]

10. There's no time for fixing our problems with baby steps or meeting the Republicans half

way in a vain attempt to fix the problems they have created.

[rgbecker]

6. I'm looking for the candidate that can get me excited.

The game changer will bring in people who don't normally vote. Depending on Trump to run is a mistake at this point. Many things could happen to to remove him as the 2020 Republican candidate. How would your "Moderate" Democrat candidate look lined up against a "Moderate" Republican? Which way are the swing "Moderate" voters going to go if Trump were out of the picture? I'm betting a "Change" Democrat will have more success as he/she gets the "None of the above" voters to the polls. A change candidate will continue to get support from the Democratic base while a moderate Democratic candidate will risk leaving the disgruntled at home.

[Freddie]

8. I can't see a scenario where Trump doesn't run

Unless he’s dead. They’re counting on pulling an EC “victory” like 2016.

[Demsrule86]

13. A moderate won't win a GOP primary.

[Freddie]

7. We need to win

Whatever it takes. And yes we have to consider the horrible EC and the way it makes rural votes count more. Maybe a moderate-left candidate with a more-left running mate?

[Demsrule86]

12. That is what I think too.

[Demsrule86]

11. 18 shows clearly how we win.

[Tiggeroshii]

16. Warren is a moderate when considering where the vast majority

stand on issues. not with where washington is

[marylandblue]

20. There's a book called "The Politics that Presidents Make" by Stephen Skowronek

It's very influential among political scientists. It suggests that periodically a transformative President comes along who sets the dominant paradigms for the next generation. Usually they come at a time of crisis. For example, FDR came during the Depression and created the liberal capitalist country some of us wistfully remember. His regime lasted until the late 70s when it fell apart. Carter tried to keep it together, but failed, bringing on the conservative Reagan Revolution and we are still living under that tax-cutting, safety-net-slashing regime.

Many who follow this theory (including me) believe the Reagan regime is falling apart and Trump represents it's last gasps. If so, then the next President should be a transformative one.

[UniteFightBack]

21. Dems in Iowa want a 'seasoned hand'. System changer? We need a system rebuilder. WTF. nt