As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Dem Primary: There Are Too Many Candidates Nowadays, Please Eliminate Twenty

18687899192100

Posts

  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    Im skeptical that this time automation will mean long term mass unemployment.

    I... am quite worried about automation, to be honest. I think there's a good chance that if we don't destroy the world in another way, automation will have a pretty big negative impact on jobs and the economy.

    Automation isn't a force of nature. You're not going to automate if it's not actually a benefit.

    This presumes firms make good decisions based on sound logic

    They don't

    Also if a machine can do the job as well as the human, the machine is always, always, always cheaper over a long enough timescale, so there's very little incentive not to shift as much of your labor budget over to capital investment as possible
    Automation won't destroy the economy.

    Automation will completely decimate the logistics industry within a couple decades, which is really just a whole shitload of people

    uH3IcEi.png
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    You could potentially make the case that Biden was the ‘risk-averse’ candidate before any campaigning started, but now that opinion has to be squared with the fact that his numbers have dropped precipitously once any of the other candidates started talking.

  • JaysonFourJaysonFour Classy Monster Kitteh Registered User regular
    Biden's whole thing is riding the fact he was Obama's VP to the office. I love Diamond Joe as much as the next guy, and I think he's a great person. I just don't think he's the best choice to face off against Trump- because let's face it, the first time he has a moment during the debates or on the trail, Donnie's going to smell blood in the water and just attack him because he looks weak.

    steam_sig.png
    I can has cheezburger, yes?
  • BrainleechBrainleech 機知に富んだコメントはここにあります Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    Im skeptical that this time automation will mean long term mass unemployment.

    I... am quite worried about automation, to be honest. I think there's a good chance that if we don't destroy the world in another way, automation will have a pretty big negative impact on jobs and the economy.

    Automation isn't a force of nature. You're not going to automate if it's not actually a benefit.

    This presumes firms make good decisions based on sound logic

    They don't

    Also if a machine can do the job as well as the human, the machine is always, always, always cheaper over a long enough timescale, so there's very little incentive not to shift as much of your labor budget over to capital investment as possible
    Automation won't destroy the economy.

    Automation will completely decimate the logistics industry within a couple decades, which is really just a whole shitload of people

    Automation is the nut shot in this state. over 60% of the employed workforce in NM works in the service/retail industry. So it will have a very negative impact on the jobs and economy as laughable as it is currently.
    One of the sad things is Trump is coming to the metro area for some reason on Monday. I don't know how but I saw a video of a police chase in Detroit the ending of which was suprising as they did not violently pull the woman out of the car, fill her full of lead, or a number of other things. The other shocking thing was Detroit looks a lot cleaner and safer than Albuquerque which is interesting and sad

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    WACriminal wrote: »
    Hillary Clinton was the safest candidate we had in 2016 -- an establishment darling, an experienced politician, even someone with prior experience as an actual presidential candidate.

    Fuck safe. If there's one thing the past 4 years have taught me, it's that we don't actually know what safe means.

    Hillary was the safest running candidate running in '16, she didn't have much competition back then.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates

    Safe is not the same as a guaranteed winner.

  • BrainleechBrainleech 機知に富んだコメントはここにあります Registered User regular
    WACriminal wrote: »
    Hillary Clinton was the safest candidate we had in 2016 -- an establishment darling, an experienced politician, even someone with prior experience as an actual presidential candidate.

    Fuck safe. If there's one thing the past 4 years have taught me, it's that we don't actually know what safe means.

    Hillary was the safest running candidate running in '16, she didn't have much competition back then.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates

    Safe is not the same as a guaranteed winner.

    I know the 2016 election is a frowned upon topic but I feel it still is where the democrats tried to keep the party to the center when it was starting steering to the hard to the left
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCnrQZbqIQU

  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    I'd like to see a politician say "I was wrong" about a time they screwed up. It's an indictment of our society that admitting fault is some kind of black sin.

    It happens. This one was just the first to come to mind, but I’m sure all of them have their moments like this.

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/08/19/elizabeth-warren-apology-native-american-forum-lee-vpx.cnn

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Brainleech wrote: »
    WACriminal wrote: »
    Hillary Clinton was the safest candidate we had in 2016 -- an establishment darling, an experienced politician, even someone with prior experience as an actual presidential candidate.

    Fuck safe. If there's one thing the past 4 years have taught me, it's that we don't actually know what safe means.

    Hillary was the safest running candidate running in '16, she didn't have much competition back then.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates

    Safe is not the same as a guaranteed winner.

    I know the 2016 election is a frowned upon topic but I feel it still is where the democrats tried to keep the party to the center when it was starting steering to the hard to the left
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCnrQZbqIQU

    There was no "trying" involved, it wasn't until Bernie ran that the far left someone who was remotely a threat to the moderates in a presidential election. This has grown more since then but it's still in its infancy, that's why we have Bernie, Warren and maybe Marianne running in '20? Right now they're moving the gravity away from candidates like Biden, Harris, Beto and others, this did not make any of them remotely close to be being safer candidates traditionally though I'd spectulate Warren is looking safer in the general then Biden, who's crumbling to pieces as we speak. People like candidate who look reliable, and the far left has a history of not providing advantage that in elections to the electorate.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    It should also be noted that the entire electorate, especially the Democratic one, has been moving left. See: progression of nominees.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    It should also be noted that the entire electorate, especially the Democratic one, has been moving left. See: progression of nominees.

    A lot of moderate and even conservative ideas have also been shoved under the umbrella of leftist ideas by the right as they move toward fascism.

    We’re pretty much at the point where “accurate weather forecasts, are a leftist idea, so it is not shocking that the populace is to the left of both parties.

  • JaysonFourJaysonFour Classy Monster Kitteh Registered User regular
    WACriminal wrote: »
    Hillary Clinton was the safest candidate we had in 2016 -- an establishment darling, an experienced politician, even someone with prior experience as an actual presidential candidate.

    Fuck safe. If there's one thing the past 4 years have taught me, it's that we don't actually know what safe means.

    Hillary was the safest running candidate running in '16, she didn't have much competition back then.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates

    Safe is not the same as a guaranteed winner.

    The "Safe" candidate was always the one, to me, that all the pundits wanted- I mean, CNN and others are busy trying to crown Biden the nominee already, even after that craptastic performance, so I think it's obvious he's the safe candidate this year, even if Trump would eat him alive.

    We need someone who's not going to just stand there and give us dreams of the past- we need someone who's going to go toe-to-toe with Donnie and make him have to explain himself, and make him lose his shit at the debates, who can hit back just as hard as he's going to swing.

    steam_sig.png
    I can has cheezburger, yes?
  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    If it ends up being Warren, we will have another 4 years of Trump. Same with Sanders.

    Throw all the stones you want. I was pretty much the only person here last election who said as much with Hillary Clinton, and look how that turned out.

    Clinton's unfavorability and trustworthiness numbers were too bad for a general electorate win. And Warren is too far left for a general electorate win.

    As soon as the average, low information, working voter hears an attack ad that talks about them losing the insurance they get through their job we are screwed.

    Not saying it's right. I'm saying the politics threads here consistently overestimate the engagement and intelligence of the average voter in this country.

    I really hope the Democratic Party doesn't screw this up by thinking a majority of the country is ready to eliminate private insurance or has gone as liberal as the Republican base has gone crazy conservative.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Raynaga wrote: »
    If it ends up being Warren, we will have another 4 years of Trump. Same with Sanders.

    Throw all the stones you want. I was pretty much the only person here last election who said as much with Hillary Clinton, and look how that turned out.

    Clinton's unfavorability and trustworthiness numbers were too bad for a general electorate win. And Warren is too far left for a general electorate win.

    As soon as the average, low information, working voter hears an attack ad that talks about them losing the insurance they get through their job we are screwed.

    Not saying it's right. I'm saying the politics threads here consistently overestimate the engagement and intelligence of the average voter in this country.

    I really hope the Democratic Party doesn't screw this up by thinking a majority of the country is ready to eliminate private insurance or has gone as liberal as the Republican base has gone crazy conservative.

    Or we can just admit that the polling is volatile, no one knows what messages the electorate will accept, and the only certainty is that the pundits and others making firm predictions are just puffing out their chests and submitting their personal preferences as prophecy.

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Its pathetic how CNN is propping up Biden as lord and savior. My mother (a boomer) saw Biden crumbling during the debate and she also took notice of how mainstream media is saying he won.

    There is no way he's guaranteed to win the primary or general.

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    "Incredibly far left" essentially means: return to the pre-deregulation status quo, add a single player health system, and don't hate LGBTQ people. Shit has been warped beyond all recognition.

    And frankly, the opposition is going to paint any Democrat, including Biden, as supporting:

    1) And end to private insurance
    2) A repeal of the 2nd amendment
    3) Massive tax increases
    4) An end to meat production
    5) Massive energy bill increases

    etc.

    So we should nominate someone we think will do the best job of actually attacking the problems the country is facing.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Hey guys the mod staff is very tired of hearing about 2016.

    Geth, kick @WACriminal from the thread.
    Geth, kick @Harry Dresden from the thread.
    Geth, kick @Brainleech from the thread.

    Hopefully this helps the message sink in.

  • GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative Bogart. @WACriminal banned from this thread.

  • GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative Bogart. banned from this thread.

  • GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative Bogart. @Brainleech banned from this thread.

  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    Raynaga wrote: »
    If it ends up being Warren, we will have another 4 years of Trump. Same with Sanders.

    Throw all the stones you want. I was pretty much the only person here last election who said as much with Hillary Clinton, and look how that turned out.

    Clinton's unfavorability and trustworthiness numbers were too bad for a general electorate win. And Warren is too far left for a general electorate win.

    As soon as the average, low information, working voter hears an attack ad that talks about them losing the insurance they get through their job we are screwed.

    Not saying it's right. I'm saying the politics threads here consistently overestimate the engagement and intelligence of the average voter in this country.

    I really hope the Democratic Party doesn't screw this up by thinking a majority of the country is ready to eliminate private insurance or has gone as liberal as the Republican base has gone crazy conservative.

    Or we can just admit that the polling is volatile, no one knows what messages the electorate will accept, and the only certainty is that the pundits and others making firm predictions are just puffing out their chests and submitting their personal preferences as prophecy.

    If either of them get nominated, bookmark this.

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    If it ends up being Warren, we will have another 4 years of Trump. Same with Sanders.

    Throw all the stones you want. I was pretty much the only person here last election who said as much with Hillary Clinton, and look how that turned out.

    Clinton's unfavorability and trustworthiness numbers were too bad for a general electorate win. And Warren is too far left for a general electorate win.

    As soon as the average, low information, working voter hears an attack ad that talks about them losing the insurance they get through their job we are screwed.

    Not saying it's right. I'm saying the politics threads here consistently overestimate the engagement and intelligence of the average voter in this country.

    I really hope the Democratic Party doesn't screw this up by thinking a majority of the country is ready to eliminate private insurance or has gone as liberal as the Republican base has gone crazy conservative.

    Or we can just admit that the polling is volatile, no one knows what messages the electorate will accept, and the only certainty is that the pundits and others making firm predictions are just puffing out their chests and submitting their personal preferences as prophecy.

    If either of them get nominated, bookmark this.

    Also, how did the Blue Wave happen? Because it wasn't "moderate."

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • I needed anime to post.I needed anime to post. boom Registered User regular
    Every candidate that wins a primary is capable of winning the presidency. By virtue of winning the primary they are showing they are "safe". Safeness ahead of that is a fake idea.

    liEt3nH.png
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    The problem is that “too far left” and “moderate” are labels defined by the media pundits. Even supposedly far left positions on gun control are supported by the majority of the public.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    The problem is that “too far left” and “moderate” are labels defined by the media pundits. Even supposedly far left positions on gun control are supported by the majority of the public.

    Literally every presidential candidate the democrats put up is "THE FAR LEFTEST LEFTY MONSTER OF LEFTITUDE!" like its generally how the GOP and our media react.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Idk if Warren can beat Trump, but Bernie just cannot. Harris cannot. Biden cannot.

    Yang has a better chance of beating Trump in the general.

  • PiotyrPiotyr Power-Crazed Wizard SilmariaRegistered User regular
    Anyone can beat Trump. Assuming otherwise is defeatist and unsupported with any real facts. National polling at this stage has very little value, and being pointlessly cynical about candidates in the general at this stage is counter productive.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Piotyr wrote: »
    Anyone can beat Trump. Assuming otherwise is defeatist and unsupported with any real facts. National polling at this stage has very little value, and being pointlessly cynical about candidates in the general at this stage is counter productive.

    All the polling that's been done so far, which is admittedly not the greatest, suggests that any of the top candidates beat Trump. So even if you want to look at the polling, it doesn't paint the picture some people are claiming.

    I mean, if we really wanna dig down into this, I'd say the most important question is "Does the candidate in question have a message that can win in the midwest?" and that's practically all that matters. I'd say any of the top 3 have a solid message on that front.

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    Im skeptical that this time automation will mean long term mass unemployment.

    I... am quite worried about automation, to be honest. I think there's a good chance that if we don't destroy the world in another way, automation will have a pretty big negative impact on jobs and the economy.

    Automation isn't a force of nature. You're not going to automate if it's not actually a benefit.

    This presumes firms make good decisions based on sound logic

    They don't

    Also if a machine can do the job as well as the human, the machine is always, always, always cheaper over a long enough timescale, so there's very little incentive not to shift as much of your labor budget over to capital investment as possible
    Automation won't destroy the economy.

    Automation will completely decimate the logistics industry within a couple decades, which is really just a whole shitload of people

    It is just fucking weird in 2019 literally the same argument that automation will destroy the economy by taking away jobs is being made as was by the Luddites.

    Automation has been taking away jobs for centuries. That's what the industrial revolution was. That's what the computer revolution was. Being able to do more shit with less people doesn't hurt the economy because theres always more shit to do. I would guess at least three quarters of regular PA posters don't do jobs that exist without automation eliminating the need for people to do jobs that previously were more labor intensive and 100% couldn't do their jobs as effectively or efficiently without the tools that are possible because of automation.

    Edit and to bring this more on topic planning your campaign platform on a UBI to fight this presumes that the jobless can live on 12K a year (they can't), that the government can afford 12K a year for everyone (it can't) and that an economy with the predicted mass unemployment would have the prosperity needed to function at all so as to provide a stable society would exist anyway (it wouldn't).

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    If it ends up being Warren, we will have another 4 years of Trump. Same with Sanders.

    Throw all the stones you want. I was pretty much the only person here last election who said as much with Hillary Clinton, and look how that turned out.

    Clinton's unfavorability and trustworthiness numbers were too bad for a general electorate win. And Warren is too far left for a general electorate win.

    As soon as the average, low information, working voter hears an attack ad that talks about them losing the insurance they get through their job we are screwed.

    Not saying it's right. I'm saying the politics threads here consistently overestimate the engagement and intelligence of the average voter in this country.

    I really hope the Democratic Party doesn't screw this up by thinking a majority of the country is ready to eliminate private insurance or has gone as liberal as the Republican base has gone crazy conservative.

    Or we can just admit that the polling is volatile, no one knows what messages the electorate will accept, and the only certainty is that the pundits and others making firm predictions are just puffing out their chests and submitting their personal preferences as prophecy.

    If either of them get nominated, bookmark this.

    Also, how did the Blue Wave happen? Because it wasn't "moderate."

    It was. A large part of the gains were more moderate members in places like formerly Republican suburbs. And these are voters the Democrats are probably gonna want to continue to pull in come 2020. That doesn't necessarily mean a message that's "moderate" in the DC Strategist sense. Healthcare was a huge messaging win for Democrats in 2018 after all. But a lot of voters aren't exactly craving a socialist utopia either.

    Plus, you know, voters are weird and silly and not really coherently ideological.

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    If it ends up being Warren, we will have another 4 years of Trump. Same with Sanders.

    Throw all the stones you want. I was pretty much the only person here last election who said as much with Hillary Clinton, and look how that turned out.

    Clinton's unfavorability and trustworthiness numbers were too bad for a general electorate win. And Warren is too far left for a general electorate win.

    As soon as the average, low information, working voter hears an attack ad that talks about them losing the insurance they get through their job we are screwed.

    Not saying it's right. I'm saying the politics threads here consistently overestimate the engagement and intelligence of the average voter in this country.

    I really hope the Democratic Party doesn't screw this up by thinking a majority of the country is ready to eliminate private insurance or has gone as liberal as the Republican base has gone crazy conservative.

    Or we can just admit that the polling is volatile, no one knows what messages the electorate will accept, and the only certainty is that the pundits and others making firm predictions are just puffing out their chests and submitting their personal preferences as prophecy.

    If either of them get nominated, bookmark this.

    Also, how did the Blue Wave happen? Because it wasn't "moderate."

    It was. A large part of the gains were more moderate members in places like formerly Republican suburbs. And these are voters the Democrats are probably gonna want to continue to pull in come 2020. That doesn't necessarily mean a message that's "moderate" in the DC Strategist sense. Healthcare was a huge messaging win for Democrats in 2018 after all. But a lot of voters aren't exactly craving a socialist utopia either.

    Plus, you know, voters are weird and silly and not really coherently ideological.

    To expand on this, there are essentially no House pickups in 2018 that advocated single payer. There are plenty that called for expanding healthcare access and some who made vague Medicare For All supportive murmurs. But if you go seat by seat they were by and large more moderate than any major candidate except maybe Klobuchar, Beto, Pete and Biden.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • MegaMan001MegaMan001 CRNA Rochester, MNRegistered User regular
    Brainleech wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    Im skeptical that this time automation will mean long term mass unemployment.

    I... am quite worried about automation, to be honest. I think there's a good chance that if we don't destroy the world in another way, automation will have a pretty big negative impact on jobs and the economy.

    Automation isn't a force of nature. You're not going to automate if it's not actually a benefit.

    This presumes firms make good decisions based on sound logic

    They don't

    Also if a machine can do the job as well as the human, the machine is always, always, always cheaper over a long enough timescale, so there's very little incentive not to shift as much of your labor budget over to capital investment as possible
    Automation won't destroy the economy.

    Automation will completely decimate the logistics industry within a couple decades, which is really just a whole shitload of people

    Automation is the nut shot in this state. over 60% of the employed workforce in NM works in the service/retail industry. So it will have a very negative impact on the jobs and economy as laughable as it is currently.
    One of the sad things is Trump is coming to the metro area for some reason on Monday. I don't know how but I saw a video of a police chase in Detroit the ending of which was suprising as they did not violently pull the woman out of the car, fill her full of lead, or a number of other things. The other shocking thing was Detroit looks a lot cleaner and safer than Albuquerque which is interesting and sad

    I went to my local Home Depot yesterday and they had replaced every single cashier with self check out. Seriously. Not one single one. A single desk for customer service and not one other human being at the front of the store.

    I am in the business of saving lives.
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Trump isn't popular. More people know that he really is a shit stain going into 2020. He's more less help drive suburban women and college educated voters away from his party. It's naïve to say that no democrat can beat him, when he is in a fairly weak position and probably might not even win re-election if everything goes perfectly for him next year, which seems likely. At this point he has to hope the economy doesn't go belly up, while also hoping that one of his scandals doesn't sink his mediocre approval ratings into the danger zone that makes his party of rats jump ship.

    Also I'd mostly ignore the pundit class when it comes to what is too liberal to get elected. The morons are just blowing smoke up people's asses and are essentially out of touch with what the public wants. They make a ton of calls, that often get proven wrong. Hell, this is the same group of idiots that goes along with the constant reclassification of once conservative ideas into somehow magically being outlandish liberal ideas, while agreeing that extremist rightwing bullshit is also magically somehow moderate.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    If it ends up being Warren, we will have another 4 years of Trump. Same with Sanders.

    Throw all the stones you want. I was pretty much the only person here last election who said as much with Hillary Clinton, and look how that turned out.

    Clinton's unfavorability and trustworthiness numbers were too bad for a general electorate win. And Warren is too far left for a general electorate win.

    As soon as the average, low information, working voter hears an attack ad that talks about them losing the insurance they get through their job we are screwed.

    Not saying it's right. I'm saying the politics threads here consistently overestimate the engagement and intelligence of the average voter in this country.

    I really hope the Democratic Party doesn't screw this up by thinking a majority of the country is ready to eliminate private insurance or has gone as liberal as the Republican base has gone crazy conservative.

    Or we can just admit that the polling is volatile, no one knows what messages the electorate will accept, and the only certainty is that the pundits and others making firm predictions are just puffing out their chests and submitting their personal preferences as prophecy.

    If either of them get nominated, bookmark this.

    Also, how did the Blue Wave happen? Because it wasn't "moderate."

    It was. A large part of the gains were more moderate members in places like formerly Republican suburbs. And these are voters the Democrats are probably gonna want to continue to pull in come 2020. That doesn't necessarily mean a message that's "moderate" in the DC Strategist sense. Healthcare was a huge messaging win for Democrats in 2018 after all. But a lot of voters aren't exactly craving a socialist utopia either.

    Plus, you know, voters are weird and silly and not really coherently ideological.

    To expand on this, there are essentially no House pickups in 2018 that advocated single payer. There are plenty that called for expanding healthcare access and some who made vague Medicare For All supportive murmurs. But if you go seat by seat they were by and large more moderate than any major candidate except maybe Klobuchar, Beto, Pete and Biden.

    The big profile left-wing candidates were mostly running in very safe already-democratic districts. Which is fine, that's how you are supposed to run that game. But you can't confuse that with where the gains in seats took place. You can really look at it as just another part of the continual trend of the ideological space within the Democratic party widening. The left-most side of the party is moving very quickly left but the right-most side of the party is moving left but much much slower.

    There also seems to be a general realignment going on right now and Democrats are starting to pick up a lot of traditionally republicans voters in places like the suburbs, in return for Republicans really shoring up the less educated and more rural vote. At least, afaik. At the same time though, the EC means some gains are more potent then others.

    In the end, at least imo, I think a lot of these trends end up being more about messaging then content. Especially among voters the Democrats need to pick up. I think many of them are more interested in someone who's going to fix their very very specific problems and stop being so fucking crazy then they are in any sort of very-left-wing ideologically coherent platform.

    I think Trump and his campaign kinda sense this too, as their strategy is almost certainly going to continue to be "Make the Democratic candidate look like a crazy radical, so stick with me".

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Assuming that anyone can beat Trump is a recipe for losing the election.

    On the other hand, this is probably the best shot for getting a progressive candidate in the White House. The electorate won't pick a progressive over a decent Republican.

  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    I feel like any dem that’s nominated is going to have a great chance at winning

    1. The GOP ceiling for the EC was basically Trump’s number
    2. The dem has won more votes in 6 of the last 7 elections and it took a couple of anti-gay marriage state constitution movements to keep it from being 7 of 7

    And of course I know that’s not a guarantee but the country has changed a lot since ‘84...

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Assuming that anyone can beat Trump is a recipe for losing the election.

    On the other hand, this is probably the best shot for getting a progressive candidate in the White House. The electorate won't pick a progressive over a decent Republican.

    This assumes facts not in evidence. Obama was widely perceived (key word) as very liberal and crushed the most "decent Republican" in the country. The fundamentals are more important than people think.

    People do not like Donald Trump at all. Unless he can bring down his opponent to his level, favorables wise, he's a massive underdog to win re-election. Now that's possible, but I would say unlikely.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Assuming that anyone can beat Trump is a recipe for losing the election.

    On the other hand, this is probably the best shot for getting a progressive candidate in the White House. The electorate won't pick a progressive over a decent Republican.

    Only exists in history books and cemeteries.

    Progressive ideas, especially in regards to jobs programs, tax redistribution and a further left healthcare option would all be wildly popular once in place.

    The biggest problem with the ACA is that by being a center right proposal it basically asked taxpayers to take all of the pain a transition to single payer (and all of the pain a public option would have cost) with only the bare minimum in improvements.

    And it's main provisions are still untouchable when Republicans are honest about destroying them.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Assuming that anyone can beat Trump is a recipe for losing the election.

    On the other hand, this is probably the best shot for getting a progressive candidate in the White House. The electorate won't pick a progressive over a decent Republican.

    My big takeaway from...previous elections, is that we need a candidate who is for something rather than Not Trump. We've done Not Trump and Not Bush and it didn't work so well. Obviously any candidate the Ds put forward will be Not Trump but if that's their tagline I think they struggle to win it.

    Harris and Biden are both very much Not Trump so far in presentation. I think Warren is doing a better job than Bernie in presenting what they want to do rather than just obviously not being Trump. Campaigns can transition between primary and general but only so far and the question is how well.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Hmph. So what about the congressional part of the 2020 elections? Will the democrats finally get the majority in both house and senate? Cause I don't care the least bit who's the democratic president unless that happens

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Hmph. So what about the congressional part of the 2020 elections? Will the democrats finally get the majority in both house and senate? Cause I don't care the least bit who's the democratic president unless that happens

    It's not on topic I think, you're probably welcome to make a thread if you want.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This discussion has been closed.