Mark me down in the 'Biden has already missed his window' camp...

[hoosboot]

I said mentioned as a candidate, not ran. People born when he last ran will be 32 on election day.

My biggest complaint about Warren, Sanders, and Biden is they had their turn in the sun and look where we are. In a perfect world it is time to see if new blood can improve us.

I read a book last year on the Battle of Britain. A section of the book dealt with the fall of France. The author pointed out the age differences between German and French political and military leaders. Germany looked at new and innovative solutions to the problem of war with France, France looked to the solutions of 1914-1918. That has helped sell me on the belief it is time to stop being afraid of new ideas. I do not buy any of the three listed are ready to offer anything except what has been offered since 1972 (when Biden first went to the Senate).

Wait...now the narrative you want to push is that Sanders and Warren aren't pushing new ideas? C'mon, Marv. Isn't that really primarily what they are doing? They're the ones being accused of dragging the debate left with all of their bold and "edgy" ideas.

The candidates all have their flaws, but there are a ton of good candidates competing for the nomination. I don't get all of the griping about the candidates. I get people's frustration with the President and the inability of the GOP to offer up a serious, competent candidate for the Presidency, but the Democrats are offering a wide variety of very serious and very competent candidates. My unsolicited advice is to spend less time musing on their shortcomings and spend more time exploring what's great about them...because there are lots of great things in those candidates that would make for exponentially better Presidents than the current one.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Wait...now the narrative you want to push is that Sanders and Warren aren't pushing new ideas? C'mon, Marv. Isn't that really primarily what they are doing? They're the ones being accused of dragging the debate left with all of their bold and "edgy" ideas.

The candidates all have their flaws, but there are a ton of good candidates competing for the nomination. I don't get all of the griping about the candidates. I get people's frustration with the President and the inability of the GOP to offer up a serious, competent candidate for the Presidency, but the Democrats are offering a wide variety of very serious and very competent candidates. My unsolicited advice is to spend less time musing on their shortcomings and spend more time exploring what's great about them...because there are lots of great things in those candidates that would make for exponentially better Presidents than the current one.

My dog would make a better president than the current president. Mentioning them both in the same breath is insulting to the dog. That is an awful low bar for anyone.

Sanders has touted his ideas since the Vietnam War protests. Warren did change her views circa 1996, from a Republican to a Democrat. My point is as we get old we get locked into a world view we virtually cannot shake.

It is true that the age of scientists making great breakthroughs has risen from early 30s in Einstein's time to 48 today. I take that as a good number, with some leeway for individual variability, for a leader to lead us into the future. New problems occur, I think a leader capable of forming new synapses to deal with new problems would be nice.

Even though I would want a liberal, I want someone able to come to the best policy because it is the best policy and not a dogma they are trapped into believing.

I am really not trying to say Biden is a terrible candidate, I am trying to say there is nothing wrong with wanting a better candidate. Among better in this case is someone younger and less gaffe prone. Biden makes a lot of gaffes, and everyone of them somewhat normalized Trump's gaffes. But yes, overall Biden would be far better than Trump. My two complaints about Biden above are both more true for Trump.

But an aspirational Kennedyesque figure would be better than both. Someone who can paint the picture of the better world and draw the road map they would use.

 

[UncleMark]

My biggest complaint about Warren, Sanders, and Biden is they had their turn in the sun and look where we are. In a perfect world it is time to see if new blood can improve us.

In fairness to Warren, while she may have some age on her she's a newcomer to politics.

But an aspirational Kennedyesque figure would be better than both. Someone who can paint the picture of the better world and draw the road map they would use.

Not sure we have anyone that fits that mold available today. Obama did, and it paid off for him electorally. Others my have the vision, but not the necessary charisma or political chops to get the point across. I actually think Pete comes closest, but it's too soon for him and fairly or unfairly, he's got too many hurdles to get over at this point in time. Absent a Kennedy or Obama, we'll have to go with the cards we've been dealt. If Joe gives me two pair or three of a kind, I'll go with him rather than hope to draw to an inside straight with someone else.

 

[hoosboot]

My dog would make a better president than the current president. Mentioning them both in the same breath is insulting to the dog. That is an awful low bar for anyone.

Sanders has touted his ideas since the Vietnam War protests. Warren did change her views circa 1996, from a Republican to a Democrat. My point is as we get old we get locked into a world view we virtually cannot shake.

It is true that the age of scientists making great breakthroughs has risen from early 30s in Einstein's time to 48 today. I take that as a good number, with some leeway for individual variability, for a leader to lead us into the future. New problems occur, I think a leader capable of forming new synapses to deal with new problems would be nice.

Even though I would want a liberal, I want someone able to come to the best policy because it is the best policy and not a dogma they are trapped into believing.

I am really not trying to say Biden is a terrible candidate, I am trying to say there is nothing wrong with wanting a better candidate. Among better in this case is someone younger and less gaffe prone. Biden makes a lot of gaffes, and everyone of them somewhat normalized Trump's gaffes. But yes, overall Biden would be far better than Trump. My two complaints about Biden above are both more true for Trump.

But an aspirational Kennedyesque figure would be better than both. Someone who can paint the picture of the better world and draw the road map they would use.

I wish that the GOP had nominated your dog because then we'd have better choices, but we have to choose from the ones we actually have. So, while I understand your hopes for the ideal candidate (who has never existed despite our tendency to wax poetic about Lincoln, Kennedy, etc.), there are a bunch of people actually running for President who have great qualifications and ideas. If you spent more time talking about what's great about the various candidates, maybe you'd be less vexed by the occasional shortcomings they each (and all humans) have.

I love Bernie's passion. That passion can inspire so much policy discussion.

I love Booker's balance of local and national leadership experience and the way he approaches public-private partnerships on problems. He's dynamic and takes a pragmatic approach to problems.

I love Warren's dynamic wonkiness. She intensely studies policy to develop solutions to serious problems. And I love her focus on economic solutions for the middle class.

I love Harris's incredible intelligence and easy confidence. She has intense focus on an America that provides opportunity for all parts of our population and our country.

I love Buttigieg's unflappable calm and intense smarts. He's got unbelievable focus and tremendous command of the issues.

I love Biden's tremendous experience and wide exposure to a variety of problems during his time in public service. I love his ability to connect with people, his understanding of working class issues, and his self-assuredness.

I'm not convinced that your desire for someone with new synapses to deal with new problems is all that critical. IMHO, there aren't really a ton of new problems we're facing, but rather a bunch of old problems with new packaging. So, while I value the ability to understand the mindset of younger generations, I likewise value someone who has seen the problems of the past and how they relate to the problems of the present and the future. Regardless, there is a ton to like in all of these candidates and others I haven't mentioned. I'm more focused on talking about that than the occasional shortcomings they may have.

 

[IUclover]

I appreciate your opinions. Can we all agree that campaign finance reform should be a primary issue and immediately addressed by the next potus and elected officials?

 

[Courtsensetwo]

In fairness to Warren, while she may have some age on her she's a newcomer to politics.

Not sure we have anyone that fits that mold available today. Obama did, and it paid off for him electorally. Others my have the vision, but not the necessary charisma or political chops to get the point across. I actually think Pete comes closest, but it's too soon for him and fairly or unfairly, he's got too many hurdles to get over at this point in time. Absent a Kennedy or Obama, we'll have to go with the cards we've been dealt. If Joe gives me two pair or three of a kind, I'll go with him rather than hope to draw to an inside straight with someone else.

Pete really is the closest, and I think you are correct that it is too early.

 

[toastedbread]

I wish that the GOP had nominated your dog because then we'd have better choices, but we have to choose from the ones we actually have. So, while I understand your hopes for the ideal candidate (who has never existed despite our tendency to wax poetic about Lincoln, Kennedy, etc.), there are a bunch of people actually running for President who have great qualifications and ideas. If you spent more time talking about what's great about the various candidates, maybe you'd be less vexed by the occasional shortcomings they each (and all humans) have.

I love Bernie's passion. That passion can inspire so much policy discussion.

I love Booker's balance of local and national leadership experience and the way he approaches public-private partnerships on problems. He's dynamic and takes a pragmatic approach to problems.

I love Warren's dynamic wonkiness. She intensely studies policy to develop solutions to serious problems. And I love her focus on economic solutions for the middle class.

I love Harris's incredible intelligence and easy confidence. She has intense focus on an America that provides opportunity for all parts of our population and our country.

I love Buttigieg's unflappable calm and intense smarts. He's got unbelievable focus and tremendous command of the issues.

I love Biden's tremendous experience and wide exposure to a variety of problems during his time in public service. I love his ability to connect with people, his understanding of working class issues, and his self-assuredness.

I'm not convinced that your desire for someone with new synapses to deal with new problems is all that critical. IMHO, there aren't really a ton of new problems we're facing, but rather a bunch of old problems with new packaging. So, while I value the ability to understand the mindset of younger generations, I likewise value someone who has seen the problems of the past and how they relate to the problems of the present and the future. Regardless, there is a ton to like in all of these candidates and others I haven't mentioned. I'm more focused on talking about that than the occasional shortcomings they may have.

Nice post. I think you sum up the candidates well.

I agree with another poster itt that I don't necessarily find Booker authentic. Wrt Warren, I have some electoral concerns related to her electoral underperformance in Massachusetts.

As for 2020, the Democrats would be smart to focus on healthcare and living wage jobs. The healthcare part especially was critical to their 2018 success. Let Trump make an embarrassment of himself as he continues to do, and avoid getting into the mud with him. Healthcare and jobs is the key. And while a certain poster itt maybe right that bigotry powered much of Trump's victory, there are bigots in key battleground states who will abandon Trump if the Democrats talk about healthcare.

Edit: my layman's opinion is that the best ticket would be Biden/Harris in either order.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm not convinced that your desire for someone with new synapses to deal with new problems is all that critical. IMHO, there aren't really a ton of new problems we're facing, but rather a bunch of old problems with new packaging. So, while I value the ability to understand the mindset of younger generations, I likewise value someone who has seen the problems of the past and how they relate to the problems of the present and the future. Regardless, there is a ton to like in all of these candidates and others I haven't mentioned. I'm more focused on talking about that than the occasional shortcomings they may have.

Let me give an example, pronouns. A couple friends were recently freaking out at people using they/their instead of he/she. I was surprised at the animosity and their insistence that he/she was grammatically correct.

From my view, they are just anti change. That isn't how webdid it in my day should not be our excuse to avoid moving into modern times.

Things have changed, Biden's bragging about working with racists is an example. You and I may well see that different than those under 30.

 

[UncleMark]

Let me give an example, pronouns. A couple friends were recently freaking out at people using they/their instead of he/she. I was surprised at the animosity and their insistence that he/she was grammatically correct.

I still have a hard time with the use of ungrammatical pronouns, at least in writing. Mrs. Bridgewater (7th grade English) was a Nazi when it came to that kind of shit, and I've never forgotten it.

 

[mashnut]

I still have a hard time with the use of ungrammatical pronouns, at least in writing. Mrs. Bridgewater (7th grade English) was a Nazi when it came to that kind of shit, and I've never forgotten it.

Sure, except it isn’t actually ungrammatical. The singular they has been in use for 700 years at least. Getting upset about it is like insisting we use thou instead of the singular you. https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

 

[UncleMark]

Sure, except it isn’t actually ungrammatical. The singular they has been in use for 700 years at least. Getting upset about it is like insisting we use thou instead of the singular you. https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

Tell it to Mrs. Bridgewater.

 

[iuwclurker]

Tell it to Mrs. Bridgewater.

She's water under the dam.

 

[iuwclurker]

Things have changed, Biden's bragging about working with racists is an example. You and I may well see that different than those under 30.

With all due respect, another example of liberals acting like Trumptards, equating "at least there was some civility [in the Senate]" with "bragging about working with racists." Wtf? WTF? WTF?

Kudos to hoosboot for posting with integrity and sensibility. I mean, I get Rock's points. I obviously prefer Biden but from the start I've qualified that with reservations about his slippage. I have concerns about Harris being too much of a rookie in presidential campaign politics but I'm not going to make stuff up about her or follow insidious Republican talking points. The fact that Booker and others jumped all over Biden for his comments is bullshit. That's a minus for Booker, in my books. That's not going high when the Republicans go low.

I hope Harris can mature fast enough as a politician to go toe to toe with Trump, who's no lightweight. I'm not at all convinced Biden can survive even the grueling campaign ahead. But Democrats shouldn't turn into Demoscats to try to win. pffft

 

[iuwclurker]

Btw, this talking point about Biden being a failed campaigner is sheer balderdash, as some have pointed out above. Nixon failed. Reagan Failed. Look where it got them. Buttigieg is almost surely going to fail in this primary. Should he thereafter quit? pffft

Biden has a vast amount of valuable experience and face recognition. His only drawback is the question about his slippage. His gaffes are irrelevant otherwise. His past election campaigns are irrelevant. If his slippage isn't a problem, he's head and shoulders above all the other candidates for 2020. Simple truth, whether you like it or not, whether you like his policies or not.

Btw, that shouldn't be depressing to you far lefties. He's a step in your direction. You might consider thinking a bit more long term than your noses.

 

[Thyrsis]

Maybe Democrats should just support whomever they think is the best candidate.

I think somewhat related to that thought is this conversation on the right (probably not an accurate characterization, but I'll use it anyway):


Regardless of whether they feel they have a valid point, there's basically no common ground to be found with anyone who views all the Democrats as a vote for "socialism". Democrats may worry about electability, but I agree with you that they should just follow their process. They'll find their nominee through the primary/caucus process. It will be that simple. In doing so, they really don't need to worry about putting off the NeverTrumpers who have even greater fears of "socialism".

 

[Marvin the Martian]

With all due respect, another example of liberals acting like Trumptards, equating "at least there was some civility [in the Senate]" with "bragging about working with racists." Wtf? WTF? WTF?

Kudos to hoosboot for posting with integrity and sensibility. I mean, I get Rock's points. I obviously prefer Biden but from the start I've qualified that with reservations about his slippage. I have concerns about Harris being too much of a rookie in presidential campaign politics but I'm not going to make stuff up about her or follow insidious Republican talking points. The fact that Booker and others jumped all over Biden for his comments is bullshit. That's a minus for Booker, in my books. That's not going high when the Republicans go low.

I hope Harris can mature fast enough as a politician to go toe to toe with Trump, who's no lightweight. I'm not at all convinced Biden can survive even the grueling campaign ahead. But Democrats shouldn't turn into Demoscats to try to win. pffft

You act like Biden is the perfect candidate. He is far from it. I gave room for him to be a great candidate, I have no idea how this election is going to play out. But pretending he should win because he is invincible is completely wrong.

Clinton won the under 44 vote, and lost the over 44 vote. The Democratic Party is skewing younger than the GOP. Long term, that is great for the Democratic Party. It showed in 2018 very positively for the D party. Biden is going to have to realize that the kids of today are not the same as the kids of my youth, his youth, or your youth. Biden is going to have to prove to a major part of the Democratic Party (see links above) that he understands their world. You can "pfffft" all you want, do you understand that youth of today may not be identical to the youth of your day? In particular, millennials of color are more progressive than in the past.

From The Hill:

For nearly 20 years, the Harvard Public Opinion Project has provided a critical glimpse into voting trends of young Americans and has published new data in advance of 2020. In addition to projecting even larger voter participation numbers for young voters, the IOP Youth Poll also found a building conflict between millennial voters and their parents’ generation. According to the poll, “by wide margins, younger Americans do not believe that the baby boomer generation, especially elected officials within that cohort, ‘care about people like them.’” Indeed, less than one in five millennials surveyed believe that baby boomer elected officials actually look out for their generation when it comes to making policy.​

When some of us say Democrats can win (not will win because no one is guaranteed) going left, it is that poll that explains why. It is also why the democrats can lose (not will lose) going right. If those 4 in 5 millennials who do not think us Boomers look out for their generation see no reason to vote Joe Boomer in 2020, it is very bad for the D Party. And it isn't just millenials, Jamie on this board is older than a millennial and has often complained about us evil boomers.

Even if the nominee is Biden, the election needs centered on looking forward and not backward imho. Biden has to prove he really cares about America 10-15 years from now after he is gone and he has to sell that.

 

[iuwclurker]

You act like Biden is the perfect candidate. He is far from it. I gave room for him to be a great candidate, I have no idea how this election is going to play out. But pretending he should win because he is invincible is completely wrong.

Clinton won the under 44 vote, and lost the over 44 vote. The Democratic Party is skewing younger than the GOP. Long term, that is great for the Democratic Party. It showed in 2018 very positively for the D party. Biden is going to have to realize that the kids of today are not the same as the kids of my youth, his youth, or your youth. Biden is going to have to prove to a major part of the Democratic Party (see links above) that he understands their world. You can "pfffft" all you want, do you understand that youth of today may not be identical to the youth of your day? In particular, millennials of color are more progressive than in the past.

From The Hill:

For nearly 20 years, the Harvard Public Opinion Project has provided a critical glimpse into voting trends of young Americans and has published new data in advance of 2020. In addition to projecting even larger voter participation numbers for young voters, the IOP Youth Poll also found a building conflict between millennial voters and their parents’ generation. According to the poll, “by wide margins, younger Americans do not believe that the baby boomer generation, especially elected officials within that cohort, ‘care about people like them.’” Indeed, less than one in five millennials surveyed believe that baby boomer elected officials actually look out for their generation when it comes to making policy.​

When some of us say Democrats can win (not will win because no one is guaranteed) going left, it is that poll that explains why. It is also why the democrats can lose (not will lose) going right. If those 4 in 5 millennials who do not think us Boomers look out for their generation see no reason to vote Joe Boomer in 2020, it is very bad for the D Party. And it isn't just millenials, Jamie on this board is older than a millennial and has often complained about us evil boomers.

Even if the nominee is Biden, the election needs centered on looking forward and not backward imho. Biden has to prove he really cares about America 10-15 years from now after he is gone and he has to sell that.

It's not that I'm assuming or even viewing Biden is perfect, though I see how you'd draw that conclusion. I see him having plenty of warts. I sincerely hope Kamala can turn it on. I'd love to see her or anyone else figure out how to communicate a lofty, all-encompassing vision and inspire the broad American public. So far, it hasn't remotely happened and we all know that. Sanders did well in 2016 but has lost his zest.

You and I are making one relatively contrary assumption. You're assuming some or many left-leaning interested voters might not vote for one candidate or another. I'm assuming few such voters will abstain.

My hypothesis is that the Democratic candidate is far more likely to lose a significant amount of voters from the right half of potential Dem voters than from the left half. Yours is the opposite. Neither of us can prove our hypothesis, only the election can and will, to the extent that a single trial can prove anything.

From there, I place greater emphasis on Hillary having lost the white voter in every single demographic than the age difference you cite. Both Jardina and Coates make strong but differing arguments on the overriding significance of the white vote.

What basically drives my point of view is that there are different bars for measuring success in the 2020 election. From lowest to highest:

1. winning the White House
2. keeping the House of Representatives
3. winning the Senate
4. winning 60 seats in the Senate

Would you disagree that #4 and even #3 requires gaining a large block of votes from both flanks?

I vehemently disagree that any and all Democratic nominees will be successfully painted as a socialist. Furthermore, I submit that any younger voter who abstains because Biden! or Boomer!, is, frankly, ignorant. That abstention would be a vote for killing salmon, killing the planet, raping women, ending Obamacare, high student debt, white nationalism, xenophobia, or whatever the young person's issue is.

Call me a gambler or a dreamer. I want #4.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Maybe Democrats should just support whomever they think is the best candidate.

I think somewhat related to that thought is this conversation on the right (probably not an accurate characterization, but I'll use it anyway):

View embedded media

Regardless of whether they feel they have a valid point, there's basically no common ground to be found with anyone who views all the Democrats as a vote for "socialism". Democrats may worry about electability, but I agree with you that they should just follow their process. They'll find their nominee through the primary/caucus process. It will be that simple. In doing so, they really don't need to worry about putting off the NeverTrumpers who have even greater fears of "socialism".

Love Tom Nichols. His response was I would vote for a ham sandwich ( D-Deli) unequivocally.

 

[iuwclurker]

there's basically no common ground to be found with anyone who views all the Democrats as a vote for "socialism".

Right. Stop letting them suck the oxygen out of your posts.

 

[Thyrsis]

Love Tom Nichols.

I don't.

That's not a downvote on him, either. He's got a real resume and a point of view. That's good and fine. Not liking Trump just isn't trailblazer territory, imo.

 

[Rockfish1]

It's not that I'm assuming or even viewing Biden is perfect, though I see how you'd draw that conclusion. I see him having plenty of warts. I sincerely hope Kamala can turn it on. I'd love to see her or anyone else figure out how to communicate a lofty, all-encompassing vision and inspire the broad American public. So far, it hasn't remotely happened and we all know that. Sanders did well in 2016 but has lost his zest.

You and I are making one relatively contrary assumption. You're assuming some or many left-leaning interested voters might not vote for one candidate or another. I'm assuming few such voters will abstain.

My hypothesis is that the Democratic candidate is far more likely to lose a significant amount of voters from the right half of potential Dem voters than from the left half. Yours is the opposite. Neither of us can prove our hypothesis, only the election can and will, to the extent that a single trial can prove anything.

From there, I place greater emphasis on Hillary having lost the white voter in every single demographic than the age difference you cite. Both Jardina and Coates make strong but differing arguments on the overriding significance of the white vote.

What basically drives my point of view is that there are different bars for measuring success in the 2020 election. From lowest to highest:

1. winning the White House
2. keeping the House of Representatives
3. winning the Senate
4. winning 60 seats in the Senate

Would you disagree that #4 and even #3 requires gaining a large block of votes from both flanks?

I vehemently disagree that any and all Democratic nominees will be successfully painted as a socialist. Furthermore, I submit that any younger voter who abstains because Biden! or Boomer!, is, frankly, ignorant. That abstention would be a vote for killing salmon, killing the planet, raping women, ending Obamacare, high student debt, white nationalism, xenophobia, or whatever the young person's issue is.

Call me a gambler or a dreamer. I want #4.

I don't think MtM is assuming anything. I read him arguing against you making an assumption.

It's very difficult to assess electability, and nonexperts are lousy at it. We mostly think candidates are "electable" if they look and think like we do, which as a practical matter tends to favor white men (like Biden).

If Democrats had turned out for Hillary like they did for Obama, Trump wouldn't be President, and those who stayed home were disproportionately African-American. I don't think Democrats would be wise to take their core constituencies for granted. And I'm wary of political prognosticators who say that Democrats' surest path to success lies in attracting votes from the socially liberal/fiscally conservative voters who comprise the least populated political territory in American politics.

It's still way early. Lots of Democrats still have no idea who most of the candidates are. These are among the reasons why I'm still deep in wait-and-see mode. And I'm not assuming anything.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

These are among the reasons why I'm still deep in wait-and-see mode.

I am also deep into wait and see. I have an inclination toward the more youthful candidates this year, but that could change.

 

[outside shooter]

My perspective was altered a bit by spending most of this summer with my very politically active daughter, who graduated from Columbia in May and who just started a 1 year internship / job this week.

She talked about apathy in young voters, and the need to be truly inspired to fight that apathy. I don't think Biden inspires anybody. The best combination of inspiration, intelligence, toughness, and get-it-done mentality seems to me to come from Elizabeth Warren. You basically have Bernie's key agenda items but tackled in a more thoughtful way, especially with a mindset of how to pay for them.

 

[iuwclurker]

I don't think MtM is assuming anything. I read him arguing against you making an assumption.

It's very difficult to assess electability, and nonexperts are lousy at it. We mostly think candidates are "electable" if they look and think like we do, which as a practical matter tends to favor white men (like Biden).

If Democrats had turned out for Hillary like they did for Obama, Trump wouldn't be President, and those who stayed home were disproportionately African-American. I don't think Democrats would be wise to take their core constituencies for granted. And I'm wary of political prognosticators who say that Democrats' surest path to success lies in attracting votes from the socially liberal/fiscally conservative voters who comprise the least populated political territory in American politics.

It's still way early. Lots of Democrats still have no idea who most of the candidates are. These are among the reasons why I'm still deep in wait-and-see mode. And I'm not assuming anything.

Call MtM's statement an assumption, a hypothesis, a conditional, a possibility, or whatever you want but he wrote:

If those 4 in 5 millennials who do not think us Boomers look out for their generation see no reason to vote Joe Boomer in 2020, it is very bad for the D Party.

That's what I was referencing. Whether MtM entertains that possibility with any weight I don't know but it's surely been thrown around here with some weight.

I understand your wait-and-see point. Since we can't fast forward to the election, we're kind of stuck in the now, so I'm just hashing out my ideas, not really trying to predict anything. One point I will make about your post, though. I find any reference to the 2016 dubious at best because if any portion of liberals abstain as much as they did with Hillary then the Democrats are in hopeless territory. You can call it a prediction but I just don't see that happening.

Another point I'd to make is that while prognostications are relatively pointless at this point, campaigning is not. I'm not really in the prognostication game, I'm in the strategizing game (as a distant spectator of course). So I look at how Democrats can broaden the tent to maximize the chances of getting 60 Senate seats, the highest significant goal for 2020. And yes, I'll admit that I'm an optimist. I think a landslide election could conceivably gain all 60 seats. Remember pundits saw the House as out of reach for 2018 until Trump managed to mangle his way through his first two years.

So you can wait and see. Meanwhile, I'll speculate and strategize. I'm all for pushing the American identity. I think that's the fastest way to 60, in 2020, 2022, or whenever.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

My perspective was altered a bit by spending most of this summer with my very politically active daughter, who graduated from Columbia in May and who just started a 1 year internship / job this week.

She talked about apathy in young voters, and the need to be truly inspired to fight that apathy. I don't think Biden inspires anybody. The best combination of inspiration, intelligence, toughness, and get-it-done mentality seems to me to come from Elizabeth Warren. You basically have Bernie's key agenda items but tackled in a more thoughtful way, especially with a mindset of how to pay for them.

I have been trying to come up with a place to interject this article that won't completely alienate our conservatives. This may be the place.

The idea is that conservative may be the default position for people politically. That is tested through experiments such as demanding an immediate answer before a lot of thought can be given. In that situation, people reply conservatively.

Biden is our old comfortable pair of slippers. Not knowing anything else about the other candidates, we know we can feel warm and safe around Biden because he has been around for a long time (for longer time than millions of voters have been alive). He is in that regard the conservative choice (politically and just in being the old safe choice).

Everyone may love their old comfy slippers, but they are also not inspirational. That is where Biden sits.

Warren, being further left, has that ability somewhat more in that she isn't just the safe choice. But the question is how much has the Native American flap impacted her. Bernie of course is the guy yelling to get off his lawn. Of the front runners, Warren has the most likely "it" factor if her brand hasn't been tarnished. And of course, we don't know how she plays on Main Street.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Call MtM's statement an assumption, a hypothesis, a conditional, a possibility, or whatever you want but he wrote:That's what I was referencing. Whether MtM entertains that possibility with any weight I don't know but it's surely been thrown around here with some weight.

I understand your wait-and-see point. Since we can't fast forward to the election, we're kind of stuck in the now, so I'm just hashing out my ideas, not really trying to predict anything. One point I will make about your post, though. I find any reference to the 2016 dubious at best because if any portion of liberals abstain as much as they did with Hillary then the Democrats are in hopeless territory. You can call it a prediction but I just don't see that happening.

Another point I'd to make is that while prognostications are relatively pointless at this point, campaigning is not. I'm not really in the prognostication game, I'm in the strategizing game (as a distant spectator of course). So I look at how Democrats can broaden the tent to maximize the chances of getting 60 Senate seats, the highest significant goal for 2020. And yes, I'll admit that I'm an optimist. I think a landslide election could conceivably gain all 60 seats. Remember pundits saw the House as out of reach for 2018 until Trump managed to mangle his way through his first two years.

So you can wait and see. Meanwhile, I'll speculate and strategize. I'm all for pushing the American identity. I think that's the fastest way to 60, in 2020, 2022, or whenever.

The poll suggests any Boomer has headwinds. How would you characterize the wording of less than 20% of youth believe Boomers "look out for their generation"?

If you believe the Dems can win 60 you must be already spending your powerball winnings. Look at this chart. to get to 60, the Dems must have Jones win, all other Dems win, and win all states where the Republican lean is +23.3 and below. Win ALL states where the lean is +23.3 and below. If those 15 states were 50-50 tossups, sit and flip a coin until you come up with 15 heads in a row and get back to me on how long it took. But they aren't even 50-50. There is no math to 60 in 2020. Especially because there are a decent number of people like 20 and Aloha here who are never Trump but will certainly vote GOP down ticket (if for no other reason than to make sure there is a check on Biden or whomever).

 

[hoosboot]

Let me give an example, pronouns. A couple friends were recently freaking out at people using they/their instead of he/she. I was surprised at the animosity and their insistence that he/she was grammatically correct.

From my view, they are just anti change. That isn't how webdid it in my day should not be our excuse to avoid moving into modern times.

Things have changed, Biden's bragging about working with racists is an example. You and I may well see that different than those under 30.

It's a good thing that your friends aren't running for President. They'd definitely lose everyone with pronouns as their top issue.

 

[hoosboot]

I have been trying to come up with a place to interject this article that won't completely alienate our conservatives. This may be the place.

The idea is that conservative may be the default position for people politically. That is tested through experiments such as demanding an immediate answer before a lot of thought can be given. In that situation, people reply conservatively.

Biden is our old comfortable pair of slippers. Not knowing anything else about the other candidates, we know we can feel warm and safe around Biden because he has been around for a long time (for longer time than millions of voters have been alive). He is in that regard the conservative choice (politically and just in being the old safe choice).

Everyone may love their old comfy slippers, but they are also not inspirational. That is where Biden sits.

Warren, being further left, has that ability somewhat more in that she isn't just the safe choice. But the question is how much has the Native American flap impacted her. Bernie of course is the guy yelling to get off his lawn. Of the front runners, Warren has the most likely "it" factor if her brand hasn't been tarnished. And of course, we don't know how she plays on Main Street.

Unfortunately, I think we know how Warren plays on Main Street. Hopefully she can do something dramatic to change that, but she'd be facing stiff headwinds if it were only New England liberal that she was trying to change. She's effin' brilliant. I wish that was something the electorate appreciated more.

 

[iuwclurker]

The poll suggests any Boomer has headwinds. How would you characterize the wording of less than 20% of youth believe Boomers "look out for their generation"?

I get it. Were they asked if Republican Boomers care more?

If you believe the Dems can win 60 you must be already spending your powerball winnings. Look at this chart. to get to 60, the Dems must have Jones win, all other Dems win, and win all states where the Republican lean is +23.3 and below. Win ALL states where the lean is +23.3 and below. If those 15 states were 50-50 tossups, sit and flip a coin until you come up with 15 heads in a row and get back to me on how long it took. But they aren't even 50-50. There is no math to 60 in 2020. Especially because there are a decent number of people like 20 and Aloha here who are never Trump but will certainly vote GOP down ticket (if for no other reason than to make sure there is a check on Biden or whomever).

Well, for starters, I've already seen that math and I don't "believe" it can happen. Biden isn't a generational political force as Obama was and Obama got a tenuous, blue-dog 60 before the 2010 gerrymandering with a better landscape to win the 60 in. Nor are there any other generational forces. We knew Obama could bring it from his 2004 Convention speech. None of the current candidates have shown us that yet, right?

So my hope has to fall back on my basic belief that 80+% of Americans shouldn't vote Republican because they're not voting for their best interests. That 80% could get behind a moderate Democrat in the right political context. There's no way that 80% would ever get behind a Warren or a Sanders in any conceivable current climate.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Unfortunately, I think we know how Warren plays on Main Street.

I agree with that. And if someone were here touting Warren as the vastly superior choice and we are all idiots for not seeing that, I would more enthusiastically point that out. I am by nature a skeptic. The race is very early, none of these people have done anything to deserve being lauded yet.

I have a lot of friends loving Mayor Pete, and I do like him. I like that he is very smart, I want a president that is more often than not the smartest person in the room. At the same time, he comes from a state he cannot carry. He is gay and frankly I question how that will play on Main Street in PA, OH, MI, WI. And his speaking style isn't nearly as effective as his intellect, he doesn't move crowds YET the way an Obama or Clinton did. So if one of my friends were here touting Pete, I'd be skeptical there as well.

I'm not one that likes to swing at the first pitch unless it is a fastball exactly where I like it. Anything else and I can wait on pitch #2.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I get it. Were they asked if Republican Boomers care more?

the question is, if you believe the election is between two people who don't give a damn about you, do you bother to go vote?

 

[iuwclurker]

the question is, if you believe the election is between two people who don't give a damn about you, do you bother to go vote?

no, you blow your brains out

(ask a stupid question...)

Note that in my post above, I carefully and deliberately chose the word interested voters. Interested voters can discern whether a Democratic boomer cares more than a Republican boomer.

 

[hoosboot]

I agree with that. And if someone were here touting Warren as the vastly superior choice and we are all idiots for not seeing that, I would more enthusiastically point that out. I am by nature a skeptic. The race is very early, none of these people have done anything to deserve being lauded yet.

I have a lot of friends loving Mayor Pete, and I do like him. I like that he is very smart, I want a president that is more often than not the smartest person in the room. At the same time, he comes from a state he cannot carry. He is gay and frankly I question how that will play on Main Street in PA, OH, MI, WI. And his speaking style isn't nearly as effective as his intellect, he doesn't move crowds YET the way an Obama or Clinton did. So if one of my friends were here touting Pete, I'd be skeptical there as well.

I'm not one that likes to swing at the first pitch unless it is a fastball exactly where I like it. Anything else and I can wait on pitch #2.

I hear you. I hope Warren can do something dramatic to change the narrative around her. And I hope Mayor Pete continues to grow and develop. He is so strikingly different from what we've come to expect from candidates.

You totally draw me in with the baseball analogy. I understand that philosophy, but you're constantly starting down 0-1 and, unless the pitcher makes a mistake, that pitch you took is likely to be the most hitable one you'll see. After I got ahead, you probably wouldn't see another fastball from me.

 

[iuwclurker]

You totally draw me in with the baseball analogy. I understand that philosophy, but you're constantly starting down 0-1 and, unless the pitcher makes a mistake, that pitch you took is likely to be the most hitable one you'll see. After I got ahead, you probably wouldn't see another fastball from me.

What are Republicans supposed to swing at when Trump alternates curveballs in the ground and fastballs straight at your head?

 

[toastedbread]

If Democrats had turned out for Hillary like they did for Obama, Trump wouldn't be President, and those who stayed home were disproportionately African-American. I don't think Democrats would be wise to take their core constituencies for granted.

isnt bidens most signifcant support in the early polls from african americans?

My perspective was altered a bit by spending most of this summer with my very politically active daughter, who graduated from Columbia in May and who just started a 1 year internship / job this week.

She talked about apathy in young voters, and the need to be truly inspired to fight that apathy. I don't think Biden inspires anybody. The best combination of inspiration, intelligence, toughness, and get-it-done mentality seems to me to come from Elizabeth Warren. You basically have Bernie's key agenda items but tackled in a more thoughtful way, especially with a mindset of how to pay for them.

Where is the evidence that young people will turn out to vote? The Warren voters are the stuffy intellectuals who were already well informed and motivated. Betting on young people to turn out is a bad bet. Plus, which states are they concentrated in? We need to win the midwest.

I've recently done some medicaid expansion canvassing in one of the most Republican states in the entire country. You'd be shocked by who is willing to sign the petition. The democrats need to stick to healthcare, which was a winning formula for them in 2018. You will peel off Trump voters with healthcare.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I get it. Were they asked if Republican Boomers care more?

the question is, if you believe the election is between two people who don't give a damn about you, do you bother to go vote?

Podcast listening today said the same thing. Trump and everyone surrounding him know he’s a pos. His job is to convince you everyone else is too. And then why vote?

 

[toastedbread]

Podcast listening today said the same thing. Trump and everyone surrounding him know he’s a pos. His job is to convince you everyone else is too. And then why vote?

That's why the Ds should stick to the issues, namely healthcare and jobs. Ignore Trump. Dont get in the mud with the pig. Let him shed whatever minor support he will shed due to self implosion. You win back some Trump voters because they are afraid they will lose their healtchare.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That's why the Ds should stick to the issues, namely healthcare and jobs. Ignore Trump. Dont get in the mud with the pig. Let him shed whatever minor support he will shed due to self implosion. You win back some Trump voters because they are afraid they will lose their healtchare.

I do think this is where MFA is a problem. I get why Warren et al say that private insurance must be eliminated, if the only people on MFA are poor and sick the program will skew expensive. But it will cost the Democrats voters they will struggle to replace (they can replace them, but it will be a fight). So immediately off-hand the public option sounds better, let people self-select Medicare. More so, let employers self-select it. But eventually it may be necessary to bring in others, it is hard to say. The healthcare debate is solidly pro-Democratic, ride that horse until it drops.

We hear how far left the Dems are, an example of how they might not be are nuclear power plants. 9 Dems have expressed an opinion, 3 favor shutting down nuclear power and 6 support nuclear power. Only one candidate (candidate love) actually supports reparations. The rest say "study it" which is no commitment really at all. Here are all the policies so far.

 

[iuwclurker]

Podcast listening today said the same thing. Trump and everyone surrounding him know he’s a pos. His job is to convince you everyone else is too. And then why vote?

His Evangelical base might erode if some PAC put out ads with Trump using "gaddam." They've been forgiving about all sorts of things but really don't like him taking the Lord's name in vain.

 

[iuwclurker]

I do think this is where MFA is a problem. I get why Warren et al say that private insurance must be eliminated, if the only people on MFA are poor and sick the program will skew expensive. But it will cost the Democrats voters they will struggle to replace (they can replace them, but it will be a fight). So immediately off-hand the public option sounds better, let people self-select Medicare. More so, let employers self-select it. But eventually it may be necessary to bring in others, it is hard to say. The healthcare debate is solidly pro-Democratic, ride that horse until it drops.

We hear how far left the Dems are, an example of how they might not be are nuclear power plants. 9 Dems have expressed an opinion, 3 favor shutting down nuclear power and 6 support nuclear power. Only one candidate (candidate love) actually supports reparations. The rest say "study it" which is no commitment really at all. Here are all the policies so far.

From the Voter Study Group. People favor a public option:

According to recent polls, most Americans also believe that the government has a moral duty to provide all citizens with health care. A full 70 percent approve of a public option, which would allow all Americans to buy into Medicare. This would give universal or near-universal health coverage to Americans, and amount to a massive wealth transfer from rich to poor.​

but don't necessarily want to lose their current insurance plan (my emphasis):

Indeed, political scientists have also found that most voters are highly loss-averse and deeply sensitive to perceived threats to their material standing. So while they may have only vague opinions on issues that are abstract and feel distant from their daily lives, they are also likely to react strongly when they fear that they may lose a concrete benefit to which they have long been accustomed. This makes it all the more concerning that leading Democratic contenders, including Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and (at various instances) Senator Kamala Harris, have endorsed abolishing private health insurance.​