Since I'm picking on Democratic presidential candidates . . .

[Rockfish1]

I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, but it's my sense that he's the sort of Democrat who isn't quite conservative enough to win statewide in Texas. It's also my sense that he's a lifelong occupant of that sparsely populated lower-right quadrant where all the voters aren't. This recent report encourages me in those views:

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke campaigned during his 2012 congressional race on a platform that called for "significant" spending cuts and tax increases to balance the federal budget, along with possibly changing Social Security to address the United States' "extravagant government" and "out of control" debt.

. . . The deficit and debt became a lightning rod in the race in which O'Rourke, who had just left the El Paso city council, unseated eight-term incumbent Rep. Silvestre Reyes in the Democratic primary for Texas's 16th district. Republicans, who controlled the House of Representatives at the time in the summer of 2011, had demanded a deficit reduction plan from then-President Barack Obama in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.
​

The report goes on to explain that O'Rourke beat the eight-term Democratic incumbent by running to his right, arguing for big spending cuts including entitlement "reforms".

I understand why an ambitious Texas Democrat might have echoed Republicans by calling for painful austerity at a time when it could have throttled our recovery. It was bad and wrong, but it was also Texas.

But now we're way past Texas. And I completely don't get the enthusiasm Beto seems to arouse. I wonder if the enthusiasm will last.

 

[Thyrsis]

I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, but it's my sense that he's the sort of Democrat who isn't quite conservative enough to win statewide in Texas. It's also my sense that he's a lifelong occupant of that sparsely populated lower-right quadrant where all the voters aren't. This recent report encourages me in those views:

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke campaigned during his 2012 congressional race on a platform that called for "significant" spending cuts and tax increases to balance the federal budget, along with possibly changing Social Security to address the United States' "extravagant government" and "out of control" debt.

. . . The deficit and debt became a lightning rod in the race in which O'Rourke, who had just left the El Paso city council, unseated eight-term incumbent Rep. Silvestre Reyes in the Democratic primary for Texas's 16th district. Republicans, who controlled the House of Representatives at the time in the summer of 2011, had demanded a deficit reduction plan from then-President Barack Obama in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.
​

The report goes on to explain that O'Rourke beat the eight-term Democratic incumbent by running to his right, arguing for big spending cuts including entitlement "reforms".

I understand why an ambitious Texas Democrat might have echoed Republicans by calling for painful austerity at a time when it could have throttled our recovery. It was bad and wrong, but it was also Texas.

But now we're way past Texas. And I completely don't get the enthusiasm Beto seems to arouse. I wonder if the enthusiasm will last.

https://politics.theonion.com/beto-o-rourke-announces-he-starting-obama-cover-campaig-1833305932

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, but it's my sense that he's the sort of Democrat who isn't quite conservative enough to win statewide in Texas. It's also my sense that he's a lifelong occupant of that sparsely populated lower-right quadrant where all the voters aren't. This recent report encourages me in those views:

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke campaigned during his 2012 congressional race on a platform that called for "significant" spending cuts and tax increases to balance the federal budget, along with possibly changing Social Security to address the United States' "extravagant government" and "out of control" debt.

. . . The deficit and debt became a lightning rod in the race in which O'Rourke, who had just left the El Paso city council, unseated eight-term incumbent Rep. Silvestre Reyes in the Democratic primary for Texas's 16th district. Republicans, who controlled the House of Representatives at the time in the summer of 2011, had demanded a deficit reduction plan from then-President Barack Obama in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.
​

The report goes on to explain that O'Rourke beat the eight-term Democratic incumbent by running to his right, arguing for big spending cuts including entitlement "reforms".

I understand why an ambitious Texas Democrat might have echoed Republicans by calling for painful austerity at a time when it could have throttled our recovery. It was bad and wrong, but it was also Texas.

But now we're way past Texas. And I completely don't get the enthusiasm Beto seems to arouse. I wonder if the enthusiasm will last.

I know you think it's too early for this, but if you're going to be a negative nancy over all the candidates, eventually you're going to need to name one you actually think would be a good idea.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I do not recall who it was on This Week on Sunday that spoke of all the substantive points Mayor Pete is bringing up out on the trail, and contrasted that with Beto who really isn't bringing up ideas.

That said, their point was tremendously weakened when Chris Christie agreed.

Beto has a charisma, and for a country that still overvalues Kennedy, I think that charisma can go a long way. Yes, I would vote for anyone over Trump. But Beto would be toward the bottom of that list. Now more than ever we need someone willing, no wanting, to get deep into the policy weeds.

 

[Thyrsis]

I know you think it's too early for this, but if you're going to be a negative nancy over all the candidates, eventually you're going to need to name one you actually think would be a good idea.

Not really because it just doesn’t matter who people we can’t control select.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I do not recall who it was on This Week on Sunday that spoke of all the substantive points Mayor Pete is bringing up out on the trail, and contrasted that with Beto who really isn't bringing up ideas.

That said, their point was tremendously weakened when Chris Christie agreed.

Beto has a charisma, and for a country that still overvalues Kennedy, I think that charisma can go a long way. Yes, I would vote for anyone over Trump. But Beto would be toward the bottom of that list. Now more than ever we need someone willing, no wanting, to get deep into the policy weeds.

Well and Warren is actually coming out with all kinds of policy and she is gaining hardly any traction. Mayor Pete is getting an awful lot of good publicity and word of mouth. It’s probably just with political geeks though. My guess is Joe Schmoe doesn’t know who he is yet.

 

[Morrison]

I do not recall who it was on This Week on Sunday that spoke of all the substantive points Mayor Pete is bringing up out on the trail, and contrasted that with Beto who really isn't bringing up ideas.

That said, their point was tremendously weakened when Chris Christie agreed.

Beto has a charisma, and for a country that still overvalues Kennedy, I think that charisma can go a long way. Yes, I would vote for anyone over Trump. But Beto would be toward the bottom of that list. Now more than ever we need someone willing, no wanting, to get deep into the policy weeds.

I have not been impressed with Beto’s roll out. He seems to be running on restoring our democratic values, which is a noble endeavor, but he seems like a light weight that is caught off guard by softball questions. He’s a major gaffe waiting to happen. If his role ends up being the candidate that peels off support for Sanders, I suppose he will have been useful.

So far, I’m most impressed with Harris, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand (She needs to stop trying so hard though. She comes across as kind of desperate). I haven’t seen Booker lately, and Hickenlooper hasn’t really ramped up yet.

 

[hoosboot]

I have not been impressed with Beto’s roll out. He seems to be running on restoring our democratic values, which is a noble endeavor, but he seems like a light weight that is caught off guard by softball questions. He’s a major gaffe waiting to happen. If his role ends up being the candidate that peels off support for Sanders, I suppose he will have been useful.

So far, I’m most impressed with Harris, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand (She needs to stop trying so hard though. She comes across as kind of desperate). I haven’t seen Booker lately, and Hickenlooper hasn’t really ramped up yet.

I like those last 5 quite a bit with Gillibrand probably bringing up the rear of that pack. I don't get the Beto thing so much. Interesting guy, but seems like he should be closer to Mayor Pete than the top of the pack.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I have not been impressed with Beto’s roll out. He seems to be running on restoring our democratic values, which is a noble endeavor, but he seems like a light weight that is caught off guard by softball questions. He’s a major gaffe waiting to happen. If his role ends up being the candidate that peels off support for Sanders, I suppose he will have been useful.

So far, I’m most impressed with Harris, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand (She needs to stop trying so hard though. She comes across as kind of desperate). I haven’t seen Booker lately, and Hickenlooper hasn’t really ramped up yet.

Have you seen Mayor Pete? I know he’s a long shot , but he’s been the most impressive to me, by far. The anti Trump.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Have you seen Mayor Pete? I know he’s a long shot , but he’s been the most impressive to me, by far. The anti Trump.

Mayor Pete may be the smartest man running. I give him approximately zero chance, but he'd probably be an excellent president.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Have you seen Mayor Pete? I know he’s a long shot , but he’s been the most impressive to me, by far. The anti Trump.

Mayor Pete may be the smartest man running. I give him approximately zero chance, but he'd probably be an excellent president.

My favorite was him learning Norwegian in order to read a book by an author he liked. Boggles my mind. I think he has a bright future. Reminds me a bit of Brown in that he is winning in a conservative Indiana town and very popular. I’ve heard of him a bit before from friends living in South Bend. So impressive.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Mayor Pete may be the smartest man running. I give him approximately zero chance, but he'd probably be an excellent president.

Last weekend I decided to watch a couple West Wings. When I think of that show, I always wonder why so many Americans are always so turned off by the smartest person in the room.

Mayor Pete is quickly becoming my pick for that specific reason. Now I do not believe I have ever supported a Democrat who has gone on to win so your zero chance stands.

 

[Lucy01]

Last weekend I decided to watch a couple West Wings. When I think of that show, I always wonder why so many Americans are always so turned off by the smartest person in the room.

Mayor Pete is quickly becoming my pick for that specific reason. Now I do not believe I have ever supported a Democrat who has gone on to win so your zero chance stands.

Don’t choose Beto, he has history of drunk driving and burglary!

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I have not been impressed with Beto’s roll out. He seems to be running on restoring our democratic values, which is a noble endeavor, but he seems like a light weight that is caught off guard by softball questions. He’s a major gaffe waiting to happen. If his role ends up being the candidate that peels off support for Sanders, I suppose he will have been useful.

So far, I’m most impressed with Harris, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand (She needs to stop trying so hard though. She comes across as kind of desperate). I haven’t seen Booker lately, and Hickenlooper hasn’t really ramped up yet.

Harris has the clear advantage, she just has to play error free ball. The rest are going to have to swing for the fences at some point. California moving up changes the dynamics so much. If she can just get top three in Iowa and/or NH, she is in great shape. It will be made even better by the oddity of voting by mail. I doubt she's second in the minds of many in California, she's either first or toward the bottom in the minds of individual voters. California allows voting by mail. A lot of people will vote before California election day and some of those votes will be for candidates who will have dropped out before election day. So the anti-Harris vote will be even more fractured. Too bad for her that California stopped being winner-take-all long ago. Of that second tier candidates (not named Warren, Sanders, or Biden), I think she has the inside lane. And each of those first tier candidates has the same weakness, age. I don't think a lot of people will tell a pollster they won't vote for their great-grandparent, but they won't.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

My favorite was him learning Norwegian in order to read a book by an author he liked. Boggles my mind. I think he has a bright future. Reminds me a bit of Brown in that he is winning in a conservative Indiana town and very popular. I’ve heard of him a bit before from friends living in South Bend. So impressive.

Yes that was an incredible insight into his intellect. It makes me feel so stupid by contrast. I well remember the difficulty I had years ago trying to figure out my way around Oslo and not having a single clue about Norweigian.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Mayor Pete may be the smartest man running. I give him approximately zero chance, but he'd probably be an excellent president.

Last weekend I decided to watch a couple West Wings. When I think of that show, I always wonder why so many Americans are always so turned off by the smartest person in the room.

Mayor Pete is quickly becoming my pick for that specific reason. Now I do not believe I have ever supported a Democrat who has gone on to win so your zero chance stands.

I’m not sure when it happened, but to a large group of people, being smart equals being an “elite”. From what I’ve seen so far, Mayor Pete combines a real like ability factor to that intellect, not a snobbish thing. Probably the Midwest .

 

[Fro]

I do not recall who it was on This Week on Sunday that spoke of all the substantive points Mayor Pete is bringing up out on the trail, and contrasted that with Beto who really isn't bringing up ideas.

That said, their point was tremendously weakened when Chris Christie agreed.

Beto has a charisma, and for a country that still overvalues Kennedy, I think that charisma can go a long way. Yes, I would vote for anyone over Trump. But Beto would be toward the bottom of that list. Now more than ever we need someone willing, no wanting, to get deep into the policy weeds.

It's odd, because I've watched both of them and donated a bit to Pete to help get him in the debates, and I don't see a lot of difference as far as actual policy details goes. There's no doubt Buttigieg comes across as super intelligent (and certainly is) but his impressive answers are pivoting to other prepared points about AI or data security. That may change once they both build out policy platforms.

The narrative that O'Rourke hasn't taken policy positions is wrong.

Beto's real strengths over the field are his charisma, ability to seem authentic, tireless campaigner (he's visiting every county in New Hampshire over the next 2 days), and ability to get media attention. He might be uniquely able to beat Trump at that game.

I’m not sure when it happened, but to a large group of people, being smart equals being an “elite”. From what I’ve seen so far, Mayor Pete combines a real like ability factor to that intellect, not a snobbish thing. Probably the Midwest .

I think it was Buttigieg who credited his military service for some of that, but I'm sure being from the Midwest is a large part of it..

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I’m not sure when it happened, but to a large group of people, being smart equals being an “elite”. From what I’ve seen so far, Mayor Pete combines a real like ability factor to that intellect, not a snobbish thing. Probably the Midwest .

I think being an intellectual and being an elite kinda go hand in hand. Being smart is different and not tethered to elites. I think Hickenlooper is very very smart. He is by no means an intellectual.

I watched Buttigieg on TV Sunday, maybe it was the format, but I wasn’t as impressed as I would like to have been. He retreated to well-worn party talking points, as if that is what he needed to do to get traction.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It's odd, because I've watched both of them and donated a bit to Pete to help get him in the debates, and I don't see a lot of difference as far as actual policy details goes. There's no doubt Buttigieg comes across as super intelligent (and certainly is) but his impressive answers are pivoting to other prepared points about AI or data security. That may change once they both build out policy platforms.

The narrative that O'Rourke hasn't taken policy positions is wrong.

Beto's real strengths over the field are his charisma, ability to seem authentic, tireless campaigner (he's visiting every county in New Hampshire over the next 2 days), and ability to get media attention. He might be uniquely able to beat Trump at that game.



I think it was Buttigieg who credited his military service for some of that, but I'm sure being from the Midwest is a large part of it..

I think Beto has been hamstrung by some of his answers (granted that link is cillizza so take it with a shaker of salt). Beto has had a habit of not answering questions but asking the crowd what they would do. He touches on that in the interview Cillizza mentions. that isn't particularly showing leadership. I get the idea of building a consensus, it would just be nice to push for something as part of that. Somewhere it reminds me of Groucho (which normally is good but not here) where Groucho said "Those are my principles and if you don't like them, well I have others". I can't recall the person CNN interviewed that reported on the Senate race and suggested Beto admitted to honing in on issues as the campaign progressed, at the beginning he really didn't have many. I liked Obama, I'm just not sure after Trump I want the next Dem to always be triangulating.

 

[hoosboot]

I think Beto has been hamstrung by some of his answers (granted that link is cillizza so take it with a shaker of salt). Beto has had a habit of not answering questions but asking the crowd what they would do. He touches on that in the interview Cillizza mentions. that isn't particularly showing leadership. I get the idea of building a consensus, it would just be nice to push for something as part of that. Somewhere it reminds me of Groucho (which normally is good but not here) where Groucho said "Those are my principles and if you don't like them, well I have others". I can't recall the person CNN interviewed that reported on the Senate race and suggested Beto admitted to honing in on issues as the campaign progressed, at the beginning he really didn't have many. I liked Obama, I'm just not sure after Trump I want the next Dem to always be triangulating.

I was at the park one day and saw a guy coaching about 15 or 16 8-year olds. As he was talking to them, one of the kids would pop up with something completely unrelated (as 8-year olds do), but he would just make eye contact and say a couple of words that got the kids back on point to what he was teaching them. It was brilliance, so I asked him after his practice ended how he was able to manage that huge group of childish energy so masterfully. Turns out that he was a former college QB who had a masters in child psychology and he told me that what he said whenever one of those kids interrupted was "I hear you. Let's talk about that after." He explained that one of the most important lessons he had learned in his studies is that the most effective way to earn someone's respect is to show them that you acknowledge and hear them.

We're a nation of children and when Beto asks a crowd what they think, he's showing them that he hears them and he sees them. It's something Reagan, Clinton, GWB, and Obama all did in their different ways and I suspect that Beto's ability to acknowledge the audience (combined with his impressive effort in meeting many audiences) drives a lot of the enthusiasm around him.

 

[Morrison]

Have you seen Mayor Pete? I know he’s a long shot , but he’s been the most impressive to me, by far. The anti Trump.

I saw some of his town hall. Impressive guy, but like someone said on here, he probably needs to be Secretary of Something Important in the next Democrat Administration before being taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

 

[Lucy01]

I don’t like this guy or his unholy lifestyle!

 

[Capitol Hoosier]

I don’t like this guy or his unholy lifestyle!

You’re talking about Trump, right?

 

[Lucy01]

You’re talking about Trump, right?

No,I am talking about Peter Buttinger. The mayor of South Bend.
Don’t insult our great President.

 

[IUINSB]

My favorite was him learning Norwegian in order to read a book by an author he liked. Boggles my mind. I think he has a bright future. Reminds me a bit of Brown in that he is winning in a conservative Indiana town and very popular. I’ve heard of him a bit before from friends living in South Bend. So impressive.

Nit picking. South Bend is not a conservative city. Dem mayors since 1972. Compared to most of Indiana SB is closer to San Francisco.

 

[zeke4ahs]

My favorite was him learning Norwegian in order to read a book by an author he liked. Boggles my mind. I think he has a bright future. Reminds me a bit of Brown in that he is winning in a conservative Indiana town and very popular. I’ve heard of him a bit before from friends living in South Bend. So impressive.

Nit picking. South Bend is not a conservative city. Dem mayors since 1972. Compared to most of Indiana SB is closer to San Francisco.

I didn’t realize that. Interesting. Guess I just assumed.

 

[Fro]

I think Beto has been hamstrung by some of his answers (granted that link is cillizza so take it with a shaker of salt). Beto has had a habit of not answering questions but asking the crowd what they would do. He touches on that in the interview Cillizza mentions. that isn't particularly showing leadership. I get the idea of building a consensus, it would just be nice to push for something as part of that. Somewhere it reminds me of Groucho (which normally is good but not here) where Groucho said "Those are my principles and if you don't like them, well I have others". I can't recall the person CNN interviewed that reported on the Senate race and suggested Beto admitted to honing in on issues as the campaign progressed, at the beginning he really didn't have many. I liked Obama, I'm just not sure after Trump I want the next Dem to always be triangulating.

Beto's current campaign swing (through his March 30th kickoff in El Paso) is supposed to be more of a meeting people/listening thing. If he's still doing that in the Fall I'll be criticizing that, but he doesn't even have a campaign manager at the moment.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

No,I am talking about Peter Buttinger. The mayor of South Bend.
Don’t insult our great President.

So banging porn stars on the side and paying them to shut up so you can get elected isn't unholy enough for you then.

 

[iubud]

I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, but it's my sense that he's the sort of Democrat who isn't quite conservative enough to win statewide in Texas. It's also my sense that he's a lifelong occupant of that sparsely populated lower-right quadrant where all the voters aren't. This recent report encourages me in those views:

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke campaigned during his 2012 congressional race on a platform that called for "significant" spending cuts and tax increases to balance the federal budget, along with possibly changing Social Security to address the United States' "extravagant government" and "out of control" debt.

. . . The deficit and debt became a lightning rod in the race in which O'Rourke, who had just left the El Paso city council, unseated eight-term incumbent Rep. Silvestre Reyes in the Democratic primary for Texas's 16th district. Republicans, who controlled the House of Representatives at the time in the summer of 2011, had demanded a deficit reduction plan from then-President Barack Obama in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.
​

The report goes on to explain that O'Rourke beat the eight-term Democratic incumbent by running to his right, arguing for big spending cuts including entitlement "reforms".

I understand why an ambitious Texas Democrat might have echoed Republicans by calling for painful austerity at a time when it could have throttled our recovery. It was bad and wrong, but it was also Texas.

But now we're way past Texas. And I completely don't get the enthusiasm Beto seems to arouse. I wonder if the enthusiasm will last.

Democrats need to decide if racing to the left or defeating Trump is more important in 2020. It would be a slam dunk victory if Joe Manchin were to run. I find Manchin to be one of the least divisive and party oriented Senators in office. His voting record more often reflects the people he represents and not what his party wants.

Evan Bayh is another Democrat that could be President.

Candidates that approve of AOC's green deal, Medicare for all, free college education for all, eliminating the electoral college, 16 year old voting, and changes to SCOTUS have zero chance of winning.

It should be Biden vs. Trump. Who Biden chooses as a running mate and which of those items above he supports will determine if he can win.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Democrats need to decide if racing to the left or defeating Trump is more important in 2020. It would be a slam dunk victory if Joe Manchin were to run. I find Manchin to be one of the least divisive and party oriented Senators in office. His voting record more often reflects the people he represents and not what his party wants.

Evan Bayh is another Democrat that could be President.

Candidates that approve of AOC's green deal, Medicare for all, free college education for all, eliminating the electoral college, 16 year old voting, and changes to SCOTUS have zero chance of winning.

It should be Biden vs. Trump. Who Biden chooses as a running mate and which of those items above he supports will determine if he can win.

LOL

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Democrats need to decide if racing to the left or defeating Trump is more important in 2020. It would be a slam dunk victory if Joe Manchin were to run. I find Manchin to be one of the least divisive and party oriented Senators in office. His voting record more often reflects the people he represents and not what his party wants.

Evan Bayh is another Democrat that could be President.

Candidates that approve of AOC's green deal, Medicare for all, free college education for all, eliminating the electoral college, 16 year old voting, and changes to SCOTUS have zero chance of winning.

It should be Biden vs. Trump. Who Biden chooses as a running mate and which of those items above he supports will determine if he can win.

An interesting discussion has developed in several threads about the need for the Democratic Party to run someone as conservative (moderate) as they possibly can. Should the Democratic Party respond to the GOP moving ever rightward by also moving right?

Evan Bayh couldn't beat a weak candidate in Indiana, I don't know how he would win anywhere else.

 

[mashnut]

Notice that the party of personal responsibility won’t take ownership over their own candidate, so they’re asking the Democrat party to run a Republican for them.

 

[iubud]

LOL

It is a childish response on a forum like this, but go ahead and laugh. Hillary was a bad candidate. We will see if the Democrats have learned anything from that election.

 

[iubud]

An interesting discussion has developed in several threads about the need for the Democratic Party to run someone as conservative (moderate) as they possibly can. Should the Democratic Party respond to the GOP moving ever rightward by also moving right?

Evan Bayh couldn't beat a weak candidate in Indiana, I don't know how he would win anywhere else.

Enough Republicans and Independents would respond to a moderate like Manchin to win easily. Bayh would do better nationally. He is moderate enough to be elected Governor and a Senator in Indiana.

Going further to the left is not a winning strategy. It solidifies a group they already have locked up, but it loses independents and crossover GOP voters that couldn't vote for Trump. Trump doesn't look as bad when too many Socialist ideas are put together. Democrats didn't lose in 2016 because Hillary wasn't liberal enough.

 

[hoosboot]

Democrats didn't lose in 2016 because Hillary wasn't liberal enough.

I think you'd get a strong argument from many Bernie backers against that assertion.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Enough Republicans and Independents would respond to a moderate like Manchin to win easily. Bayh would do better nationally. He is moderate enough to be elected Governor and a Senator in Indiana.

Going further to the left is not a winning strategy. It solidifies a group they already have locked up, but it loses independents and crossover GOP voters that couldn't vote for Trump. Trump doesn't look as bad when too many Socialist ideas are put together. Democrats didn't lose in 2016 because Hillary wasn't liberal enough.

I am not sure what the Democrats best strategy is, largely because strategy doesn't determine this. People tend to vote for the candidate they like. It might be ideas, it might be charisma, it might be home state. There isn't a bunch of Democrats sitting around deciding this based on a simple logic.

Given that, the idea that the Democrats should pick a moderate is reasonably moot. They will pick the candidate that a majority of them want in the White House for a variety of reasons. The moderate wing will have a vote, and with the expected 3.2 million candidates it may be a moderate can win as the progressives split the vote. Ot it might be no one wins until the convention, and there too a moderate might have advantages.

But what is tending to happen is that conservatives are arguing the Democrats should pick someone so moderate they could fit into the GOP. I'm not sure the Democratic base is going to want to do that.

For the record, I am not sure (if it was done by some fiat) the Democrats should pick a progressive. Yes, the argument is that is where the energy is, I get that. But at the same point the energy was with McGovern until it wasn't.

Those that vote in the Democratic primary will all decide who fits their criteria. My guess is it won't be the most moderate person unless a whole lot of disaffected Republicans cross over.

I recall suggesting the GOP should run Huntsman to get moderate Democrats to slide over, and the GOP completely ignored that advice (as did the vast majority of conservatives here). I don't know that a single conservative here thought Huntsman to be a good choice.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Enough Republicans and Independents would respond to a moderate like Manchin to win easily. Bayh would do better nationally. He is moderate enough to be elected Governor and a Senator in Indiana.

Going further to the left is not a winning strategy. It solidifies a group they already have locked up, but it loses independents and crossover GOP voters that couldn't vote for Trump. Trump doesn't look as bad when too many Socialist ideas are put together. Democrats didn't lose in 2016 because Hillary wasn't liberal enough.

In other words, you think the winning strategy is for the Democrats to appeal to you personally. I think that's nonsense. Democrats don't want your vote. They probably won't get it, anyway. If the Democrats did nominate Manchin, there's a better than 50% chance you'd walk into the voting booth, say "Yeah, but what about judges..." to yourself and vote for Trump. So get out of here with that. You want a reasonable conservative? Then nominate one. Meanwhile, the Democrats are going to nominate who they nominate, and they are going to try to win over the country to their ideas.

 

[zeke4ahs]

An interesting discussion has developed in several threads about the need for the Democratic Party to run someone as conservative (moderate) as they possibly can. Should the Democratic Party respond to the GOP moving ever rightward by also moving right?

Evan Bayh couldn't beat a weak candidate in Indiana, I don't know how he would win anywhere else.

Enough Republicans and Independents would respond to a moderate like Manchin to win easily. Bayh would do better nationally. He is moderate enough to be elected Governor and a Senator in Indiana.

Going further to the left is not a winning strategy. It solidifies a group they already have locked up, but it loses independents and crossover GOP voters that couldn't vote for Trump. Trump doesn't look as bad when too many Socialist ideas are put together. Democrats didn't lose in 2016 because Hillary wasn't liberal enough.

It also attracts new voters and energizes the base.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

@Rockfish1

He's baaaaaack....

https://politics.theonion.com/biden-pulls-off-dusty-tarp-covering-old-campaign-motorc-1833442728

 

[Rockfish1]

@Rockfish1

He's baaaaaack....

https://politics.theonion.com/biden-pulls-off-dusty-tarp-covering-old-campaign-motorc-1833442728

That’s awesome. No one knows Biden, in a sincerely funny way, like The Onion does.