Which Dem can win general election in 2020?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rendell's statement about Pennsyltucky is ridiculous but not for the reason you're suggesting -- those voters haven't been D in a long time. Obama won PA with 3.2 million votes in 2008 and that wasn't by courting those outside of the two major cities. Lots of them stayed home in 2012 but Romney couldn't bring out the base in the way that Trump did. HRC won 64K fewer votes in PA than Obama did in 2012 and that was basically Trump's margin of victory. Any candidate who can win somewhere between Obama's 2008 and 2012 PA vote totals will likely beat trump easily. And that's not by courting Pennsyltucky voters.

Obama was quite popular in the suburbs of harrisburg - which is in central pa - aka pennsyktucky.

Clinton was poison in those same suburbs.

A lot of Obama-trump voters in that area.

Obama didn’t get his numbers just from the main line and meek mill rappin type dudes in north philly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto is a Trojan horse for the third way.

He’s a NDC dem.

He joined R’s in support of rolling back financial institution regulation.

He’s bought and paid for by oil and gas - David Sirota exposed him.

No thanks!

Oh good Russian talking points right here on DCUM. Why I can't believe my eyes.

David sirota is Russian?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto is a Trojan horse for the third way.

He’s a NDC dem.

He joined R’s in support of rolling back financial institution regulation.

He’s bought and paid for by oil and gas - David Sirota exposed him.

No thanks!

Oh good Russian talking points right here on DCUM. Why I can't believe my eyes.

David sirota is Russian?

Bernie surrogates are just as poisonous to Democrats as Russians are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto is a Trojan horse for the third way.

He’s a NDC dem.

He joined R’s in support of rolling back financial institution regulation.

He’s bought and paid for by oil and gas - David Sirota exposed him.

No thanks!

Oh good Russian talking points right here on DCUM. Why I can't believe my eyes.

David sirota is Russian?

Bernie surrogates are just as poisonous to Democrats as Russians are.

Democrats destroy their brand and values by being bagmen for monied interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto is a Trojan horse for the third way.

He’s a NDC dem.

He joined R’s in support of rolling back financial institution regulation.

He’s bought and paid for by oil and gas - David Sirota exposed him.

No thanks!

Oh good Russian talking points right here on DCUM. Why I can't believe my eyes.

David sirota is Russian?

Bernie surrogates are just as poisonous to Democrats as Russians are.

Also https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

I think it's worth considering that Bernie is also in some trouble. Also also the Russian talking points aren't 100% fiction - but they are meant to sow divide. Like what Bernie did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto is a Trojan horse for the third way.

He’s a NDC dem.

He joined R’s in support of rolling back financial institution regulation.

He’s bought and paid for by oil and gas - David Sirota exposed him.

No thanks!

Oh good Russian talking points right here on DCUM. Why I can't believe my eyes.

David sirota is Russian?

Bernie surrogates are just as poisonous to Democrats as Russians are.

Democrats destroy their brand and values by being bagmen for monied interests.

Thanks Vlad, for your input

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, you're still just saying "Shut up, liberals. Your outrage over the outrageous is unacceptable."

this.

so, accept the unacceptable? NOPE. EVERYONE should be pissed. This shit isn't normal. It's on THEM if they just want to go along to get along.

Seriously, screw that.

NP here.

I'd recommend leaving your little bubble more often.

There was a close election. One party won, another lost. Pretty typical.

Yet, you were doing marches the very day after Inauguration. You are becoming an undemocratic fascist mob, and don't realize it.

Net net, grow up, drop the fake outrage, and think how to win 2020.

Hint: you need to engage and persuade voters, not insult then or intimidate them.

Those who still love Trump can't be persuaded. They are lost. And JFC no one is trying to intimidate them. They are pathetic little snowflakes if they think every march, every protest, every unkind word, is somehow a threat to them. And the midterms suggest that those who were reluctant Trump voters to start with ARE being engaged and persuaded.

And how about this: Why doesn't TRUMP need to persuade and engage, instead of insulting and intimidating? Why TF do you think this only f*cking applies to those who aren't Trump?

Because elections aren't won so much as lost and the Democrats of recent decades having been losing to worse (GWB) and worse (Trump) Republicans. It's time for an upgrade.

You might have missed some news in the last month

And how much better is that than 2006 or 2008? Professional Democrats make a point of failing habitually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who can the Democrats nominate that will turn out the base in large enough numbers (and, more importantly, in the swing states)? It's really that simple, except that there's no magic formula in finding the right candidate who will do so.

Base, my ass. They need a broader coalition. Less than half of eligible voters choose Trump or Clinton. There are enormous numbers of untapped folks out there.

This

I’m not worried about the Democrats’ chances if Trump is on the ticket in 2020. People didn’t like Hillary on a personal level and she had too much baggage but anyone else the Democrats are thinking about won’t have that issue. Particularly now that the country has seen what the Trump admin is like.

Don't forget how eager mainstream Democrats were to have Trump as the nominee. If Trump is problematic, the only reasonable response to get serious and leave little to chance when they take him on in 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rendell's statement about Pennsyltucky is ridiculous but not for the reason you're suggesting -- those voters haven't been D in a long time. Obama won PA with 3.2 million votes in 2008 and that wasn't by courting those outside of the two major cities. Lots of them stayed home in 2012 but Romney couldn't bring out the base in the way that Trump did. HRC won 64K fewer votes in PA than Obama did in 2012 and that was basically Trump's margin of victory. Any candidate who can win somewhere between Obama's 2008 and 2012 PA vote totals will likely beat trump easily. And that's not by courting Pennsyltucky voters.

Dems problem is that their long-term dynamic is to shift away from working-class+rural voters to professionals. Problem is, professionals are both a small %-age of total electorate and heavily concentrated in a few metros.

Did Obama win 3.2 million votes in PA ten years ago by appealing to working class and rural voters?

He did better than HRC. And in the decades prior, the Democrats used to pretty good at winning those voters, which was good because it translated into meaningful congressional majorities. Now the Democrats win high income areas by a wide margin, but falter elsewhere: not a good national strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto is a Trojan horse for the third way.

He’s a NDC dem.

He joined R’s in support of rolling back financial institution regulation.

He’s bought and paid for by oil and gas - David Sirota exposed him.

No thanks!

Oh good Russian talking points right here on DCUM. Why I can't believe my eyes.

David sirota is Russian?

Bernie surrogates are just as poisonous to Democrats as Russians are.

DCUM=Delusional Clowns & Utter Morons

Bernie voters are the demographics that could help give the Democrats a firm majority. But senior Democratic Party figures would have to sacrifice their sinecures to make that happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto is a Trojan horse for the third way.

He’s a NDC dem.

He joined R’s in support of rolling back financial institution regulation.

He’s bought and paid for by oil and gas - David Sirota exposed him.

No thanks!

Oh good Russian talking points right here on DCUM. Why I can't believe my eyes.

David sirota is Russian?

Bernie surrogates are just as poisonous to Democrats as Russians are.

Democrats destroy their brand and values by being bagmen for monied interests.

Thanks Vlad, for your input

Vlad? Harping on this Russia nonsense is birtherism level stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto is a Trojan horse for the third way.

He’s a NDC dem.

He joined R’s in support of rolling back financial institution regulation.

He’s bought and paid for by oil and gas - David Sirota exposed him.

No thanks!

Oh good Russian talking points right here on DCUM. Why I can't believe my eyes.

David sirota is Russian?

Bernie surrogates are just as poisonous to Democrats as Russians are.

Also https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

I think it's worth considering that Bernie is also in some trouble. Also also the Russian talking points aren't 100% fiction - but they are meant to sow divide. Like what Bernie did.

Bernie didn't divide, he told the truths Clinton refused to tell. In a democracy, what people think matters. Bernie represented the dispossessed well, including young people and people outside the high-income bubble. If defeating Trump was so important, the Democrats would have been wise to have listened to Bernie and his constituency.

And besides, Bernie barely touched Hillary, which is kind of too bad because she had so much baggage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto is a Trojan horse for the third way.

He’s a NDC dem.

He joined R’s in support of rolling back financial institution regulation.

He’s bought and paid for by oil and gas - David Sirota exposed him.

No thanks!

Oh good Russian talking points right here on DCUM. Why I can't believe my eyes.

David sirota is Russian?

Bernie surrogates are just as poisonous to Democrats as Russians are.

Also https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

I think it's worth considering that Bernie is also in some trouble. Also also the Russian talking points aren't 100% fiction - but they are meant to sow divide. Like what Bernie did.

Given that the dollars this indictment claims to involve in an election that involved billions, I think it's pretty clear that only a fool thinks this stuff matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Obama win 3.2 million votes in PA ten years ago by appealing to working class and rural voters?

He did better than HRC. And in the decades prior, the Democrats used to pretty good at winning those voters, which was good because it translated into meaningful congressional majorities. Now the Democrats win high income areas by a wide margin, but falter elsewhere: not a good national strategy.

So how did they win 235 House seats last month with such a poor national strategy?

Obama 2008/2012 vs. HRC 2016 isn't really apples-to-apples due to the vast difference in opposition. If Obama faced Trump in 2008/2012, or if HRC faced McCain or Romney in 2016, what do you think happens in PA?

[Anonymous]

“Beto O’Rourke, weighing whether to mount a 2020 presidential bid, met recently with ­Barack Obama at his post-presidency offices in Washington.

The meeting, which was held Nov. 16 at the former president’s offices in Foggy Bottom, came as former Obama aides have encouraged the Democratic House member to run, seeing him as capable of the same kind of inspirational campaign that caught fire in the 2008 presidential election.

The meeting was the first sign of Obama getting personally involved in conversations with O’Rourke, who, despite his November loss in a U.S. Senate race in Texas, has triggered more recent discussion and speculation than any other candidate in the burgeoning 2020 field.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/beto-orourke-met-with-barack-obama-as-he-ponders-a-2020-presidential-campaign/2018/12/04/fa895cc8-f7fb-11e8-8d64-4e79db33382f_story.html?utm_term=.1ded3f6de0fd