Warszawa wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Gimpy wrote:What does the senate map look like in 2020? If I could choose between replacing Trump with Biden or flipping the senate, I’m taking the senate 100 times out of 100.

This is an insane taek btw

I was just asking if the senate could flip and pointing out that it’s as important as the presidency. Not saying that it’s one or the other.

If Warren wins and we get to 50 in the Senate you will see massive change in this country

06hawkalum wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:It's not just about voting, it's about mobilizing the people who are willing to knock on doors and do the grunt work it will take to win in the swing states. Biden isn't going to get those people--and besides, his political instincts are from an era when campaigns were centralized affairs run and staffed by professionals. That style of campaigning isn't nearly as effective in today's political environment.

The Obama comparison is interesting, because in many ways, he campaigned as a progressive, but governed like a moderate. Perhaps that was in part a concession to political reality. It's pretty hard to see stuff like a consumer protection agency as really all that progressive, given that the big banks and Wall Street were left intact, and zero people were even charged for crimes in the wake of the financial crisis.



There are two big establishment Democratic hopes out there, and in a weird way, they offset each other. The first is looking at how changing demographics should really be generating increasing Democratic majorities--Republicans have big problems with non-whites and people under 30. This of course is well known. But there's also this establishment Democratic belief that they can also peel away big money Wall Street/Tech money away from the Republicans. This is why Obama and others were loath to really make those people pay for the 2008 crisis.

It is the case that consultants get paid big bucks when campaigns raise big bucks, so they have a vested interest in keeping the Wall Street/Tech money flowing.

And let's be honest--for this Dem donor class, the Trump years have been fine. They've made tons of money, they've been deregulated. So, yeah, they're quite receptive to Biden's "I'm not going to change anything" message. But ultimately, it's a terrible message, a losing message. Biden's record is terrible--he's lost over and over again. (To use a baseball metaphor--he's one of those "toolsy" guys who can't play the game.) Trump's message was the opposite--he practically campaigned on the idea that "I might not make things any better, but at least it will be different".

The media have created a myth of Biden's electability, and I think that's what's feeding the polls right now--there's a big chunk of Democrats who really care about nothing other than figuring out which Democrat is most likely to beat Trump. There really isn't anything wrong with that position. But the media are, in my view, wrong about this. Because they are dumb. And really, at the elite level, they aren't much different than the Wall Street/Tech/Consultant types.

Eh, I don't think "we're going to move this country from capitalism to socialism" is a winning message either. The average American is center-right.

TenuredVulture wrote:One of the weird things about politics is that in general, the kinds of policies articulated by say Elizabeth Warren are popular with most Americans. At least they're a lot more popular than Republican alternatives, even in red states. I've pointed this out before, but its importance cannot be understated--in a referendum (non-Presidential election year mind you) Arkansas overwhelming voted to increase the minimum wage to $12 an hour over three years. Despite this, the Democrats have not translated this into electoral success.

Or consider teacher strikes and the support teachers received in Oklahoma and West Virginia. Again, states where Democrats haven't done well.

There's a take away here--the incrementalism and moderateness of mainstream Democrats that looks so appealing to urban coastal elites is terrible from an electoral standpoint.

TenuredVulture wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:It's not just about voting, it's about mobilizing the people who are willing to knock on doors and do the grunt work it will take to win in the swing states. Biden isn't going to get those people--and besides, his political instincts are from an era when campaigns were centralized affairs run and staffed by professionals. That style of campaigning isn't nearly as effective in today's political environment.

The Obama comparison is interesting, because in many ways, he campaigned as a progressive, but governed like a moderate. Perhaps that was in part a concession to political reality. It's pretty hard to see stuff like a consumer protection agency as really all that progressive, given that the big banks and Wall Street were left intact, and zero people were even charged for crimes in the wake of the financial crisis.



There are two big establishment Democratic hopes out there, and in a weird way, they offset each other. The first is looking at how changing demographics should really be generating increasing Democratic majorities--Republicans have big problems with non-whites and people under 30. This of course is well known. But there's also this establishment Democratic belief that they can also peel away big money Wall Street/Tech money away from the Republicans. This is why Obama and others were loath to really make those people pay for the 2008 crisis.

It is the case that consultants get paid big bucks when campaigns raise big bucks, so they have a vested interest in keeping the Wall Street/Tech money flowing.

And let's be honest--for this Dem donor class, the Trump years have been fine. They've made tons of money, they've been deregulated. So, yeah, they're quite receptive to Biden's "I'm not going to change anything" message. But ultimately, it's a terrible message, a losing message. Biden's record is terrible--he's lost over and over again. (To use a baseball metaphor--he's one of those "toolsy" guys who can't play the game.) Trump's message was the opposite--he practically campaigned on the idea that "I might not make things any better, but at least it will be different".

The media have created a myth of Biden's electability, and I think that's what's feeding the polls right now--there's a big chunk of Democrats who really care about nothing other than figuring out which Democrat is most likely to beat Trump. There really isn't anything wrong with that position. But the media are, in my view, wrong about this. Because they are dumb. And really, at the elite level, they aren't much different than the Wall Street/Tech/Consultant types.

Eh, I don't think "we're going to move this country from capitalism to socialism" is a winning message either. The average American is center-right.

Of course, none of the Democratic candidates, not even Bernie, are really articulating anything close to socialism. That's our stupid media for you.

One of the weird things about politics is that in general, the kinds of policies articulated by say Elizabeth Warren are popular with most Americans. At least they're a lot more popular than Republican alternatives, even in red states. I've pointed this out before, but its importance cannot be understated--in a referendum (non-Presidential election year mind you) Arkansas overwhelming voted to increase the minimum wage to $12 an hour over three years. Despite this, the Democrats have not translated this into electoral success.

Or consider teacher strikes and the support teachers received in Oklahoma and West Virginia. Again, states where Democrats haven't done well.

There's a take away here--the incrementalism and moderateness of mainstream Democrats that looks so appealing to urban coastal elites is terrible from an electoral standpoint.

I also believe that one reason Obama won states like Indiana is precisely because even though he pretty much governed in that moderate mold (moving very slightly left of Bill Clinton, but probably less than the country had moved in those years) he campaigned as a progressive. His campaign slogan was Hope and Change!

Gimpy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Gimpy wrote:What does the senate map look like in 2020? If I could choose between replacing Trump with Biden or flipping the senate, I’m taking the senate 100 times out of 100.

This is an insane taek btw

I was just asking if the senate could flip and pointing out that it’s as important as the presidency. Not saying that it’s one or the other.

A source familiar with Obama’s thinking said that he’s not planning to endorse anyone during the early stages of the primary process, in part because he believes that his experience battling for the 2008 nomination made him a better candidate and president. Obama, then the sitting president, waited until voting in the 2016 primaries had ended before endorsing Hillary Clinton.

pacino wrote:that doesn't dispute what i stated

jerseyhoya wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Gimpy wrote:What does the senate map look like in 2020? If I could choose between replacing Trump with Biden or flipping the senate, I’m taking the senate 100 times out of 100.

This is an insane taek btw

I was just asking if the senate could flip and pointing out that it’s as important as the presidency. Not saying that it’s one or the other.

It's not as important as the presidency. In Obama's last two years with a GOP Congress he entered into the Iran Deal and Paris accords (not that those were great things IMO, but they happened). He also didn't trot around the world fellating Kim Jong Un and trashing our allies in NATO and whatnot. In Trump's first three years he's torn up various agreements, slapped tariffs on everything that moves, done a lot of not great and inhumane things on the immigration front, and seems to be teetering on the brink of declaring war via tweet all without the backing of Congress.

In order to enact lasting policy change you need both houses of Congress and the White House. But if you're only gonna have one of the two, you can achieve (or destroy) a lot more with the White House than with Congress.

Bucky wrote:i would further galvanize the base and encourage some who may be too lazy to leave the house to show up on election day.

stick with facts and policy.

06hawkalum wrote:Out of curiosity...what would the reaction be if the Dem nominee, while debating Trump, made this statement verbatim:

"Trump, you are a vile, racist, lying, piece of shit. Go fuck yourself."

::mic drop::

Would that hurt or help the Dem?

I know it will never happen, but I cannot help but fantasize about the Dem completely ripping into Trump using his own coarse vocabulary.