General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDemocrats Want An Electable Nominee In 2020. They Just Don't Know What That Means.
Democrats Want An Electable Nominee In 2020. They Just Dont Know What That Means.
Beating President Trump is more important to Democratic primary voters than their policy fights.
By Kevin Robillard, HuffPost US
https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/democrats-electability-beat-trump-2020_us_5c589812e4b087104756966f?ec_carp=644955261786971770
"SNIP.....
The survey, conducted by New Jerseys Monmouth University, asked Democratic voters and Democratic-leaning independent voters nationwide if they preferred a candidate with whom they agreed on most issues but who would have a hard time beating Trump or a candidate with whom they did not agree on most issues but who would be stronger against Trump. Fifty-six percent wanted the stronger candidate against Trump, even if they disagreed on most issues. Just 33 percent wanted a candidate whom they agreed with, even if that individual would struggle to defeat the president.
The finding is a shift from the electoral priorities expressed by both Democratic and Republican voters in 2016. But it matches what Democratic operatives across the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have been telling reporters for months.
In prior elections, voters from both parties consistently prioritized shared values over electability when selecting a nominee, Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, said in a statement. It looks like Democrats may be willing to flip that equation in 2020 because of their desire to defeat Trump. This is something to pay close attention to when primary voters really start tuning in to the campaign.
Theres just one problem: No consensus has developed among Democratic voters or party operatives over what type of candidate is best equipped to defeat Trump.
.....SNIP"
peacefrogman
(76 posts)oppression and suppression. So maybe it is hard to know who an electable candidate would be with Russia interference, FBI interference with a candidate, theft and the likes.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...someone else look foolish. Like theyre stupid for not supporting the same candidate the person using an electability argument is. Electability shouldnt even be a consideration in a primary.
Its simple. In the primary, vote for whoever you believe is going to push hardest for the policies you think are best. In the general, vote for whoever wins.
marlakay
(11,537 posts)I think people want more money for their every day lives, decent jobs, to live safely, lots more issues but what they went after with Trump was jobs and changing up the norm.
My opinion I am hoping one of the people running wins who is for universal care, better wages and taxing the rich, strengthening medicare and SS.
Those are all things people want.
applegrove
(118,915 posts)Harris articulate them the present wave changes to a tsunami and those 'upset the norm' voters in the mid west vote for our nominee too. And do so for generations. Democrats need to go bold and match people's dreams for security and opportunity in the most important democracy in the world. Important because it leads the way in norms and beating back autocracy and corruption. At least it did under Obama.
peggysue2
(10,852 posts)doncha thinK? To agonize over not coming to a consensus?
This is pre-primary season, for God's sake. We have 'several' contenders who have announced officially. Why don't we give our stable of candidates a chance to line up fully before taking Huff-Pooh's advice and get . . . nervous over selecting the right candidate. Eh?
applegrove
(118,915 posts)I think we are going to realize, this time, that the presidential election media juggernaut is an active denial system with multiple means to manipulate, frustrate, discourage, confuse, and ultimately, neutralize as broad a voting block in favor of progressive/liberal agendas as humanly possible.
I could be wrong, of course. It's always been there, only difference now is there are many more times now eyes, open ones, that are fixed upon these various fuckeries the 'librul media' labors to dash our collective senses with.
We shall see for ourselves, true or not, like it or not. This is far removed from conspiracy theories.
I see nothing but constant attempts both overt and subtle to execute data massaging/perception management.
Media overlords are apparently not well served by democratic administrations.
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)It was the same debate in 2004. I made the same argument. John Kerry was very impressive overall but he didn't figure to win any likability awards, and it played out that way. Bush ended up with 53-46% favorable approval in the exit poll compared to 47-51% under water for Kerry. Everything stuck to Kerry, even when it should not have. The regional tag plays a part in that. Swing voters love simple reference points as disqualifier. I saw that every time when I hosted debate watching parties in Las Vegas.
The extreme danger this time is assuming anyone can defeat Trump, and ignoring likability. The attacks are going to be vicious, voluminous, unfair and unforeseen. Only a naturally charismatic nominee can respond instinctively and stand up to it, while knowing which attacks to ignore. That's why I prefer Beto or Klobuchar right now. Beto has already experienced a mini presidential landscape.
I'll wait to see how others fare. They may be more likable than my early estimates. But I tend to trust my instincts. We can't mistake someone for closer to Obama when it will play out closer to Kerry.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)Squinch
(51,087 posts)applegrove
(118,915 posts)As opposed to the last time when many did not.
Maru Kitteh
(28,348 posts)in six of the last seven elections.
applegrove
(118,915 posts)got some votes. As did Trump in the mid west (He got some that had voted for Obama previously). And if Bernie had won the nomination lots of centrist democrats would not have gotten on board with that too.
Maru Kitteh
(28,348 posts)Donald and Jill, they just both really admired Russian culture and history or architecture or something like that.
applegrove
(118,915 posts)I'm sure the GOP plan on mimicking Russia in the next presidential election. In fact I would not be surprised if they knowingly gave Howard Schultz a push by appealing to his ego. The GOP does that. They target ceos for brainwashing. And if you constantly blow up ceos egos, and make it a religion, then you are guaranteed a few will run every election blocking candidates with broader life experience, better guts and bigger hearts.
betsuni
(25,812 posts)A centrist is cautious so why would they prefer obvious madman Trump over the Democrat? I don't get it.
applegrove
(118,915 posts)people like Howard Schultz and other business people who vote Democrat. Howard Schultz is essentially saying he prefers Trump to leftist ideas by running for a third party in the middle. He has 17% of presidential votes right now if he were to run against Trump and one of our democrats who have said they are running. 17% right now. Part of that are democrats in the centre.