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.
I think this thread is getting a bit off-topic and turning into the usual political food fight.
You are right and I contributed to that. So back on topic:
Klobochar on paper is a good candidate to pick up the moderate mantle if Biden continues to falter. She's proven herself by winning in red parts of her home state. That said, I don't know if she has enough appeal to the base of the party.
I disagree, those voters are likely lost for a few more POTUS cycles to Dems, unless Biden has the guts to denounce the DNC, on issues like trade deals (HUGE) , coal jobs(HUGE), business regs, the ACA, and promote reducing business taxes more, while retaining the rest of the Trump tax cuts (HUGE). In addition, campaign for a border wall and strict immigration control as the wwc understands illegals depress wage levels for those w/o college degrees,
To do any less = a pretend Pragmatist.
WWC discovered they can swing a national election. They will never stay home and not vote again, as long as the rad left threat remains.
You bring up trade and immigration, and I agree with you that Trump's positions are more in line with white working-class voters in rural communities on those issues. But I would argue that Biden's positions on things like the minimum wage, unions, and even health care are more in line with that same constituency. Remember, Biden isn't promoting socialized medicine which most Americans oppose, he is promoting more government involvement in health care but not single-payer or medicare for all. Many working class voters support medicaid expansion, which he helped pass as part of Obamacare.
You are right and I contributed to that. So back on topic:
Klobochar on paper is a good candidate to pick up the moderate mantle if Biden continues to falter. She's proven herself by winning in red parts of her home state. That said, I don't know if she has enough appeal to the base of the party.
Yes, I would like to have heard more from her last week. I think by the time of the next debates there will be fewer people, so more time for each. Hopefully they use it to get their positions out rather than to engage in sparring just to get their name in front of the viewers.
The conventional wisdom is that only a moderate Democrat can win states like Penn., Wisc., and Michigan. I disagree.
I believe we beginning to see a seismic shift along generational lines. Trump has his strongest support among the Baby Boomers and most oppose the progressive agenda. OTOH, the 30- and under generation strongly support key planks of the progressive platform: Medicare For All, affordable college, debt forgiveness and a living wage.
The Boomer generation is dying off at a rate of 700,000 per year. Trump's support base (and that of the Republican Party) is slowly shrinking.
If -- and it's a big IF -- a progressive Democrat (Sanders, Warren, Harris) can craft a disciplined message to the working class with kitchen table issues, they can win. "Better health care that costs you less with lower deductibles" is Trump's Achilles heel. Affordable college and debt forgiveness is also very appealing to young families. A living wage is appealing to a 30-something who needs two $10/hr jobs to make ends meet. The mushy moderate middle won't promise or deliver these things.
The conventional wisdom is that only a moderate Democrat can win states like Penn., Wisc., and Michigan. I disagree.
I believe we beginning to see a seismic shift along generational lines. Trump has his strongest support among the Baby Boomers and most oppose the progressive agenda. OTOH, the 30- and under generation strongly support key planks of the progressive platform: Medicare For All, affordable college, debt forgiveness and a living wage.
The Boomer generation is dying off at a rate of 700,000 per year. Trump's support base (and that of the Republican Party) is slowly shrinking.
If -- and it's a big IF -- a progressive Democrat (Sanders, Warren, Harris) can craft a disciplined message to the working class with kitchen table issues, they can win. "Better health care that costs you less with lower deductibles" is Trump's Achilles heel. Affordable college and debt forgiveness is also very appealing to young families. A living wage is appealing to a 30-something who needs two $10/hr jobs to make ends meet. The mushy moderate middle won't promise or deliver these things.
In a presidential year, the youngest voters, 18–29, typically turn out at a rate of 47–65 percent, while those in their 60s exceed an 80 percent turnout rate. So hitching the party's hopes to a bigger than usual turnout among those under 30 seems very risky.
The best evidence we have regarding moderates vs. progressive chances are the recent mid-terms in 2018. In Pennsylvania it was the moderates who won all the contests. The one progressive who made it to the general election in a competitive district in PA was Scott Wallace and he actually lost.
All that said, I do believe that a candidate’s personal qualities matter even more to voters than ideology. You would think that would not be the case but I truly believe it is an emotional decision people make. People want someone with authenticity and some charisma. Buttigieg has some of that but I just don't think he has enough experience.
Well thanks for the clip. It was interesting to watch.
But it does not refute any of what I said. No refutation of the fact that he was an NRA life member, an ally of Joe McCarthy against communism, and a tax cutter.
I hear JFK promoting relatively moderate government action by today's standards. In fact I hear him arguing against Brit-style fully socialized health care. And nothing about free college, free this, free that.
Remember that JFK was post-new-deal but pre-great-society. Even Reagan said that he supported the New Deal, just not the Great Society.
A large part of social welfare programs that we have now were not in place. JFK was to the left for his era, but by today's standards would have been to the right of center.
JFK was NOT for trickle down economics or a supply sider. His tax cuts were very much Keynsian in design.
The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a conservative myth.
When JFK took office the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate?
JFK's quote was "a rising tide lifts all boats," which was essentially identical to what is now termed 'trickle down' or 'supply side.' The inescapable fact is that JFK enacted a significant tax cut, using the same arguments as Reagan in the 1980s. In fact Reagan often quoted JFK directly when defending his proposals.
Your last question is pointless. JFK was limited to doing what was politically possible in his era, just as a supply sider like a Larry Kudlow would be today. Trying to transplant people 50 years ahead or behind is futile.
Kennedy was killed in 1963. The country was far different then. We can't say for sure what JFK would say today. But we know how his brother Teddy evolved over time and he was definitely a liberal. JFK would very likely have had a similar evolution to his brother.
Maybe yes, maybe no. There is no way to know. The fact remains that JFK in his time was an NRA life member, a staunch anti-commie, and a tax cutter. And btw, pro military spending. Military spending under JFK, as a percentage of the federal budget, was over double what it is today.
I'm not saying that this is all good or bad, just that it was.
The conventional wisdom is that only a moderate Democrat can win states like Penn., Wisc., and Michigan. I disagree.
I believe we beginning to see a seismic shift along generational lines. Trump has his strongest support among the Baby Boomers and most oppose the progressive agenda. OTOH, the 30- and under generation strongly support key planks of the progressive platform: Medicare For All, affordable college, debt forgiveness and a living wage.
The Boomer generation is dying off at a rate of 700,000 per year. Trump's support base (and that of the Republican Party) is slowly shrinking.
If -- and it's a big IF -- a progressive Democrat (Sanders, Warren, Harris) can craft a disciplined message to the working class with kitchen table issues, they can win. "Better health care that costs you less with lower deductibles" is Trump's Achilles heel. Affordable college and debt forgiveness is also very appealing to young families. A living wage is appealing to a 30-something who needs two $10/hr jobs to make ends meet. The mushy moderate middle won't promise or deliver these things.
They will be forced to discuss specifically how they intend to pay for these type things. That's where they'll lose votes..
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.
