CFP wrote:David Koch died

JFLNYC wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:False dichotomy. For most voters, issues do in fact matter.

Not so. For most voters, winning does in fact matter.

CFP wrote:David Koch died

JFLNYC wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

“Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election,” Jill Biden said Monday at a campaign event in Nashua, N.H. “And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘Okay, I personally like so and so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

“We may not be good on issues, but we’re going to win so you should join up.” What a bizarre selling point.

Just the flip side of: "We're great on the issues but we're likely to get our butts kicked so you should join up."

Gimpy wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

“Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election,” Jill Biden said Monday at a campaign event in Nashua, N.H. “And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘Okay, I personally like so and so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

“We may not be good on issues, but we’re going to win so you should join up.” What a bizarre selling point.

Just the flip side of: "We're great on the issues but we're likely to get our butts kicked so you should join up."

Why would you say you’re not as good on issues as other candidates though? Say you’re most likely to win, sure. Don’t say other people have better plans.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

“Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election,” Jill Biden said Monday at a campaign event in Nashua, N.H. “And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘Okay, I personally like so and so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

“We may not be good on issues, but we’re going to win so you should join up.” What a bizarre selling point.

Just the flip side of: "We're great on the issues but we're likely to get our butts kicked so you should join up."

Why would you say you’re not as good on issues as other candidates though? Say you’re most likely to win, sure. Don’t say other people have better plans.

She's saying in the mind of a hypothetical voter they think their preferred candidate is better on health care or that they like another candidate better personally, but they need to vote for Biden in the primary because he's best positioned to beat Trump.

She is not saying that she thinks other people have better health care plans.

TenuredVulture wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:False dichotomy. For most voters, issues do in fact matter.

Not so. For most voters, winning does in fact matter.

You win by having policies that appeal to people.

TenuredVulture wrote:Democratic policies are generally more popular than Republican policies. So, sure, Biden will beat Trump. But so will Warren.

TenuredVulture wrote:And really, the problem with HRC, one she shares with Biden, is that both are running like it's 1992, when the Democratic policy advantage didn't exist as it does today. They've both been too chummy with Republicans for too long, thus alienating the core of the Democratic party.

TenuredVulture wrote: Too many of the media pundits and experts are also from that era.

TenuredVulture wrote: And, add to that, they're mostly rich and rather out of touch with people.

TenuredVulture wrote:The Democrats aren't losing swing states because they've moved too far to the left, they're losing swing states because they've nominated people who don't give them anything to vote for.

Stop hypothesizing about Democratic voters’ political priorities and policy appetites and look at the actual evidence of where Americans really are. That’s the 2018 midterms.

It may have minted young progressive superstars like the congresswomen in the squad, but they aren’t especially popular beyond their progressive fan clubs. More important, their victories had zilch to do with why or how Democrats regained control of Congress and have dubious relevance to how Democrats can do the same with the White House in 2020. The House members they replaced were Democrats, not Republicans, so their campaigns weren’t lessons in how to move voters from one party’s column to the other.

Other first-term House candidates’ bids did offer such lessons, so look harder at that crew. Lauren Underwood in the exurbs of Chicago, Xochitl Torres Small in southern New Mexico, Abigail Spanberger in the suburbs of Richmond, Va., and Antonio Delgado in upstate New York — these four defeated Republicans in districts where Trump had prevailed by four to 10 percentage points just two years earlier. None of them ran on the Green New Deal, single-payer health insurance, reparations or the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

They touted more restrained agendas. And they didn’t talk that much about Trump. They knew they didn’t need to. For voters offended by him, he’s his own negative ad, playing 24/7 on cable news.

Of the roughly 90 candidates on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s list of 2018 challengers with some hope of turning a red House district blue, just two made a big pitch for single-payer health care. Both lost. While first-time candidates endorsed by the progressive groups Justice Democrats or Our Revolution certainly won House elections last year, not one flipped a seat. The party did pick up 40 seats overall — just not with the most progressive candidates.

According to a May analysis by Catalist, a data-analysis firm, 89 percent of the Democratic vote gain in 2018 was from swing voters. That’s just one set of numbers, one way to slice the pie, but it does raise questions about the progressive insistence that partisan turnout and a surge in new voters, attracted by bold policy positions, is the path to victory in 2020.

There’s something else funky about that insistence — about the theory that a more progressive Democratic nominee would get all the votes that Hillary Clinton did in 2016 plus ones from people who stayed home in disaffection and much of the left-wing spoiler Jill Stein’s share. A more progressive nominee might lose some of the votes that Clinton did get. Who’s to say that the math, in the end, would be all that favorable?

JUburton wrote:trump crusssssssshin it on the trade war

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/busi ... e=Homepage

jerseyhoya wrote:

CFP wrote:David Koch died

Wisely passing away before a Dem wins the White House and boosts the death tax

JFLNYC wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

“Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election,” Jill Biden said Monday at a campaign event in Nashua, N.H. “And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘Okay, I personally like so and so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

“We may not be good on issues, but we’re going to win so you should join up.” What a bizarre selling point.

Just the flip side of: "We're great on the issues but we're likely to get our butts kicked so you should join up."

JFLNYC wrote:With all due respect, there's a lot of wishful thinking in your post.

TenuredVulture wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:False dichotomy. For most voters, issues do in fact matter.

Not so. For most voters, winning does in fact matter.

You win by having policies that appeal to people.

If that's the case, the polls -- and 2018 midterm results (see below) -- then strongly suggest voters like Biden's policies more than Warren's.

TenuredVulture wrote:Democratic policies are generally more popular than Republican policies. So, sure, Biden will beat Trump. But so will Warren.

Again, facts on the ground right now suggest the latter is far less assured than the former.

TenuredVulture wrote:And really, the problem with HRC, one she shares with Biden, is that both are running like it's 1992, when the Democratic policy advantage didn't exist as it does today. They've both been too chummy with Republicans for too long, thus alienating the core of the Democratic party.

"Chummy with Republicans for too long?" Heck, Warren was a Republican for most of her life.

TenuredVulture wrote: Too many of the media pundits and experts are also from that era.

So are most of the actual Democratic voters. In the midterm elections, according to CNN exit polls, 56 percent of voters were over age 50, and about a quarter (26 percent) were 65 or over. By comparison, voters under age 30 accounted for just 13 percent — and that was a good year for youth turnout.

TenuredVulture wrote: And, add to that, they're mostly rich and rather out of touch with people.

Once again, the polls suggest otherwise.

TenuredVulture wrote:The Democrats aren't losing swing states because they've moved too far to the left, they're losing swing states because they've nominated people who don't give them anything to vote for.

One last time, this assertion is just not consistent with facts.

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm not arguing with the numbers, but it does seem to me that a Bernie>Trump>Hillary voter is about as big a MYSOGINIST as you will find. More so than a Biden>Trump>Warren voter.

Wolfgang622 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm not arguing with the numbers, but it does seem to me that a Bernie>Trump>Hillary voter is about as big a MYSOGINIST as you will find. More so than a Biden>Trump>Warren voter.

FYP

Gimpy wrote:

“Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election,” Jill Biden said Monday at a campaign event in Nashua, N.H. “And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘Okay, I personally like so and so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

“We may not be good on issues, but we’re going to win so you should join up.” What a bizarre selling point.