Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[Larry]

48 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

Americans for the most part don't choose the more experienced candidate in the general election though. HW n Nixon won in large part due to experience. Obama, W, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Kennedy all beat more experienced opponents. 

 

 

One of the problems with experience is that experience means "a long voting record full of things that your opponent can twist into other things, for use in attack ads".  

 

I think that's especially true in Congress, where a lot of votes are actually the result of deals of one kind or another.  People vote for/against a bill because of one clause in it, or because there's this other bill that they think is better/worse.  

 

And experience means a record of things that may have been good politics at the time, but look bad now.  

 

Whereas "virgins" can promise to be whatever the mob wants, today.  

 

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I disagree.  But there is a reason neither of us are campaign managers.

 

Sure, but evidently only one of us was paying attention in 2018.  

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 minute ago, Hersh said:

Maybe step back and allow the process to play out before condemning everyone.

When did I condemn Biden?

 

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Joe doesn't have anywhere near the baggage that Hillary had (even if some of the baggage was made up bull****).

Are you sure about that?

 

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Everyone thinks they are the demographic that should be targeted.  I don't think any democratic candidate should use a ton of resources trying to get on-the-fence people or those that might go 3rd party.  They should hammer the 57% of people that say they will definitely vote against Trump and turn them out in the largest numbers possible.  Like sure, make some overtures to "the middle" but not at the expense of the base and the people that just ****ing hate Trump.  

Republicans do one thing well: They excite their base.

 

Democrats for 30 years have ran from their base. I know Democrats are a big tent party with different interests, but there is a lot of energy at this moment. They will lose that energy if they bring up someone that isn't tapping into the energy.

 

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

They also tried that in 2014 with Kerry, and they failed.   

 

You are not going to convince Republicans to vote for a not-Republican. (Unless his name is Trump I suppose?).  What I would do is find out the issues that poll well across the aisle and make those the front & center ones on the platform.   For the people still supporting Trump after the last 2.5 years? It's likely a wrap on them. They are voting for Trump regardless.  it shouldn't be a shocker by now, but there are several issues that poll well with Dems & Repub voters that only elected Dem officials want to see happen.  Harp on those over and over, as well as where Trump campaigned favorably to a few of 'em, then turned his back on those issues as soon as he got elected. 

Exactly. Stop trying to court those voters. They see Dems as the creepy guy at the club who keeps trying to buy a drink despite constant rejection.

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Whereas "virgins" can promise to be whatever the mob wants, today.  

You just explained Donald Trump. Clown basically said the opposite of everything everyone did wrong in the past. Got elected and then did those things he said he wasnt going to do when he ran. (such as not try and cut social security and medicare which was just proposed in the new budget)

[PleaseBlitz]

4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Republicans do one thing well: They excite their base.

 

Democrats for 30 years have ran from their base. I know Democrats are a big tent party with different interests, but there is a lot of energy at this moment. They will lose that energy if they bring up someone that isn't tapping into the energy.

 

Agree 100%.  

[Hersh]

12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

That's never happened before, so I doubt it's on the table now.  Nobody rises to the Presidency and is then like "you know what, someone else should do it."

 

 

Everyone thinks they are the demographic that should be targeted.  I don't think any democratic candidate should use a ton of resources trying to get on-the-fence people or those that might go 3rd party.  They should hammer the 57% of people that say they will definitely vote against Trump and turn them out in the largest numbers possible.  Like sure, make some overtures to "the middle" but not at the expense of the base and the people that just ****ing hate Trump.  

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/57-percent-of-voters-say-they-wont-support-trump-in-2020

 

 

 

The one place the Dem should actively campaign for is people that vote Green Party. My intention is to go to some of those gatherings and talk about the impact of their POTUS vote on the environment. Even if that doesn’t change many minds, I’m gonna make them own it. As an environmentalist I’ve never seen a group **** their number one issue more than when they voted for that traitor Jill Stein.

[Cooked Crack]

 

Seems legit.

[Larry]

5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

What I would do is find out the issues that poll well across the aisle and make those the front & center ones on the platform.

 

I've said for two elections that IMO, if the Dems want to try to peel away a chunk of the R base, the group they should target are the "fiscal conservatives".  

 

I think that the slogan I'd be pounding is:  

 

Every R President since Eisenhower has left office with a bigger deficit then when he came in.  And every Dem since FDR has left office with a smaller one.  

 

(I could see that slogan working real well, down ticket, too.)  

 

Now, granted, this fantasy of mine is based on the theory that the "fiscal conservative" voter actually gives a **** about the deficit, and that it's not just a code phrase for "cut the social safety net".  

 

But at least the imaginary voter I've got in my head, who thinks the deficit is the most important issue in the election?  That's a voter who really needs his nose rubbed in the fact that voting R hasn't been getting him the thing that he claims is the most important issue on the table.  

[Hersh]

2 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Seems legit.

 

Bernie bros SMH. The Dems better plan now for defections to Trump with some of those people don’t get their way then complain endlessly about how unfair the process was.

[dfitzo53]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I've said for two elections that IMO, if the Dems want to try to peel away a chunk of the R base, the group they should target are the "fiscal conservatives".  

 

I think that the slogan I'd be pounding is:  

 

Every R President since Eisenhower has left office with a bigger deficit then when he came in.  And every Dem since FDR has left office with a smaller one.  

 

(I could see that slogan working real well, down ticket, too.)  

 

Now, granted, this fantasy of mine is based on the theory that the "fiscal conservative" voter actually gives a **** about the deficit, and that it's not just a code phrase for "cut the social safety net".  

 

But at least the imaginary voter I've got in my head, who thinks the deficit is the most important issue in the election?  That's a voter who really needs his nose rubbed in the fact that voting R hasn't been getting him the thing that he claims is the most important issue on the table.  

I'm not even sure that it's code for social safety net. I think a lot of people believe that identifying as a "fiscal conservative" makes them sound smart and savvy, but they have no idea how anything actually works. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

Fiscal conservative is an oxymoron.

[TheGreatBuzz]

20 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Sure, but evidently only one of us was paying attention in 2018.  

Oh I've been paying plenty of attention.  I think my activity level here over the last however many years shows that.  You and I just have different opinions on where/how to go forward.

 

Just now, BenningRoadSkin said:

Fiscal conservative is an oxymoron.

Can you explain this?

[Bozo the kKklown]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

Can you explain this?

You can't say you support social programs but then not want to pay for it. It makes no sense.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

10 hours ago, Hersh said:

I think a smart candidate recruits someday former candidates like Mayor Pete early with the promise of cabinet position.

 

He needs to run for Senate in IL not take a cabinet position. We need Senate seats. Warren would be a lock for a cabinet member, even if if the position is just pulling up a chair in the oval and feeding me awesome ideas and policies. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

You can't say you support social programs but then not want to pay for it. It makes no sense.

Well the term "fiscal conservative" itself doesn't say you do/don't want to support social programs.  It also doesn't say not spend any money at all, just be conservative (smart) with it.  So the term "fiscal conservative" isn't an oxymoron, it's just the people who claim to be that really aren't.

Just now, Momma There Goes That Man said:

He needs to run for Senate in IL not take a cabinet position. We need Senate seats. Warren would be a lock for a cabinet member, even if if the position is just pulling up a chair in the oval and feeding me awesome ideas and policies. 

This.  And the same could be said about a bunch of the people running.  Not everyone can get the top chair.  The ones that don't need to work towards/stay at filling up the seats in Congress.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

 

Attack Bernie's opponents under the guise of journalism then become a political operative. Pretty scummy.

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

50 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

What I would do is find out the issues that poll well across the aisle and make those the front & center ones on the platform.

 

We already saw this in the midterms. The #1 issue with voters was healthcare. Republicans have nothing to say on this but failures. Trump lied on the campaign about giving everyone universal healthcare then once taking office they tried to rip it away from 20 million people and end protections for preexisting conditions. Dems own this issue. It needs to be the focal point of their campaign. 

 

Another one is climate change. Make it a point that this doofus still denies climate change and what our plans are. 

 

Throw in weed legalization and you can get the attention of a lot of people that probably don't care at all about politics but would care about that. It's a no-brainer in both policy and politically. 

[Hersh]

28 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

He needs to run for Senate in IL not take a cabinet position. We need Senate seats. Warren would be a lock for a cabinet member, even if if the position is just pulling up a chair in the oval and feeding me awesome ideas and policies. 

 

I assume you mean Indiana?

[Momma There Goes That Man]

45 minutes ago, Larry said:

Every R President since Eisenhower has left office with a bigger deficit then when he came in.  And every Dem since FDR has left office with a smaller one.  

 

Is there a source for this? I've tried to find it but can't. 

 

Just now, Hersh said:

 

I assume you mean Indiana?

 

Yes, my bad. 

[PleaseBlitz]

Healthcare for sure.  I would also hammer the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires while the majority of voters are one unexpected expense away from the food bank. 

 

Most importantly, I would run on normalcy as opposed to constant chaos. 

 

[NoCalMike]

Assuming the nominee is not Biden, the Dems will also need some comebacks against the lame "socialism" attacks.  I would start by bringing up Trump's bribery of companies with tax payer money, also the cutting of massive checks to farmers due to his tariffs.  I would point out that Trump's interference in the market place is more akin to "Socialism" than anything any Democrat is proposing. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Healthcare for sure.  I would also hammer the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires while the majority of voters are one unexpected expense away from the food bank. 

 

Most importantly, I would run on normalcy as opposed to constant chaos. 

 

 

trump makes it easy to have popular positions because his policies, statements and actions are so terrible. It's going to be about getting a concise and clear message out. The taxes are another good one to beat home. I'd come up with 4-5 key ideals and just bang that drum constantly. 

 

The rest will sort itself out through comments. You don't have to harp on all of Trump's corruption or investigations and tweets etc. Just bring it up when asked and move on. It speaks for itself and if you try to list and refute and counter every thing he does, he wins. He owns the news cycles and makes us reactionary. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

38 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well the term "fiscal conservative" itself doesn't say you do/don't want to support social programs.  It also doesn't say not spend any money at all, just be conservative (smart) with it.  So the term "fiscal conservative" isn't an oxymoron, it's just the people who claim to be that really aren't.

My post was in response to democrats potentially targeting them by @dfitzo53. The thinking is they probably agree with Dems a lot but don’t want to spend money. I may be wrong, but that’s how I interpreted @dfitzo53‘s Post.

[Bozo the kKklown]

25 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

We already saw this in the midterms. The #1 issue with voters was healthcare. Republicans have nothing to say on this but failures. Trump lied on the campaign about giving everyone universal healthcare then once taking office they tried to rip it away from 20 million people and end protections for preexisting conditions. Dems own this issue. It needs to be the focal point of their campaign. 

 

Another one is climate change. Make it a point that this doofus still denies climate change and what our plans are. 

 

Throw in weed legalization and you can get the attention of a lot of people that probably don't care at all about politics but would care about that. It's a no-brainer in both policy and politically. 

 

I think Dems need to just have big ideas to affect everyday life. Booker’s idea about giving the poorest children $50,000 by the time they turn 18 is a great start to that. Our system is broken. You need to do something that targets the core instead of dabbling at the periphery. Democrats, like Biden and Obama and the Clintons, have been working on the edges or making things worse.

 

That means attacking Trump on his crap but also proposing big ideas that will transform lives.

[PleaseBlitz]

13 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

trump makes it easy to have popular positions because his policies, statements and actions are so terrible. It's going to be about getting a concise and clear message out. The taxes are another good one to beat home. I'd come up with 4-5 key ideals and just bang that drum constantly. 

 

The rest will sort itself out through comments. You don't have to harp on all of Trump's corruption or investigations and tweets etc. Just bring it up when asked and move on. It speaks for itself and if you try to list and refute and counter every thing he does, he wins. He owns the news cycles and makes us reactionary. 

 

Right.  When I say "as opposed to chaos" I don't necessarily mean shout about the chaos from the rooftops.  I mean, talk about yourself and your ability to govern in a thought-out way where you do your homework and prepare and have plans A, B and C etc. etc. and aren't a constant source of outrage and fear.   Then let Trump's daily circus speak for itself.  

 

If I were running, I would literally announce a policy were I would not directly speak about Trump six days per week.  I would talk about my candidacy.  Of course, that would draw everyone's attention to the one day per week where I did dunk on Trump, and I would hire a Last Week Tonight writer to help me spice it up. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Remember, Biden comes from Delaware, which is the home of many, many corporations. So he's a corporate guy. Like Warner of VA is a corporate guy. 

 

We don't need corporate guys going against Trump. We need young, energetic people running. Also, they can run against Trump's record of being at his various homes and golf courses at public expense. 

 

So much that everyone but Trumpers can get behind.