• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Strickland33 said:
No, the broader trend is that experienced national politicians (vs. outsiders and local politicians) tend to win: Barack Obama was a senator from a purple state, George W. Bush was a two-term governor from a red state, Bill Clinton was a two-term governor and AG from a red state, George H.W. Bush was a two term congressman from a red state and director of the CIA, Ronald Reagan was a two-term governor in a blue state, and Jimmy Carter was a one-term governor in a red state. That's the trend that I'm referring to because Trump winning as a nativist outsider was literally unprecedented and probably won't happen again if history is any indication.

There's also a weird gender thing happening right now where Beto and Pete are getting accolades from the media for youthful accomplishments that candidates like Gillibrand, Warren, Harris, and Klobuchar also possess, but receive next to no credit for or press attention... It actually strikes me as weird that the candidates getting the most attention as candidates are men in an election where there are many incredibly qualified women running from Gillibrand to Klobuchar. Media misogyny is real and don't think that doesn't affect polling results.
Click to expand...

white men failing up.
 
It's especially rich because the Pete Posse and Beto Bros on here were the Clintonistas who were quick to label any degree of criticism surrounding Clinton as sexist (despite the fact that all of us critics ended up voting for Clinton).
 
Strickland33 said:
I agree with you, RJ, on all points.

I don't think he has much to offer as a POTUS candidate, so it sounds like we agree. He just hasn't done much since his time as HUD Sec (2017). IIRC, he was planning on running for Governor at some point around when the DNC tapped him to give a prime time convention speech. I'm not sure what happened. Maybe he is taking the Ph line that doing so would be too hard.
Click to expand...

If I were to guess, the DNC was trying push Hillary into picking him but she chickened out and took the old white guy...and it cost her...Hell, watching me clip my toenails is far more exciting than Watching Tim Kaine do anything.
 
Strickland33 said:
No, the broader trend is that experienced national politicians (vs. outsiders and local politicians) tend to win: Barack Obama was a senator from a purple state, George W. Bush was a two-term governor from a red state, Bill Clinton was a two-term governor and AG from a red state, George H.W. Bush was a two term congressman from a red state and director of the CIA, Ronald Reagan was a two-term governor in a blue state, and Jimmy Carter was a one-term governor in a red state. That's the trend that I'm referring to because Trump winning as a nativist outsider was literally unprecedented and probably won't happen again if history is any indication.

There's also a weird gender thing happening right now where Beto and Pete are getting accolades from the media for youthful accomplishments that candidates like Gillibrand, Warren, Harris, and Klobuchar also possess, but receive next to no credit for or press attention... It actually strikes me as weird that the candidates getting the most attention as candidates are men in an election where there are many incredibly qualified women running from Gillibrand to Klobuchar. Media misogyny is real and don't think that doesn't affect polling results.
Click to expand...

You miss the boat here. Those were outsiders relative to their opponent and they ran on it. Picking someone even more insider than an incumbent especially someone who has run multiple times is a recipe for disaster especially if he’s just another white guy (see Mondale, Kerry, Romney).

Your other point about accomplishments is silly. Younger people are going to get more credit for their “youthful accomplishments” because it’s about what they’ve done lately. Obviously what Pete did at 28 matters more than what Gillibrand did at 27. For Pete, that’s about 10 years ago. For Gillibrand, it’s 25 years ago.
 
PhDeac said:
You miss the boat here. Those were outsiders relative to their opponent and they ran on it. Picking someone even more insider than an incumbent especially someone who has run multiple times is a recipe for disaster especially if he’s just another white guy (see Mondale, Kerry, Romney).

Your other point about accomplishments is silly. Younger people are going to get more credit for their “youthful accomplishments” because it’s about what they’ve done lately. Obviously what Pete did at 28 matters more than what Gillibrand did at 27. For Pete, that’s about 10 years ago. For Gillibrand, it’s 25 years ago.
Click to expand...

I give up regarding the first point.

Re: the second point - I’m just saying that in a field filled with amazing women candidates, you have chosen to support an unproven 37 year old white dude.

You’re doing exactly what you (and others) accuse Bernie Bros of doing, just fyi.
 
I’ve chosen the person who gets that we are past business as usual and the urgency of the moment is way bigger than just Trump.

This shorter article gets at what I like about Pete’s message.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...are-about-progressivess-theory-of-change.html

Ezra Klein has a much longer breakdown based on his hour long interview with Pete (which I haven’t heard yet).
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...rs-filibuster-electoral-college-supreme-court

“The central lesson of Obama’s presidency, Buttigieg argues, is that “any decisions that are based on an assumption of good faith by Republicans in the Senate will be defeated.” The hope that you can pass laws through bipartisan compromise is dead. And that means governance is consistently, reliably failing to solve people’s problems, which is in turn radicalizing them against government itself.

“You can only go so long with this divergence that we have between the center of the American people and the center of the American Congress,” Buttigieg says. “Donald Trump was not exactly a corrective, but he was a consequence of the fact that people watched their government drifting further and further away from them in terms of what it would deliver.”

Buttigieg’s response — one that you also hear from 2020 hopefuls Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Gov. Jay Inslee — is to restructure government so that popular majorities translate more cleanly into governing majorities. He’s discussed eliminating the Electoral College, scrapping the filibuster, and remaking the Supreme Court so each party nominates the same number of justices and vacancies become less “apocalyptic.”

————

“Too often, we assume policy ambition corresponds with political style, but that shortcut often misleads us. Sanders, for instance, has proposed raising tens of trillions in taxes to build a European-style welfare state in America. But asked whether he’d eliminate the filibuster, he pronounced himself “not crazy” about the idea. And he’s not alone. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Booker, and Klobuchar have offered outright defenses of the filibuster, and Harris has dodged the question. As far as I can tell, the only senator running for president who seems to be seriously considering eliminating the rule is Warren.”

It’s pretty sad that most of the Senators still think they’re going to be able to pass bipartisan Medicare for All. It’s not happening and the senators seem to be the last ones to realize their system is broken.
 
PhDeac said:
I’ve chosen the person who gets that we are past business as usual and the urgency of the moment is way bigger than just Trump.
Click to expand...

past business as usual except the business just needs a new candidate with the right ideas to fix everything
 
TenaciousKory said:
past business as usual except the business just needs a new candidate with the right ideas to fix everything
Click to expand...

No. It's not just about ideas.

There's a woman on the local Invisible Facebook page who is killing a thread complaining about why Warren isn't getting more traction. She did a great job explaining what Pete is doing right and how it stands out in the field. Here are some of her posts:

Because voters hate policy wonks and love big ideas and personality that inspire them emotionally. Warren is branded as a wonk and has similar hair and appearance as HRC, who was also a wonk who had this exact same issue.

Warren is spending her campaign time trying to be someone people want to listen to, and she is backing into it from her wonkness, and it is only sometimes working.

People want to go to story time and have visceral reactions. They don't want to go to lectures. They are *assuming* they are going to lecture because of her reputation.

It is much harder to do it in this order. Beto, Buttigieg, Harris, and Sanders don't. Buttigieg + Beto especially, seem to be aware of this and using it to their advantage.

Yes. That is backwards. Yes. That sucks.

And, yes, it is utterly predictable and we need to stop being shocked by it and figure out how to manipulate it, which is what the GOP does.

--------

Who can fire up the majority of voters, especially the ones who went home or red in 2016? Who can quell Trump?

Beto or Buttigieg are the ones that seem to be able to most reach the spectrum while making people feel good about themselves (opposite of Trump).

Beto is a centerist, though, so I dunno how much that will play.

Buttigieg is rhetorically centeristish, but generally on par with Warren policy-wise, give or take a little. He is being labelled a centerist because of his rhetoric (which is, interestingly enough, straight out of a cult deprogramming psychological tactics).

Sanders taps into the same emotions as Trump (anger at the system), and I don't know if he will be able to sway people back.

Harris, et al. seem to be fairly neutral in the emotion-inspiring, but don't have the wonk reputation to deal with.

--------

Really, policy-wise, they are similar enough that any of em will move us further left the same amount of way in 4 years, so we are left with 1) electability, 2) policy records, and 3) ability to do the job effectively. None of em really hit all 3 in the middle, and I think we really, really need to worry about electability.

-------

I think it is about getting more people to vote, in general, including swaying moderates and centerists, TBH.

I think hardcore leftists will hate all of our candidates on purity tests and will either get with it or not. I think someone that makes people feel something akin to passion and makes them feel seen is important to inspiring them to actually vote than policy (though it is combined). Then I think someone who inspires the majority of people listening is important.

Everyone elected in the past 40 years (at least) has been elected on that, not policy. Even those that won the popular, lost because their messaging lost a very specific population.

-------

We really, really need to be thinking about it more than policy, IMO. Cause, again, I think we have a pretty standard, fairly ambitious progressive policy agenda across the candidates (with some outliers), but policy doesn't win elections.

------

Full Disclosure: Buttigieg's attempt towards mass psychological deprogramming at the GOP base is fascinating me and I find it to be a technique that can only benefit us.

------

Sure. His perspective is that due to a variety of factors, many centering on Trump's tactics, many people were radicalized. Yes, they were always racist and bigots, to a certain degree, but not to this extent. This is especially true because many voted for Obama twice and then essentially were like "yeah, I am racist, so what" when they voted for Trump.

So, if instead of writing them off (which many if not most of the 2020 candidates are doing), what if we treat them like we treat cult members or radicalized religious fanatics?

This essentially at the core of Buttigieg's messaging strategy.

We know how to deprogram people, psychologically. We even know how to move people closer to your political stance and it is generally the same techniques.

What research has shown you do is approach them where they are with firm boundaries to the values (Buttigieg has repeatedly said things like "racism is unacceptable"), but without judgement and with empathy. If you make them feel defensive, they double down and it doesn't work (which is why he doesn't outright declare that they are deplorable or say things like they are just racist). When they are listening and feel safe, you offer them a way out towards the other side and welcome them.

Buttigieg is reflecting their language back at them (hence things like "virtue signaling" in which he basically followed by saying there is no ethical consumption under capitalism without using any of those words), while telling them that bigotry is not acceptable, but offering them a safe way to join progressives (while reminding them that they actually support a lot of these measures). Meanwhile, he is interweaving progressive and some sort of pretty radical policy ideas at the same time, so he isn't compromising his values. He is also telling everyone he is doing it as he does it.

So, he is trying to deprogram Trump's base with his run. And it seems to be working, slowly, a little bit and no one else is trying.

It is starting to blow up in his face on the Left by those who think we shouldn't appeal to them, but 1) it is a rhetoric/pr shell game, not a policy one and we should pay attention to policy and 2) in order to make large structural changes, we need to start winning local and state-wide elections in those states, so we can't just write em off.

------

He isn't wrong when he says progressive policies are overwhelmingly popular, even with the people who vote for conservative politicians. We are seeing that with ballot measures all over. So what is the disconnect?

It seems that his idea is to remind people that they are already on board with these things to pull as many people as left as possible for down ticket wins (I think he is a little surprised by his current popularity and likely ran to 1) show that his messaging strategy would work since he isn't part of the DNC and 2) to have some opportunities to pull people Left). Everyone else just seems to be running for POTUS; he seems to be focusing bigger picture.
-------
 
PhDeac said:
No. It's not just about ideas.

There's a woman on the local Invisible Facebook page who is killing a thread complaining about why Warren isn't getting more traction. She did a great job explaining what Pete is doing right and how it stands out in the field. Here are some of her posts:

Because voters hate policy wonks and love big ideas and personality that inspire them emotionally. Warren is branded as a wonk and has similar hair and appearance as HRC, who was also a wonk who had this exact same issue.

Warren is spending her campaign time trying to be someone people want to listen to, and she is backing into it from her wonkness, and it is only sometimes working.

People want to go to story time and have visceral reactions. They don't want to go to lectures. They are *assuming* they are going to lecture because of her reputation.

It is much harder to do it in this order. Beto, Buttigieg, Harris, and Sanders don't. Buttigieg + Beto especially, seem to be aware of this and using it to their advantage.

Yes. That is backwards. Yes. That sucks.

And, yes, it is utterly predictable and we need to stop being shocked by it and figure out how to manipulate it, which is what the GOP does.

--------

Who can fire up the majority of voters, especially the ones who went home or red in 2016? Who can quell Trump?

Beto or Buttigieg are the ones that seem to be able to most reach the spectrum while making people feel good about themselves (opposite of Trump).

Beto is a centerist, though, so I dunno how much that will play.

Buttigieg is rhetorically centeristish, but generally on par with Warren policy-wise, give or take a little. He is being labelled a centerist because of his rhetoric (which is, interestingly enough, straight out of a cult deprogramming psychological tactics).

Sanders taps into the same emotions as Trump (anger at the system), and I don't know if he will be able to sway people back.

Harris, et al. seem to be fairly neutral in the emotion-inspiring, but don't have the wonk reputation to deal with.

--------

Really, policy-wise, they are similar enough that any of em will move us further left the same amount of way in 4 years, so we are left with 1) electability, 2) policy records, and 3) ability to do the job effectively. None of em really hit all 3 in the middle, and I think we really, really need to worry about electability.

-------

I think it is about getting more people to vote, in general, including swaying moderates and centerists, TBH.

I think hardcore leftists will hate all of our candidates on purity tests and will either get with it or not. I think someone that makes people feel something akin to passion and makes them feel seen is important to inspiring them to actually vote than policy (though it is combined). Then I think someone who inspires the majority of people listening is important.

Everyone elected in the past 40 years (at least) has been elected on that, not policy. Even those that won the popular, lost because their messaging lost a very specific population.

-------

We really, really need to be thinking about it more than policy, IMO. Cause, again, I think we have a pretty standard, fairly ambitious progressive policy agenda across the candidates (with some outliers), but policy doesn't win elections.

------

Full Disclosure: Buttigieg's attempt towards mass psychological deprogramming at the GOP base is fascinating me and I find it to be a technique that can only benefit us.

------

Sure. His perspective is that due to a variety of factors, many centering on Trump's tactics, many people were radicalized. Yes, they were always racist and bigots, to a certain degree, but not to this extent. This is especially true because many voted for Obama twice and then essentially were like "yeah, I am racist, so what" when they voted for Trump.

So, if instead of writing them off (which many if not most of the 2020 candidates are doing), what if we treat them like we treat cult members or radicalized religious fanatics?

This essentially at the core of Buttigieg's messaging strategy.

We know how to deprogram people, psychologically. We even know how to move people closer to your political stance and it is generally the same techniques.

What research has shown you do is approach them where they are with firm boundaries to the values (Buttigieg has repeatedly said things like "racism is unacceptable"), but without judgement and with empathy. If you make them feel defensive, they double down and it doesn't work (which is why he doesn't outright declare that they are deplorable or say things like they are just racist). When they are listening and feel safe, you offer them a way out towards the other side and welcome them.

Buttigieg is reflecting their language back at them (hence things like "virtue signaling" in which he basically followed by saying there is no ethical consumption under capitalism without using any of those words), while telling them that bigotry is not acceptable, but offering them a safe way to join progressives (while reminding them that they actually support a lot of these measures). Meanwhile, he is interweaving progressive and some sort of pretty radical policy ideas at the same time, so he isn't compromising his values. He is also telling everyone he is doing it as he does it.

So, he is trying to deprogram Trump's base with his run. And it seems to be working, slowly, a little bit and no one else is trying.

It is starting to blow up in his face on the Left by those who think we shouldn't appeal to them, but 1) it is a rhetoric/pr shell game, not a policy one and we should pay attention to policy and 2) in order to make large structural changes, we need to start winning local and state-wide elections in those states, so we can't just write em off.

------

He isn't wrong when he says progressive policies are overwhelmingly popular, even with the people who vote for conservative politicians. We are seeing that with ballot measures all over. So what is the disconnect?

It seems that his idea is to remind people that they are already on board with these things to pull as many people as left as possible for down ticket wins (I think he is a little surprised by his current popularity and likely ran to 1) show that his messaging strategy would work since he isn't part of the DNC and 2) to have some opportunities to pull people Left). Everyone else just seems to be running for POTUS; he seems to be focusing bigger picture.
-------
Click to expand...

jesus christ. i get shit for posting a current affairs article and ph posts thoughts from Shannon on Facebook.
 
MHBDemon said:
jesus christ. i get shit for posting a current affairs article and ph posts thoughts from Shannon on Facebook.
Click to expand...

Well that was a shit article where the author admitted he was biased then proceeded to write it anyway and then you made fun of Buttigieg for thinking a clock was cool. At least "Shannon" had some interesting things to say and wasn't coming at it from an angle where there was only one acceptable answer.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Well that was a shit article where the author admitted he was biased then proceeded to write it anyway and then you made fun of Buttigieg for thinking a clock was cool. At least "Shannon" had some interesting things to say and wasn't coming at it from an angle where there was only one acceptable answer.
Click to expand...

yeah, no. Shannon had nothing interesting to say.
 
Strickland33 said:
Re: the second point - I’m just saying that in a field filled with amazing women candidates, you have chosen to support an unproven 37 year old white dude.
Click to expand...

This is a valid point and I don't really have a great response other than I just want the best candidate to win and currently I think that candidate is Buttigieg. I have made it clear in the past that I was a huge Kamala Harris stan, and she's still probably my #2. I have just felt a sense of sincerity and genuineness that from Buttigieg that is either not present in some candidates (Beto, Klobuchar) or only somewhat present on certain issues (Booker on mass incarceration, for example). When he speaks, I feel like he wants to be President not because he wants to take down Trump or because it's the most prestigious job in the world, but because he truly believes that he can make a positive difference in America and in the world if given the chance. I'm sure all candidates feel that way to some degree, but I have not heard anyone else speak and make it come across in those words like Buttigieg. The resume is just a bonus on top of that point.

I don't care if the next Democratic presidential candidate is a woman, man, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, LGBT, straight, whatever. I want someone that wants to be President for the right reasons and that can defeat Trump. I think Buttigieg hits both of those marks.
 
Great post. Echoes my sentiments.

MHBDemon said:
yeah, no. Shannon had nothing interesting to say.
Click to expand...

Except introducing a completely new theory of why Democrats have struggled and explaining how a little known candidate is trying to address it.
 
Last edited:
MHBDemon said:
yeah, no. Shannon had nothing interesting to say.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
We are a bunch of anonymous dudes on a fucking Wake Forest message board and MHB is looking down his nose at someone Facebook posting infinitely more substantial comments than 99% of the shit on the Tunnels.
 
Buttigieg is not a progressive and is a continuation of Obama era liberalism, not someone who "gets that we are past business as usual and the urgency of the moment is way bigger than just Trump."

Have fun getting your political insight from Shannon on facebook. I love that the "Medicare for America, All Lives Matter, Police can learn a few things from Israel" candidate is getting painted as a progressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top