Well I hope they don't concede the narrative and run to the middle. Run as far left as they can. That's how they will win.
Warren isn't actually all that leftist in historical context. She's basically Francis Perkins 2.0 It helps her that she panics all the right people because it's helluva thing to be the other person on stage saying "why are you picking on the billionaires?" Y'all don't even slightly recognize the power of her message with ordinary folks. When they see her and here from her the love her. And it's not even about the details of the plans. When it gets to the general you pivot away from the details and lean into "I'm fighting for your family against the corruption that has robbed you to enrich the top .1%" and that absolutely WILL play. GE voters are much much les conscious about the specific details of "how are you gonna do that?" - Trump got away with saying insanely ridiculous things about what he was gonna do and voters didn't punish him for it. It's about how yo make them FEEL. Biden, Like Hillary Clinton, won't make them FEEL anything, nor has any other Dem proven successful at doing that (save Bernie, who taps mostly into anger but it works for him). The only reason Dem power players are not flocking to Warren is because they recognize she actually means what she says and that's just as likely to upset their own apple cart, as that of the right wingers.
I would go so far as to say that it's a sure thing the Dems nominate a progressive IF no latter than April 1, whichever of them is clearly behind the other in delegate count drops out and endorses the other (assuming the two of them are not first and second at that point)
The media pundit class (the Chuck Todd Industrial Complex as it's been called. I've seen a couple of panel discussions basically drooling all over the desk at the thought of MB running) The former pol turned pundit caucus (think Joe Scarborough et al) The Billionaires who value access and power above almost anything else - it's not even about the taxes per se but about feeling like the most important men in the country The chronic hand wringer strategist class who spend all their time worrying the Dems are going to fuck it up so the give advice that usually ends up fulfilling their own predictions. All of them see the same weakness in Joe we all see, the same lack of qualifications in Pete we all see...and they all fear the loss of status and influence that would be theirs in a Warren Administration.
A. ridiculously high MoE B. deliberately weighted towards non-college voters C. stands in contrast to literally EVERY other poll looking at similar contests. D. a single poll which polling experts tell you should never be the basis for a conclusion (for example, ABC/WP published one literally the next day that had all the top 5 contenders over Trump by double figures - Warren by 15. Same folks citing the NYT poll as definitive could not be reached for comment E. Warren pref+Sanders pref (I.E. the total progressive choice) is within MoE even with the Biden+other centrists total so even that poll doesn't show a clear centrist advantage, only that the progressive lane is split by two strong candidates while the Moderate lane has a clear leader and a bunch of scrubs.
Really too late for that, too many ballot access issues to be sensible unless you're just trying to fuck things up (i.e. Gabbard)
he won't be, though, because his people say he doesn't intend to solicit or accept any donations at all. (which gives Bernie even more ammo to fire at him while he's not there to argue against it.) also doesn't intend to compete in the first 4 states. It's pure gold for Warren and Sanders, even if he doesn't run.
literally the only good thing about nominating Bloomberg would be to watch Trump melt down because he had to run against someone who both ACTUALLY came from a modest childhood and is STILL wildly richer than Donald.
News flash boss - a lot of innocent people have ALREADY died because you fucking idiots elected Trump.
Damn you sorry ass "Chicken Little" crowd are entertaining I'll give you that! No innocent people died under Obama's reign I'm sure. Matter-of-fact he could resurrect fuckers if memory serves!
I hope Warren restructures the Democratic Party away from the Clinton/Obama model. That was a winning model.
that's not untrue, I've already noted he was over-cautious about rocking too many boats, especially on military policy. But that wasn't the category of innocents I was thinking of re Trump - rather I was thinking of specific policy CHANGES that made more people dead, not just coasting on what several previous presidents have done.
Unrealistic but interesting EC map based on MC monthly Trump Tracker. The takeaway is if he only loses states in which he's currently underwater by at least 9, he'll lose (and you can add VA which is -7 since it's solid blue now) so basically 285 would be the Dem floor based on this.
oh right - because no president EVER made changes that negatively affected (to the point of death) one group or sub-group in a negative manner out of a population of many millions. Newsflash no president is "the president of all the people" unless each person has their personal president.
Putin afraid of Biden? I think Putin brings more awesome horseback riding shirtless whup-ass capacity than Corn Pop did!
three options here: 1) you have no sense of humor 2) you are dumb as a box of rocks 3) you are trolling
I heard the same thoughts in previous elections "If Republicans run too far too the right they will lose the general." Then Trump happened. At this point I wonder if there is enough middle voting to even matter at this point. The electorate has become so polarized that to be called a moderate is seen as too "soft" by both sides.
there's a smart election analyst who's last name I'll probably misspell - Rachel Bitcofer - who built her model around "negative partisanship" which is a premise that being energize to "save the country" from the precieved danger of the other tribe winning was even more motivating that partisan tribalism. And that leaning into this is how you ramp up turnout because you increase participation on the margins (i.e. a given voter might not be a particularly passionate Democrat but if you can get them wound up about the dangers of the Republican you can more likely get them to vote)
This thread needs to be cheered up. https://video.search.yahoo.com/sear...=546aa885f1b070830a38e2166ce931e3&action=view
