USA Politics

Mosh said:
We really should be seeing the frontrunners together, but the DNC isn't going to do that because they don't want to come off as if they are meddling in the process.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with your big post - we're going to see what happens. But the DNC is going to start tightening up the rules for the debates soon. They'll give everyone a chance to have one or two, then they will start winnowing the field pretty aggressively starting in September.

I think (not researching) it goes like this to make the debate:
1st debate: 1% polling nationally in 3 polls OR 65,000 individual donors.
2nd debate: 1% polling nationally in 3 polls AND 65,000 individual donors.
3rd debate: 2% polling nationally in 3 polls AND 130,000 individual donors.

The 3rd debate is when the real candidates should start to emerge, and I suspect it will be the list above plus a couple stragglers.
 
I’m glad they’re going to tighten up the rules but the first debate going to be the first impression for a lot of people and is very important.

Black Wizard said:
Really? Isn't the presidential election in November next year?
Click to expand...
Yes. The first caucus will be held in February. It won’t be long (less than a month) before we have a good sense of who is going to win.
 
As someone with a peripheral interest in politics, I see the most press (good and bad) going to Warren, Biden and Sanders. Oh and the Gay Mayor, buttingsomething. He is the only "new" candidate getting any major press.
 
So the debate lineups have been announced and... it’s not nearly as bad as it could have been.

June 26 lineup: Cory Booker, Julián Castro, John Delaney, Bill de Blasio, Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Tim Ryan, Elizabeth Warren

June 27 lineup: Michael Bennet, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, John Hickenlooper, Bernie Sanders, Eric Swalwell, Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang

Keep in mind these are supposedly the randomly selected. Somehow most of the serious candidates are going to be on stage together. The only one who really gets the short end of the stick is Elizabeth Warren, although it might become a benefit in the end because I have no doubt she is going to come off the strongest in that debate. Tulsi Gabbard will probably benefit from a relatively weak stage as well.

The more interesting debate will be the second one obviously. It’s a good selection not only because it includes most of the serious contenders, but it’ll also represent pretty much the entire span of conflicting ideas within the party. I’m really looking forward to it.
 
www.politico.com

Warren emerges as potential compromise nominee

Centrists who once said the senator would lead the party to ruin are coming around to her as an alternative to Bernie Sanders.
www.politico.com www.politico.com

Interesting article about centrist/establishment dems warming up to Warren. It really is interesting seeing how much her campaign has improved recently. For me, she went from being a DOA candidate to one of my top three. I hope to see her make a great impression next week and maybe see progressives, liberals, and centrists coalesce around her.
 
Saw a similar article about a couple of weeks ago. The articles I've seen seem to agree Warren's campaign is getting better, while Biden's problems are only going to get worse.
 
I wonder, whoever ends up as the Dem candidate, what kind of campaign he/she will run. I guess it depends on how the economy is going one year from now. If that is going well, they will probably need to point at the controversial sides of Trump and hope it turns the centre voters.

There is obviously a plethora of things to criticize Trump for, but if the average swing voter doesn't feel the consequence of his trade wars and/or doesn't care that the man behaves like a spoilt child whenever he's criticized, then focusing on these things won't convince people to vote him out.
 
Warren may end up winning the Democratic nomination, but I don't see her beating Trump. Trump has already inflicted damage on her campaign.

I still think Joe Biden ends up being the nominee.
 
I strongly disagree with the notion that any of the serious contenders on the Democratic side won't have a good shot at beating Trump, for several reasons. Part of it is Trump's vulnerability, which I have touched on before. Another angle is coalition building. If any of the candidates have built a strong enough coalition to stand out in a crowded field and handily take the nomination (something that every GOP nominee from 2016 including Trump failed to do btw), that is a good indication that they have a strong enough coalition to win the general. Hillary failed to get turn out from progressives and members of the Obama coalition. If Elizabeth Warren is able to win support from the establishment wing of the party in addition to the support she already has from progressives, she is going to go into the general extremely strong. Also, if she is able to do this, that means Trump hasn't inflicted any damage on her campaign. The fact that she is doing well at this stage shows that Trump has not harmed her campaign nearly as much as we may have previously thought. This isn't going to be a Clinton situation where a nominee is jammed through the primary process despite scandals. Warren is going to have to overcome the Native American controversy on her own terms to win the primary.

Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
I wonder, whoever ends up as the Dem candidate, what kind of campaign he/she will run. I guess it depends on how the economy is going one year from now. If that is going well, they will probably need to point at the controversial sides of Trump and hope it turns the centre voters.

There is obviously a plethora of things to criticize Trump for, but if the average swing voter doesn't feel the consequence of his trade wars and/or doesn't care that the man behaves like a spoilt child whenever he's criticized, then focusing on these things won't convince people to vote him out.
Click to expand...
Part of the reason Warren and Mayor Pete are doing really well recently is their approach to Trump. They don't usually attack him directly and are instead focused on delivering a message, whether it is on policy (Warren) or a new direction for the country (Mayor Pete). Trump is going to look extremely weak if he is forced into a debate on policy.

If they need to go after Trump directly, I would mostly focus on his ineffectiveness as a leader (Obamacare not repealed, no wall) and a broader message on corruption from the upper class. The economy is pretty good right now but most Americans are not seeing the benefits of economic growth, that is something the candidate needs to hammer on. Most of Trump's negative personality traits are self-evident and nobody needs to be persuaded one way or the other on that.
 
I agree with Mosh.

Warren's big misstep was the DNA test, and it was a big one, and if she wins the nomination, it will come back to haunt her. But she has a plan for that (see what I did there). She only took the DNA test because one President Donald J. Trump promised to donate a million dollars to a charity of her choice should she take the test. As should surprise absolutely nobody, Trump did not make that donation. Even if he makes it today she will be able to beat him over the head with it. What is more likely to happen is that Trump will never pay, pretend that his promise was fake news, and she will trumpet it every time he makes fun of her.

What she's been doing over the past few months is building bridges between the policy hounds, the establishment Democrats, and the progressive Bernie fans, which puts her in an extremely strong position going forward. Her surge in recent polling has been at the expense of Bernie - but not entirely, as she's also taken bites out of Biden, and I think a lot of the early Beto fans have moved over to her.

Trump's polling numbers are bad, but the worst number is the one that shows that over 50% of Americans will never vote for him - that doesn't mean the Democrat will win, but it is a huge advantage.
 
The DNA thing was a mistake, but hopefully it taught Warren the valuable lesson that engaging with Trump on these things is stupid. She needs to make this about the issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top