If we nominate a centrist...that's how we got Trump in the first place.

[DanTex]

What's different that makes people think it would work this time? Here's two things that haven't changed: Russia and the EC. Yes, without those, Clinton would be president. That's like saying I would have finished the marathon if not for the uphill part. That's great, but if we're running the same marathon with the same hills, then the same strategy won't do it.

Biden is as close to a carbon copy of Hillary as there could possibly be. Even if we are going to try the same centrist strategy that failed in 2016, at least maybe Pete, a young centrist who hasn't been around long enough to vote for things like Iraq and NAFTA. Or even Bloomberg, I guess the idea there is that if centrism doesn't work, lets try an outright conservative.

Or we could recognize that all the pundits who told us that centrism was the way to go were totally wrong. We could offer voters something beyond the pre-2016 status quo. Not just anti-Trump, but also progressive policies that turn out the base and bring new voters in off the sidelines.

[honest.abe]

1. We got Trump primarily due to Comey, Russia, Stein, Sarandon, and Bernie.

Hillary being a centrist would not be in that list.

[DanTex]

2. Again, that's like arguing that I would win the marathon if there were no hills.

Bernie didn't help elect Trump, he did more campaign events for Hillary than she did for Obama.

But those other factors, you think they are going away? We need a strategy that actually delivers the White House, rather than just a moral victory.

[Farmer-Rick]

30. You know you are pretty smart for being from Texas.

Just kidding.....about the Texas bit.

We have the exact same political and voting systems we had when Hillary ran against Trump.

A few states have reduced some gerrymandering but aside from that we still have shorty Putin, his trolls, his hackers, his money in our election. We still have a rigged voting process, we still have a vote counting process that is broken in many states. We still have the rediculus and antiquated electoral system. We still have an FBI that leans right and is too involved in our politics. We still have the filthy rich buying up everything in politics that the Supremes will let them. We still have polls that lean right. We still have all the conditions and worse that we had 4 years ago.

To win we need to do more than what we did 4 years ago.

[thesquanderer]

46. Not everything that went against HRC would similarly be an issue for Biden.

Please see my post #44

There are a whole bunch of factors listed there that contributed to HRC's loss... and about half of them would not apply to Biden.

Although Biden is not my choice, I'd still feel good about his chance of winning. For the same reasons I feel good about Sanders being able to win, as I listed out in my post #43.

[R B Garr]

3. Exactly. The gaps in information and knowledge of the history of what actually happened

has been very apparent with this undecided.

[DanTex]

5. You think those things won't happen again? LOL.

I'm sure in the fantasy world with no Russian interference, and nothing going wrong, a centrist could win.

In the real world, we need a progressive to win.

[Kahuna7]

42. Yeah. All those things will happen. And none of it has anything to do

with being a centrist.

[Dorn]

10. One other thing: Follow the Money

Where does a candidate (right, left, center) get their funding? It was true with Nixon, it is true now: FOLLOW THE MONEY

[mainstreetonce]

8. That is a great exolanation.

I would also add low turnout. Some were so convinced Hillary would win,they thought their vote didn't matter.
That should not happen this time.

[Zolorp]

23. I put Sanders way at the top of that list

I agree with you, though. Hillary's sensible and responsible stances on the issues is why she got 3 million more votes than Trump.

[Farmer-Rick]

31. I think you are forgetting all the other Democratic opponents Hillary had.

Why stop at Bernie? Why isn't it Lincoln Chafee' s fault? What about the damage to Hillary that Martin O'Malley did? And Jim Webb certainly wasn't quiet about her emails.

The democratic primary was not just between Hillary and Bernie. If you are going to blame her opponents for her loss.....which was actually a win.....blame them all. They all contributed to attacking her.

[Zolorp]

39. none of then continued to trash Hillary and refused to go on the record supporting the nominee...

After being mathematically eliminated from any possibility of being nominated.

None of them refused to condemn their electors who mounted protests at the convention and booed John Lewis.

None of them refused to say a word about former staffers and surrogates who went on to promote and campaign for Jill Stein.

All of this seems like some twisted ego trip to insure Hillary would lose just to get another shot in 2020.

Yes, I blame Sanders. He Berned his bridges.

[thesquanderer]

44. Sanders was about the least of her problems.

Reasons I'd say HRC lost to Trump...

…russian hacking/interference in the campaign

…email scandal (where even though she was found to have done nothing illegal, it still got a lot of air time, and still ended up concluding that she had handled things poorly, playing into the “poor judgment” attack)

…comey bringing emails back to the forefront the week before the election

…uninspired VP choice (he may have well been an excellent VP, but I doubt he got her so much as a single additional state, and his lackluster debate performance didn't help)

…not spending enough time and resources in the rust belt (and/or Trump putting in more)

...people who would never vote for a woman (misogyny)

…people who would vote for a woman, but would never vote for Hillary (baggage/high negatives)

…Sanders' primary campaign that emphasized her wall street/establishment ties

…the fact that she really *was* very much an establishment candidate, in a year where many people of both parties (or neither) were more drawn to outsiders

…negative ads/accusations about Sanders in the primaries that made it harder to capture maximum support from Sanders voters (I remember the one about supporting the auto bailout in particular)

...and okay, he could have endorsed her sooner and more enthusiastically.

In the big picture, that last one is about the least significant, IMO.

[Zolorp]

48. And not all of that combined would have been enough to keep her from winning...

had Sanders followed decorum for how somebody should be a good loser in a primary.

Sanders Berned his bridges.

Don't expect me to rebuild them with Democrats who have told me they would never ever vote for him in a general election regardless, because I simply have no arguments that would convince them to change their opinion of him.

If he is nominated, I will walk into the booth. I will hold my nose. I will cast a vote for him. I will not make a single comment about Sanders from the moment he becomes the presumptive nominee until the day after the election either online or offline, should he be nominated. I am firmly convinced that if nominated he will suffer one of the worst electoral defeats since Mondale, possibly worse. Other than that, all I will be working for are down ticket races because those candidates will need all the help they can get with Sanders at the top of the ticket.

[thesquanderer]

49. Sure, you can say if any ONE of those things were different, she might have won.

But (a) Bernie had less of an impact than many of the others, and (b) a number of the other issues were within Hillary's own control. As a nominee or a potential nominee, I'd look more at what I could do better myself, rather than blame others for not making things easier for me. That is, if Hillary had picked a stronger VP and devoted more time and resources to the rust belt, that would have made a bigger difference than relying on Bernie's good will. And in the end, Bernie *did* campaign strongly for her, after all.

The fact is, EVERY nominating process lands some blows on the eventual nominee. It's not like Trump wasn't pilloried by members of his own party, far worse than anything Bernie said about Hillary. But he managed to win. Okay, he didn't have comey and some of the other stuff. But he had pussy grabbing and a whole lot more himself. Really, neither party put up an ideal candidate. In fact, each party put up their candidate who had the worst favorable ratings among their nominees. But it was winnable for Hillary, and I think she could have made some different choices that probably would have made the difference.

[Zolorp]

51. I think most of the things you mentioned could have been different and she still would have lost.

But had Sanders conducted himself as his predecessors had in years where we won, she would have taken it hands down.

[StevieM]

56. James Comey's antics were more important than all other factors put together IMO. (eom)

[Don1]

4. Worse

If we nominate a centrist, our grandchildren will live in an apocalypse.

We need a radical, yes radical, to take on the fossil fuel industry in radical ways. Not compromise with Republicans. A radical President must litigate, veto, and pressure.

Global warming is an existential threat.

[lark]

6. If you think Bernie would have done better, I totally disagree.

Hillary won the nomination because she had more support among Democrats. She lost due to 1-Comeys treachery, 2 - Russian interference & 3 - GOP Voter suppression. She got almost 3 million more votes than he did, in any sane world - she would be president right now. I don't know if Bernie would have carried more than 2 states and it would have been an absolute blowout. If we have Berne as our nominee, we are toast.

[DanTex]

7. Again, all those things you mention are going to happen this year as well.

Sure, in a "sane" world without an EC and without Russian interference and all that, a centrist would win.

That's not the world we live in. In the real world, the centrist lost. To win in the real world, we need a progressive that will drive the base to the polls and bring out new voters.

[lark]

15. Bernie would lose bigger than McGovern and for much of the same reasons.

Independents will vote against him and even lots of Democrats who are business people. My daughter is a Democrat & general manager of a restaurant and she has said will not vote for Bernie. She doesn't even want to vote for him in the general, she's thinks he's way too impulsive and not grounded at all in the real world. My CPA sister is Independent and she wouldn't vote for Bernie either, both of them despise him. They would vote for Joe, Amy or Pete.

I'm working on them to try to get them to commit to "blue no matter who", but so far they don't even want to vote for him if he's the candidate in the general. Yes, Bernie will bring in new people, but those same young people massively undervote in the general. If he turns off middle class workers, which he definitely does, he will destroy our party in the general. However, a progressive centrist will not drive off the party and could win.

RT supports Bernie for a good reason.

[Farmer-Rick]

35. Yeah, and my filthy rich brother and sister are going to vote for Trump

It doesn't mean we can't beat Trump.

It just means some people will never learn and hate real democracy. (Not referring to your relatives and friends)

[ChubbyStar]

65. Oh I so want to hug you, you have them too?

Filthy rich relatives, and don't get me wrong all of my family has money, but the FILTHY rich ones are the worst. I hear you. I'm there.

[DanTex]

38. 1972 was 48 years ago. 2016 was 4 years ago.

The youngest voters in 1972 are now getting Social Security.

As an aside, I hope you do persuade your family members to vote blue no matter who. But if Bernie is the nom, and they don't I'm sure you will still respect their opinions, as well you should. One thing I've noticed is that when it goes the other way, people that would vote Bernie but not Joe/Hillary, there is no respect, there is just disdain. Of course, I'm sure if it were your family, you wouldn't disdain them, but generally in the electorate, "Bernie or Bust" types are looked at as sore loser burnouts, but "Biden/Pete or Bust" are seen as voters we should respect and try to persuade.

Aside from the incongruency, I think it also leads people to underestimate how many voters would turn out for Bernie and not a centrist, because they sort of treat those people like they "don't count". Not just far-left purists, but also "anti-establishment" people who may not have a coherent political ideology, but think, yeah, everyone should have healthcare. The reaction to Joe Rogan's endorsement I think was an example of that. He has no real ideology, but he likes Bernie's consistency, and thinks everyone should have healthcare, and we shouldn't rip babies away from their mothers. The Democratic establishment collectively puked at him because he made racist/sexist jokes. And that's a good think to puke at someone for. But at the same time he's got an audience of 7 million plus, a lot of whom also have no real ideology, and a lot of whom do think healthcare should be a right, even though they are more forgiving of sexist jokes than they should be.

And "Joe Rogan independents" have votes that count just as much as pro-business suburban moderates.

[thesquanderer]

43. I think that any state that preferred HRC over Trump will also prefer BS over Trump.

Some may like Hillary more than Bernie, others may like Bernie more than Hillary, but none of them like Trump... and they even chose a candidate who was underwater in favorables, that's how much they didn't like Trump (i.e. to get as close as she did, she actually had to get many votes from people who didn't particularly like her). So I think all those states likewise go to Bernie. If anything, the demographics favor Bernie more this time, because 4 years later, we have a new influx of voters who were too young to be eligible go vote last time, and the youth vote heavily favors Sanders.

So to me, the big variable as to whether or not Bernie can beat Trump is whether he can sufficiently out-perform Hillary to be able to beat Trump in at least three of these states: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

64. Really

What does Comey have on Biden?

[Cosmocat]

9. Yep

I will support him if he is nominee, but the republican party REALLY, R E A L L Y wants to run against Bernie ....

[Dorn]

13. Is that similar to Hillary really really wanting to run against DT?

[LanternWaste]

27. You should tell us.

And then pretend the question and its reponse are relevant.

[aeromanKC]

11. Trump has happened since 2016

Trump will not get a pass in 2020 like he did in 2016. A centrist candidate such as Biden or Bloomberg will help bring moderate GOP into the Dem camp. Each one of those voters will be a net increase of 2 votes for the Dems!! (I have a few of those in my family)

This is not an election to think about policies (any D policies will be better than the disaster Trump has imposed on America), but rather we are in an emergency. Trump MUST go!! That is the only thing that matters in this election. (Well McConnell too, but that would be a bonus)

[lark]

18. 100% agree.

This is about survival & what it means to be an American when the government is run by an existential threat to our wellbeing.

[jmg257]

21. Agree here, too. If you want someone on the fence, give them an easy swallow.

Last edited Wed Feb 5, 2020, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Give them a choice they can tolerate (that is not DT). Going 'extreme' will not work.

[texasfiddler]

52. Totally Agree

[TryLogic]

12. I think people are confusing centrist with having some "common sense".

Common sense is good. But common sense did not put a man on the moon.

Maybe we should go for brains, wisdom, courage, honesty, creativity, integrity.

Being centrist is standing for and attempting almost nothing. It is compromising with radicals who pull you toward the ditch. It is a little like blowing in the wind.

Maybe we should go for brains, wisdom, courage, honesty, creativity, integrity.

[TwilightZone]

24. "brains, wisdom, courage, honesty, creativity, integrity"

You're seriously asserting that some of our candidates have none of that?

Outside of the assertion being ludicrous, assertions like that are how we got here.

[Atticus]

14. Yup. The Bernie Bros, Jill Stein, voter suppression, DOJ and Russian meddling had

nothing to do with it.

[lark]

17. Thank you!

I 100% agree. So tired of Dems accusing Hillary of being so bad when she actually won 3 million more votes, plus had the FBI and Russia stealing the election from her with the help of GOP voter suppression.

[beastie boy]

16. There is one fact that destroys your argument before it even begins: Hillary won!

And the thing that prevented her from becoming President was that too many people (but not the majority) considered her to be too far left for their taste. The 12% of Bernie supporters who voted for Trump being the only notable exception.

[Hortensis]

19. DanTex, voting 95-99% with Democrats does NOT make Sanders centrist.

And, btw, EVERYONE please note, for 30 years Sanders has rubber-stamped Democratic legislation in the senate for his own reasons, and he's never lead any of his colleagues to the closest elevator.

Whatever Sanders actually is, anywhere from the conservative-leaning "centrist" DanTex keeps claiming to LW extremist (notably, proudly skipping over the liberal Democratic ideology of almost all his colleagues), it's on his head, and on the heads of his VT voters, but no reflection of our party.

[TwilightZone]

20. Bloomberg isn't a conservative.

You keep making these assertions that have zero basis in reality.



And, as for the rest of your post, it's always Hillary's fault, even when it's not. Yesterday, you were blaming her campaign manager for the Iowa app that he had nothing to do with.

Your motives are clear. You just like stirring the pot and it's getting tiresome.

[Doremus]

55. "As a Democratic candidate for president, he makes an excellent Republican donor,"

--Pennsylvania Democratic Lt. Gov. John Fetterman

He supported Elizabeth Warren's repuke opponent for Senate in 2012. I'd say he's pretty damned conservative.

[LeftTurn3623]

22. I do not agree

we need a candidate that will inspire people. We won with Obama & Bill Clinton. Both are pretty moderate. But they were strong candidates.

Biden is just not a good campaigner but would probably make a good President. That is what they said about Hillary also in 2016. She is just not great at campaigning. There is a certain talent to that.

Bernie has that talent. Looks like Pete does also. Not sure yet on Bloomberg. He seems like he could have that it factor. Unfortunately Trump is a really good campaigner.

I do think we need someone that people want to vote for. I do not think it makes a difference if its a moderate or someone far left. Just need someone to inspire people.

I think if Bernie would just change his healthcare message just a little. Say we need to work toward medicare for all but if that means a public option now then he would support it and fight for the public option. medicare for all is the final goal. That little change is messaging would help him win in the general election.

[brooklynite]

25. Set aside Ukraine; Biden is far more appealing than Clinton

I say that as someone who maxed out to Clinton and hosted her senior staff in my house for a year. I've meet with Clinton privately and as brilliant and thoughtful as she is, she's not a "comfortable" candidate; she doesn't let her guard down with people she doesn't know and she doesn't come across as happy when she's campaigning (consider Warren by comparison). Biden on the other hand, is also smart but has a folksy appeal, as well as blue collar links to the critical battleground States. He has his issues, which is why I'm not supporting him, but his riskiness has nothing to do with being a centrist.

[DanTex]

32. I don't know about that.

Biden ran for president over and over, and never got far until now, where he's basically running on the Obama legacy. He's always had the "gaffe" thing, and now it's arguably worse, he's clearly not as quick on his feet as he used to be. If anything, Hillary I think had a more impassioned base of support than Biden. I don't see much passion at all for Biden, maybe for Mayor Pete of the current centrists, but Pete is a far cry form Obama. Biden does have more folksiness, and also the blue collar thing, I'll give you that, but overall he is extremely similar to Clinton, with some relative strengths and weaknesses both. Add to that the fact that Trump is now an incumbent, and it leads to a very shaky formula for winning.

If you combine what you call his "riskiness that has nothing to do with being a centrist" with the risk that I and many others believe comes with centrism, then you get a lot of risk. Especially with the IWR and NAFTA votes. Hillary clearly suffered in the GE because of both of those. Trade agreements, rightly or wrongly, are not popular, especially not in industrial states. The press somehow lets Trump pretend he "opposed" Iraq, but there too, people are broadly aware that Iraq is the source of a lot of the problems in the Middle East right now, and also of what a huge waste of lives and money it was. Trump is obviously going to hammer Biden on both, like he did Clinton.

There's a lot more than pundits allow to the argument that the conditions in the country in 2016 are what led to Trump, like Yang says Trump is the symptom, not the disease. Remember, all the pundits in 2016 didn't just think Clinton would be the best candidate, they also thought Trump would (A) never win the GOP nom, and (B) get crushed in the general. Even Republicans like Lindsey Graham thought that. If ever there's an event that calls for a radical re-thinking of conventional wisdom, it's Trump's election, even with Russia and Comey and all that.

If I were looking for a centrist, I would agree with you on Mayor Pete. But I think we need a new direction.

[LanternWaste]

26. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I get it... when the premise itself is inherently flawed by a logical fallacy, just keep typing words and hope the magic happens.

[DanTex]

28. Certainly that applies to the McGovern argument. Can you believe people actually think that a 1972

election has any bearing on the world today? Quite amusing.

[BlueTsunami2018]

29. Who actually is a centrist though?

Our candidates range from center left to left. I don’t see any Joe Lieberman types in there. Bloomberg is the furthest right candidate and Sanders is the furthest left.

[MoonlitKnight]

47. ???

Just because the Republicans are so far to the right doesn’t mean our candidates are on the left.

In a reality based spectrum, Warren is left center moderate. Bernie is left. Nobody even approaches far left. Hell, the stuff Bernie advocates was done 50 years ago in the rest of the western democracies.

[NurseJackie]

33. Oh, honey! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

[MrsCoffee]

34. Well that makes sense if you erase all of history.

I see no mention of propaganda, Russia, Comey, treason, voter disenfranchisement, statistical impossibilities and lack of recount.

Let’s just go with your simplistic “centrist” bullshit. NOT.

[R B Garr]

50. +1000, it is consistently that way with this undecided.

[randr]

36. There are reasons too long to list why we ended up with Trump

All need to be addressed.
Push back against the lies Facebook and others spread.
Show up in respectable numbers to vote.
These top my list of how we win again with strength.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

37. Not again?

Trying to tar great liberal Democrats as "centrists," begs the question "compared to what?"

I mean, if we place the Trotskyite communist Socialist Workers Party on the extreme left of a political continuum, with fascists on the far right, perhaps calling liberals "centrists" has some validity.

But in the context of normal mainstream American politics? Nah.

Then it starts to resemble gaslighting.

[awesomerwb1]

40. Bernie has a snowball's chance in hell to beat trump

Cue the ads of Bernie saying he's a socialist, praising Maduro, Ortega.

Revolution! blow up the system! Yeah, that'll win you elections. In Central America or South America's poorest countries. Maybe.

But hey, keep trying. Starting 10 threads a day plus will convince us. (Not).

[Kahuna7]

41. That is NOT how he got in. You should know that by now. nt

[W_HAMILTON]

45. Bullshit. Hillary is a proven progressive that has actually gotten shit done.

And she ran on "the most progressive platform" in party history <-- Sanders's description, not mine.

We ended up getting Trump because the Russians, Republicans, Stein voters, and, yes, many Sanders supporters, ratfucked her just enough to lose by ~80,000 votes spread over three states in an election where over 130,000,000 votes were cast.

And fuck those same people on the left that are trying to paint people like Buttigieg as centrists this go around. He is further to the left than Sanders on many issues.

PROGRESSIVE DOES NOT FUCKING EQUAL SUPPORTING SANDERS -- GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SKULLS.

[Midnight Writer]

53. So Bill Barr can't announce a major investigation against a liberal eleven days before the election?

Russia cannot launch a smear campaign against a liberal?

Votes for a liberal can't be hacked?

Our candidate, regardless of who it is, will face months of smears, insults, lies, poison gossip, cries of scandal. Then we will get the October Surprise, and the possibility of election fraud (which I think was dismissed too casually in 2016).

The only hope we have, the only hope, is to stick together and overwhelm the election with numbers.

[betsuni]

54. Centrist Hillary centrist centrist Iraq NAFTA centrism conservative centrism status quo

[StevieM]

57. James Comey and his antics is how we got Trump in the first place. (eom)

[TreasonousBastard]

58. I keep reminding people that we have NEVER elected a progressive president since...

T. Roosevelt.

And he was a Republican when that happened.

[scheming daemons]

59. Nope. Bernie would've lost by more electoral votes and wouldn't have won pop vote

[Dem4Life1102]

60. BS

There were many other factors in the 2016 election. Plus the GOP has been casting the Clintons as far leftists for 30 years. So your theory falls apart on that basis alone.

[booley]

61. Thats how we got Bush for two years

This history goes way back.

Democrats cant' win on things they support in theory but won't' actually fight for

[George II]

62. Hillary Clinton is far from being a "centrist".

[ehrnst]

63. Actually, we didn't nominate the candidate Russia and the GOP wanted.

We nominated the one they felt threatened by.

So I think that's a good thing. I wish you did.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-central-to-russias-pro-trump-2016-strategy-study-2019-4

[Hekate]

66. What about the 3 million more votes she got? The 66 million voters who liked her best?

What about Comey, the Russians, Cambridge Analytica, the New Jim Crow voter suppression tactics across the South? What about the help from inside the US that Putin got? What about the rotten-to-the-core GOP?

Yeah, that Hillary is soooooooo unlikeable, and it is definitely all her fault that we now have Trump in the White House.