For those afraid of electoral disaster if we move as far left as Warren/Sanders...

[thesquanderer]

...I'm reminded of how many on the right were fearful of what Reagan's extreme conservatism would do to the Republican party (especially after they saw what happened to Goldwater). In 1976, Ford narrowly beat Reagan for the Republican nomination... and Ford lost... and Reagan came back and won four years later in 1980. That could parallel how, in 2016, Sanders made a strong run for the Democratic nomination but was beaten by the more centrist Clinton... and Clinton lost*... maybe the left is well-positioned to similarly come back and make its mark in four years later 2020. It could be another case of "We tried it your way..."

And in 1980, Reagan benefitted from Carter being, at the time, a politically weak opponent. In 2020, we have the same advantage against Trump. Reagan's win changed the party--and the country--for decades. We may have the opportunity to do the same now.

* - I know, people will argue Clinton's wasn't a "fair" loss... but I'll go with Mayor Pete on this one. Against Trump, we shouldn't have even been within cheating distance.

[oldsoftie]

1. Trump was also helped a great deal by being a celebrity. People are IN LOVE with celebrities.

Everyone knew who he was and his bombast. And they really thought he was a great businessman. Thats one thing i think Bloomberg would be great at; exposing trump as the failure he really is. So much has been brought out that the average voter never knew.

Carter was hurt by the Iranian situation and HORRIBLE interest rates with rough inflation. Trump doesnt have those type issues to deal with. Dont forget the advantage of incumbency; even if it IS trump.

[FoxNewsSucks]

4. Saint Ronnie Raygun was also a celebrity

[oldsoftie]

7. Exactly. Somehow forgot about that. As well as a former Governor. nt

[FoxNewsSucks]

9. Yes, I still remember those ads

that he "balanced California's budget". Compared to the national economy, and the deficits cause by the VietNam bill coming due during Carter's term, they were really effective.

Of course, the ads didn't tell anything about HOW Raygun did it, or that a things like ending free college was actually a detriment to California

[thesquanderer]

10. True, but Sanders has also become something of a celebrity.

I wonder if Reagan was packing the halls as a candidate in 1976 or 1980 the way Sanders does today.

[FoxNewsSucks]

37. I think the difference is in the kind of celebrity they become.

There's a big difference between becoming popular because people like what Sanders and Warren say and stand for, and already being famous for being a TV or movie star.

[thesquanderer]

39. True, a movie or TV star is a different kind of celebrity

though Reagan hadn't been an actor since 1965, and most of his stuff was before 1954, and he was never quite A list... by 1980, he was probably about as much of a TV/movie celebrity as the people Trump had on Celebrity Apprentice, if even that!

[brush]

21. You do know Reagan committed treason with the Iranians to win, right?

Just as Nixon did, and trump did. None would've been president if not for that.

[Polybius]

33. Nixon would have won anyway in 1972

He won 49 states with 60% of the vote. Watergate didn't help him that much, and his opponent was weak. At worst he wins 42 states with 54% of the vote.

[brush]

34. My point was he committed treason.

[thesquanderer]

13. re: "Trump doesnt have those type issues to deal with."

True, but he still has underwater favorability.

[Lunch Lady]

2. k&r

[Jamastiene]

3. We still have too many who are too status quo,

to hope for that. I WANT you to be right. I HOPE you are right. I hope we get to see it, but I have my doubts. I DO hope you are right though and we get to see it.

[Fresh_Start]

5. we are not afraid...we are looking at facts and evidence

and those do not support the fantasies that we will be saved by voter revolution.

Bernie has been working on his movement for 5 years....telling everyone that the movement is growing...but nope his movement hasn't grown...its shrinking. And where his revolution displaced moderate democrats in competitive districts in the midterm election, all of those competitive districts were lost.

[FoxNewsSucks]

6. I hope that's what happens

As pointed out above, MF45 is a celebrity. Not nearly as popular now as he was before we found out what a rotten asshole he is, but still popular with the MAGAt crowd.

That rabid unmovable base of idiots is what keeps him from being as politically-weakened as Carter was.

[still_one]

8. Right, Comey had nothing to do with it. 11 days before the election the Democratic nominee was

ahead by 5 or more points, and the Comey released the letter to the republicans in Congress

The press then said the email investigation had been reopened. THAT WAS A LIE, and for the next several day the MSM paraded every right wing pundit across the various outlets propagating that LIE

Almost immediately that lead was completely erased

It is amazing how that event is either ignored or glossed over by some so called journalists. I suspect because they know they were complicit in the distortion

Of course it did help with people like Jill Stein supporter Brianna Joy Gray, or Hillary hating David Sirota and Nina Turner discouraging people not to vote for the Democratic nominee

As for your Reagan assessment, Carter lost because labor voted for Reagan because they weren’t happy that he deregulated the airline industry, they wanted Carter to bomb Iran, and it was assured the hostages wouldn’t be released until after the election

[FoxNewsSucks]

11. Raygun cut a deal with the Iranians

to hold the hostages until after the election because that would hurt Carter. No one knew that at the time.

Republicons have always cheated like that and will cheat again.

[still_one]

16. I know, I didn't detail that which also hurt Carter tremendously. Reagan should have been impeached

for that and Iran Contra among other things

[jimfields33]

29. Reagan had a Democratic House the entire 8 years

Why no impeachment? That’s a good question.

[still_one]

32. I agree

[brush]

30. That's more than cheating, that's treason. Nixon committed it too with the North Vietnamese.

Last edited Mon Feb 17, 2020, 06:29 PM - Edit history (1)

[Algernon Moncrieff]

42. Anna Chennault

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/30/anna-chennault-obituary-vietnam-back-channel-nixon-1968-223299

Now we know how Chennault joined in a covert operation to sabotage Johnson’s efforts to settle the Vietnam War on the eve of the election. We know how promises from the Nixon campaign, conveyed to Saigon by Chennault and others, no doubt helped to persuade the South Vietnamese government to boycott proposed peace talks, shutting a door that Johnson had opened and clinching Nixon’s victory. “Hold on,” Chennault told the South Vietnamese ambassador, three days before the U.S. election, as FBI agents eavesdropped on the phone call. “We are gonna win.”

[thesquanderer]

19. re: "11 days before the election the Democratic nominee was ahead by 5 or more points"

Last edited Mon Feb 17, 2020, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Comey's announcement was Oct 28. Polls varied pretty comparably, whether before or after that date.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

ETA: I am not saying that Comey had no impact. But it was going to be close either way.

[brush]

22. Are you saying there was no re-opened investigation on Clinton? I don't remember it that way.

Weren't there allegedly new emails found on a laptop that later turn out to be duplicates but it spurred the whole big media uproar and a near-certain Clinton loss.

Comey lost control of rogue FBI agents in the NYC office working with Ghouliani who threatened to go public. They probably knew the emails were duplicates already examined but were so determined to defeat Clinton that they forced Comey's hand. Chaffetz of Utah of course immediately leaked Comey's letter anyway so the rogue agents got what they wanted.

[still_one]

25. yes, that is exactly what i am saying. It was very clear that they were determining if the data

from Weiner's computer warranted a reopening of the email investigation.

Then Comey went into hiding for a week until late Friday when he issued a brief statement that there was no new information that indicated the investigation needed to be reopened. It was all duplicate data that they had already viewed.

The illustrious press pushed the crap that it was reopened, and that was not the case

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-chaffetz-fbi-investigation-lies-e9fff5359102/

That falsehood is still be propagated in some circles.

Also, the AG told Comey not to do what he did because it was too close to the election, and he disobeyed her

Anything bad that happens to Comey is well deserved. He interfered with the election, and was instrumental in getting trump elected

[hedda_foil]

12. And yet hou seem to be supporting Warren. Hmmm...

[thesquanderer]

17. I prefer Warren to Sanders, but if she doesn't start polling stronger against Trump by the time...

...my primary date rolls around, I would switch.

My point, though, is I don't think we need to be fearful that anyone as far left as either of them would necessarily lose, and I was providing some historical parallel for that. What seems "extreme" can start looking "mainstream" awfully quickly. Even look today at how many of Sanders' earlier "controversial" positions have become more mainstream.

[hedda_foil]

20. Sorry that I obviously misunderstood your post. Thanks for the correction.

[beastie boy]

14. I am not afraid to move as far left as Warren

She is reliably a Democrat with solid record of accomplishment in the Obama administration.

It is Bernie I am afraid of. I am afraid, especially if he wins, that he will do to the Democratic Party what Trump has done to the Republican Party.

[still_one]

27. +++ Exactly. Just look who Sanders has hired as his hit people. Jill Stein Supporter Briahana Joy

Gray, and Hillary hating David Sirota and Nina Turner

[Demsrule86]

15. Sanders is not Reagan...there are no hostages and the economy is not tanking...

Trump is an incumbent and has a good shot at getting re-elected. This is not the election to risk it...even in the Democratic Primary a majority of voters are supporting moderates...not Sanders.

[thesquanderer]

18. People don't do a simple left-versus-moderate assessment. As was pointed out...

...in some CNN/MSNBC stuff I was watching, it is misleading to add up all the moderates against all those on the left and assume that's how things would break down if there were merely one candidate of each, because too many other things factor into someone's choice. That's evidenced by the fact that the morningconsult polls have shown that, among Biden supporters, the top second choice is... Sanders.

[Midnightwalk]

23. There's a big difference

Republican lies always promise benefits up front with zero pain later.

In Medicare for all, we promise taxes go up, you lose your work insurance and trust us the replacement will he just as good or better. In other words pain up front for promised benefit later.

We can explain that taxes won’t go up on you but have to give some income where that’s true. We can explain all kinds of other stuff. And some small percentage of people will listen.

Explaining is losing.

[DavidDvorkin]

24. Reagan hid his reality behind a smile most people considered charming.

[LonePirate]

26. Did we not suffer an electoral disaster in 2016 with the centrist candidate?

[UniteFightBack]

28. Winning swing states by moving further left is a LOSING STRATEGY. nt

[Awsi Dooger]

36. A centrist candidate who was personally unpopular

Hillary's approval rating was 43% favorable 55% unfavorable in the exit poll.

The ideal blueprint is a moderate who can maintain high favorable rating despite the onslaught. That's why I isolated Amy in 2018.

The nation has 9% more conservatives than liberals. Swing states are swing states because they have basically the same split in that category as the nation itself.

Not complicated. We start out with an ideological deficit in those states. If you nominate someone too liberal then fewer swing voters will consider you. The margin for error is lower. That's why I immediately posted a thread here on election night 2018 with 44% (later amended to 46%) of Floridians rejecting Andrew Gillum as too liberal for the state.

They never even ask the question, "Is so-and-so too moderate for the state?"

That should be a tip off right there toward the proper tactic.

[oldsoftie]

40. It wasnt because the candidate was Centrist. And it was only by 75K votes.

It was more who the candidate WAS. Like it or not. Polls showed the two running were the least liked in history
Why else would Obama voters vote for trump? And if anyone didnt vote for HRC because she was "too moderate", then they deserve what they got.

[LonePirate]

41. So, you're making the likability argument now? Great! Sanders is more popular than 45 is.

I am sure he will appreciate your support.

[oldsoftie]

43. Just pointing out the facts of the '16 election.

If Sanders polls well enough, he should win. But I doubt we'll get to find out because if there isnt a clear leader after super tuesday, we're in big trouble
And as long as the economy remains out of recession, a lot of people are going to hold their noses for the devil they know. Still 8 months to go for that though

[Doremus]

31. I love how history repeats itself.

Just wish just one time we'd learn from it.

[FoxNewsSucks]

38. No kidding.

They sure learn. Every republicon admin since Nixon has taken the criminality further and further. THey learned. And now they get away with everything.

[Awsi Dooger]

35. Watergate briefly derailed the Emerging Republican Majority

That's what happened. That book was written in 1969 and contained extremely logical forecasts. The southern states were lining up against us, as Lyndon Johnson forecast.

Reagan benefitted from a delayed perspective that would already have been well in place if Nixon had not panicked and not been a crook at instinct. In 1972 he was in the same incredibly favorable situational spot as Trump this time...incumbent with his party in power only one term.

The fact that Ford nearly won in 1976 just two years post Watergate demonstrated how powerful the emerging aspects were. The electorate was 90% white at that point, compared to 71% range and dropping today.

Judis and Teixeira wrote the Emerging Democratic Majority book in 2002. That content was also extremely persuasive but the authors did not realize that Democrats would steadily lose such a chunk of the white vote, specifically whites without a college degree. That loss in such a huge demographic means the gains projected and actual among Hispanics do not have the full impact, especially since so many key states have low number of Hispanics in the first place.

Sanders or Warren would not be a disaster. The comparisons to 1972 or even 1988 are silly. Trump has low upside. Unless his approval surges 3-4 points before November I don't see how he can get near 50% of the popular vote. Right now he would probably receive something like 46.5-47.0%. My concern is that Trump will receive the normal benefit of a doubt toward the incumbent in the late going. I have predicted for 2+ years that his approval on 538 would steadily rise until reaching basically 45% on election day 2020. If that happens then Trump would receive roughly 48% of the national popular vote, which would again translate into very tight outcomes in those pivotal midwestern states.

Those midwestern states favor our side in terms of the liberal/conservative split. It is not impossible to win them with Sanders or Warren. But it would require Trump's approval rating to remain where it is now -- or lower -- along with Sanders or Warren maintaining an edge among swing independents despite the onslaught of GOP cash linking them with a socialistic push from Democrats. Recent polling suggests swing independents draw the line at socialist.

I would prefer to run a moderate in those states. Preference over turnout.

As Teixiera sharply pointed out, there is no such thing as heavy turnout on one side and depressed turnout on another. That happens in some midterms but not in presidential years. Trump and Hillary were the two most disliked candidates since that thing has been tracked. Trump won the pivotal states based on preference.

If our candidate is more popular this time, unlike Hillary, then proportionally more Republicans will turn out as well. Trump is far more popular now than in 2016, when his national exit poll number was 38% favorable 60% unfavorable. Now that net deficit is 9% not 22%. That's the way this stuff works. It is the type of thing Ruy Teixiera understands but Rachel Bitecofer does not. We will not defeat Donald Trump based on turnout.