Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Presidency in the last 30 years has consistently gone to the candidate who best excited/united their base.
Something Dems should pay extra attention to in the Dem primary to have the best chance of winning the general election.^^^^
Pubs always accuse the Dem candidate as being ultra liberal and a socialist, even if that Dem is moderate. The moderate ones often don't stand up to the criticism and try to ignore the 'socialist' and 'liberal' label.
Maybe a Dem candidate that's farther to the left will aggressively counter the name calling 'socialist', 'liberal', by outright owning it and touting why it's a good thing (to get others to see the issue/policy and show why these issues make sense for America, rather than letting 'socialist' and 'liberal' be a generic label which can be interpeted differently because it's not defined properly).
This way the name calling loses the negative meaning because the correct Dem candidate will turn it into a positive by outlining the benefits of such policy. Basically, owning the term and making it a positive, rather than running away from it.
Bernie and Beto both can do this.
Last edited by sware2cod; 03-01-2019 at 03:41 PM..
There are not enough Rs willing to cross party lines into the Democratic primary to truly offset the Democrats. We are a 55-45 R to D state. I think the D front runners at that point will hold too much turf for an outside 10% to really sway things. I also suspect Biden should he run will already have some cross over votes from Country Club Republicans.
There is no registration by party in SC, so your statement is meaningless.
The Presidency in the last 30 years has consistently gone to the candidate who best excited/united their base. So going liberal is probably a good strategy.
Trump created a new base. That is why the pollsters were so spectacularly wrong about him. That base will still come out for him in full force. The problem for the Democrat now is unless they can peel off some of that base, they are going nowhere.
Amy Klobuchar has specifically stated that she does not support he Green New Deal.
And anyone who believes the BS about that bill was allowing abortion for a viable fetus up to 9 months was never going to vote Dem.
The Presidency in the last 30 years has consistently gone to the candidate who best excited/united their base. So going liberal is probably a good strategy.
I have said a number of times in this thread that I believe Klobuchar would be the Democrats best chance in the general election - if she can win the nomination. Do you think she can win the nomination? I don't.
Something Dems should pay extra attention to in the Dem primary to have the best chance of winning the general election.^^^^
Pubs always accuse the Dem candidate as being ultra liberal and a socialist, even if that Dem is moderate. The moderate ones often don't stand up to the criticism and try to ignore the 'socialist' and 'liberal' label.
Maybe a Dem candidate that's farther to the left will aggressively counter the name calling 'socialist', 'liberal', by outright owning it and touting why it's a good thing (to get others to see the issue/policy and show why these issues make sense for America, rather than letting 'socialist' and 'liberal' be a generic label which can be interpeted differently because it's not defined properly).
This way the name calling loses the negative meaning because the correct Dem candidate will turn it into a positive by outlining the benefits of such policy. Basically, owning the term and making it a positive, rather than running away from it.
Bernie and Beto both can do this.
This time some of them even call themselves socialists. And as far as being radicals, what could Kamala Harris actually do to make her platform more radical than it currently is? What? Because that is how extreme and how hard left and racially obsessed her candidacy appears to be. I thought it would have a lot of this, but I have been taken aback to see how radical she actually has come out as.
If they wanted to be even MORE radical, what would that possibly consist of?
There is no registration by party in SC, so your statement is meaningless.
You do not seem to understand- you literally have to go to the polling place (or voter registration office for absentee) and declare that you want a Republican or Democratic ballot. We do not have party registration but you have to commit to voting in a specific party's primary and can only vote the one primary. Presidential primaries are stand alone but for other elections it means you cannot cross party lines race to race. And you cannot vote in one primary on primary election day and the other on a primary run-off election day.
The significance is that you voting within that party- SC has a large percentage of highly principled conservatives and even more who simply hate Dem politics. Most of those folks are not going to walk into a public setting and announce they are Dems even for a day. I have yet to see a single instance when cross party voting had an impact- and 'moderate' candidates who might sway swing voters in the general have never received much help in the primaries. My congressional district went Democratic for the first time in a generation last fall. If even a middling number of the voters who gladly voted Mark Sanford in general elections had seen fit to pull an R ballot to advance him, he would still be a US Rep and we would have remained an R district. It didn't happen.
To be honest I think a lot of Rs will want to vote Trump to see if they can get his numbers higher than the contested D primary as a matter of bragging rights.
So Kamala Harris is now coming out to legalize prostitution. Forget if you are in favor of this or against. This is a local issue. Politically speaking, this is a stupid issue for her to come out and take a provocative stance on. Like so many of her other radical positions, it throws red meat to her utterly depraved far left base and ignores the interests of more moderate voters, whose support the Democrat's nominee will need to have a chance to win in November 2020.
That open-air market of prostitutes and johns in Queens, undeterred by the constant threat of arrest and incarceration, has been cited by New York state lawmakers mulling whether it’s time to wave the white flag in the war on the world’s oldest profession.
The decriminalization debate among Democrats spilled into the 2020 presidential race last month when Sen. Kamala D. Harris of California said she was supportive of the idea — although the legalization crowd complained that she was still too timid.
This is yet another issue that will win her some votes in the primary and will establish her as an extreme radical kook in the general election. Regardless of where you stand on this, this is a local criminal law and not something that we want or need Congress and the President to impose on people nationwide.
The clown car indeed. And this woman seems to want to win the biggest clown award.
Hillary Clinton will not run for President in 2020.
At least that is what she says now. But if Joe Biden either decides not to run or starts looking shaky, don't be surprised if she changes her mind and rides in to try to save the day.
The pool of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates keeps expanding. But one name that won’t be in the mix is 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton. The former secretary of state and US senator ruled out a 2020 White House bid in an interview with the local New York City television station News 12 on Monday.
“I’m not running,” she said, “but I’m going to keep working on and speaking and standing up for what I believe.”
This is really too bad. I was hoping she would run again. Well, there is still time for her to change her mind.
"I believe I would defeat Donald Trump in a general election. But I am clear-eyed about the difficulty of winning the Democratic nomination in such a crowded field."
He can say what he wants, but I believe Bloomberg is also not running because Howard Schultz has already marked off his territory in the "Independent" lane, which means that Bloomberg would have to actually win the nomination as a Democrat and would not be able to switch over to independent status at the last minute, at least not with that having any real prospect of positive effect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
