DiscussMormonism.com

The complacent electorate of 2016, who were convinced Trump would never be president, has been replaced with the terrified electorate of 2020, who are convinced he’s the Terminator and can’t be stopped. Under my model, that distinction is not only important, it is everything.

Does the Democrat’s nominee matter? Sure, to an extent. If the ticket has a woman, a person of color or a Latino, or a female who is also a person of color, Democratic Party turnout will surge more in really important places. If the nominee is Biden he’d be well-advised to consider Democratic voter turnout his number one consideration when drawing his running mate to avoid the critical mistake made by Hillary Clinton in 2016. This is true for any of the white male candidates. If the nominee hails from the progressive wing of the party, it will provoke massive handwringing both within the party and the media that if not controlled could become self-reinforcing. But the Democrats are not complacent like they were in 2016 and I doubt there is any amount of polling or favorable forecasts that will make them so. That fear will play a crucial role in their 2020 victory. We will not see a divided Democratic Party in 2020.

subgenius wrote:Trump's dismal fundraising for 2020 totes supports you guys.....totes.

Chap wrote:

subgenius wrote:Trump's dismal fundraising for 2020 totes supports you guys.....totes.

Oh, I am sure a lot of people with money are willing to spend some of it to help Trump win.

Perfume on my Mind wrote:A sensible person would very much doubt Trump could win a second term, but then, sensible people thought he couldn't win in 2016. This country isn't run by sensible people, and the GOP base doesn't even know what sensible means.

There are actually millions of people in this country stupid enough to believe Trump is doing a good job right now. You can't rely on idiots for anything other than idiocy.

General Election: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 53, Trump 47 Biden +6
General Election: Trump vs. Harris Emerson Harris 49, Trump 51 Trump +2
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Emerson Sanders 51, Trump 49 Sanders +2
General Election: Trump vs. Warren Emerson Warren 49, Trump 51 Trump +2
General Election: Trump vs. Buttigieg Emerson Buttigieg 49, Trump 51 Trump +2

canpakes wrote:Gunnar,

Both Democratic candidates and Democratic voters should be careful with this type of thinking (In other words ‘folks will vote Democratic en masse simply because they’re terrified of Trump’), as that leads back to complacency, too - and they cannot afford to rely on this assumption. Doing so also leads them to direct their attentions away from issues that hold sway with swing voters while causing them to possibly reinforce damaging campaigning approaches. Some examples might be:

Stop chatting up 'free college' as if it's an easily-dispensed benefit without practical restrictions. Frankly, the idea sounds a bit excessive and ridiculous on its face because it is being bandied about solely as a goofy 'feel-good', give-me-my-pony talking point. I don't think that I heard any candidate pushing this idea really explain what this means, in either of the two Democrat debates. Early proposals on this centered around tuition-free community college under certain conditions, or financial assistance/forgiveness. But merely droning on about 'free college' without honestly mentioning the practical limitations of the idea suggests that anyone can count on happily packing their bags for medical school or Yale without needing to worry about the cost, which obviously isn't possible, if it were even a financially responsible program - which it isn't. And lost in the discussion is the trade school option, which seems to get short shrift in these sorts of discussions.

Stop telling people that they are going to 'get rid of' private medical insurance’. Yes, the current situation is either inadequate or expensive for most folks, but I don't think that there's a high degree of confidence within the general population in proposing that the Nation is going to be able to simply excise that current system from existence and replace it wholesale with a government-managed alternative that will not have its own set of challenges. And there has been scant discussion as to why a two-tiered system like what exists in Canada could not be implemented here that could provide many Americans with a Medicare option while preserving a private supplemental option for those that would either like to pay for it, or offer it as an employment benefit. Consider that Americans are the worst sorts of patients, as far as preventive maintenance and health consciousness goes. Any public option will need to deal with our perception, carefully crafted over many decades by the pharmaceutical and hospital systems in place, that we can act as stupidly as we want with regard to health and nutrition, and later expect that magical prescription pills, to be issues on demand, will mitigate the aftereffects of our bodily mismanagement. This attitude will affect the long-term cost and load of any extended Medicare option and having a two-tiered system might assist with that requirement.

Stop making the focus of every conversation about the injustices of the Border situation. Certainly, the current Administration has proven that migrants are a political tool to be abused at will to curry favor with the Trump Base, but this fact also illustrates that attempting to garner compassion or pity for border-crossers isn't going to fly with a certain segment of the voting population that wants to see migrants forcibly ejected back into their country of origin, to the point of being launched by cannon, if possible. And the other portion of the voting population not aligned with Trump already sees the game being played by the Administration, and needs little convincing of the nature of the problem. But giddily announcing that the Nation should impose no requirements on border crossers or will offer them free health care is going to be more of a turn-off to many voters than a motivator, especially given that this high level of focus seems to leave actual residents unmentioned or forgotten while efforts, policy and resources are promised to migrants. Plenty of average but economically-challenged Americans will notice this disparity and wonder what any Democratic candidate wants to do for the folks who are already here and working. A more pragmatic approach might be to tone down the moral indignation and propose some reasonable reforms to the border process, suggest acceptance for migrants but with conditional requirements (no public assistance first year, must keep clean record/no arrests for 5 or will be deported - whatever, etc.), then get to the business of setting those concerns alongside policy proposals that address our own citizens and their own economic challenges. In short, we've all heard how Democrats feel about folks in camps at the border; now they might want to tell us how they feel about Americans working low wage jobs, with limited economic opportunities to better their situations and/or challenging medical insurance concerns.

Democrats need to acknowledge that Trump offered few real solutions to the myriad challenges facing many of his voters aside from feel-good assurances of 'making America Great Again', alongside allusions to how brown folks are making their lives miserable by stealing their jobs (which jobs, no-one knows, exactly). Since then, he hasn't really delivered on anything that bolsters the stability or long-term success of the average citizen. His policies have narrowly addressed either corporate interests and/or upper-income-bracket occupants via tax breaks while merely tossing a bone to the Base through promotion of religious and culture war proxies designed to soothe the sense of injury suffered by his voters who feel 'disrespected' by the existence of gay folks or women who've had an abortion. In the meantime, wages creep along the slowest possible incline, healthcare options worsen, and new taxes are imposed on all through tariffs. Democrats might want to shine a bit of light on some of these realities while also highlighting how the Republican Party is largely bereft of policies that are beneficial to voters in general.

canpakes wrote:Gunnar,

Both Democratic candidates and Democratic voters should be careful with this type of thinking (In other words ‘folks will vote Democratic en masse simply because they’re terrified of Trump’), as that leads back to complacency, too - and they cannot afford to rely on this assumption. Doing so also leads them to direct their attentions away from issues that hold sway with swing voters while causing them to possibly reinforce damaging campaigning approaches. Some examples might be:

Stop chatting up 'free college' as if it's an easily-dispensed benefit without practical restrictions. Frankly, the idea sounds a bit excessive and ridiculous on its face because it is being bandied about solely as a goofy 'feel-good', give-me-my-pony talking point. I don't think that I heard any candidate pushing this idea really explain what this means, in either of the two Democrat debates. Early proposals on this centered around tuition-free community college under certain conditions, or financial assistance/forgiveness. But merely droning on about 'free college' without honestly mentioning the practical limitations of the idea suggests that anyone can count on happily packing their bags for medical school or Yale without needing to worry about the cost, which obviously isn't possible, if it were even a financially responsible program - which it isn't. And lost in the discussion is the trade school option, which seems to get short shrift in these sorts of discussions.

Stop telling people that they are going to 'get rid of' private medical insurance’. Yes, the current situation is either inadequate or expensive for most folks, but I don't think that there's a high degree of confidence within the general population in proposing that the Nation is going to be able to simply excise that current system from existence and replace it wholesale with a government-managed alternative that will not have its own set of challenges. And there has been scant discussion as to why a two-tiered system like what exists in Canada could not be implemented here that could provide many Americans with a Medicare option while preserving a private supplemental option for those that would either like to pay for it, or offer it as an employment benefit. Consider that Americans are the worst sorts of patients, as far as preventive maintenance and health consciousness goes. Any public option will need to deal with our perception, carefully crafted over many decades by the pharmaceutical and hospital systems in place, that we can act as stupidly as we want with regard to health and nutrition, and later expect that magical prescription pills, to be issues on demand, will mitigate the aftereffects of our bodily mismanagement. This attitude will affect the long-term cost and load of any extended Medicare option and having a two-tiered system might assist with that requirement.

Stop making the focus of every conversation about the injustices of the Border situation. Certainly, the current Administration has proven that migrants are a political tool to be abused at will to curry favor with the Trump Base, but this fact also illustrates that attempting to garner compassion or pity for border-crossers isn't going to fly with a certain segment of the voting population that wants to see migrants forcibly ejected back into their country of origin, to the point of being launched by cannon, if possible. And the other portion of the voting population not aligned with Trump already sees the game being played by the Administration, and needs little convincing of the nature of the problem. But giddily announcing that the Nation should impose no requirements on border crossers or will offer them free health care is going to be more of a turn-off to many voters than a motivator, especially given that this high level of focus seems to leave actual residents unmentioned or forgotten while efforts, policy and resources are promised to migrants. Plenty of average but economically-challenged Americans will notice this disparity and wonder what any Democratic candidate wants to do for the folks who are already here and working. A more pragmatic approach might be to tone down the moral indignation and propose some reasonable reforms to the border process, suggest acceptance for migrants but with conditional requirements (no public assistance first year, must keep clean record/no arrests for 5 or will be deported - whatever, etc.), then get to the business of setting those concerns alongside policy proposals that address our own citizens and their own economic challenges. In short, we've all heard how Democrats feel about folks in camps at the border; now they might want to tell us how they feel about Americans working low wage jobs, with limited economic opportunities to better their situations and/or challenging medical insurance concerns.

Democrats need to acknowledge that Trump offered few real solutions to the myriad challenges facing many of his voters aside from feel-good assurances of 'making America Great Again', alongside allusions to how brown folks are making their lives miserable by stealing their jobs (which jobs, no-one knows, exactly). Since then, he hasn't really delivered on anything that bolsters the stability or long-term success of the average citizen. His policies have narrowly addressed either corporate interests and/or upper-income-bracket occupants via tax breaks while merely tossing a bone to the Base through promotion of religious and culture war proxies designed to soothe the sense of injury suffered by his voters who feel 'disrespected' by the existence of gay folks or women who've had an abortion. In the meantime, wages creep along the slowest possible incline, healthcare options worsen, and new taxes are imposed on all through tariffs. Democrats might want to shine a bit of light on some of these realities while also highlighting how the Republican Party is largely bereft of policies that are beneficial to voters in general.