Which Dem can win general election in 2020?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amy Klobuchar. It has to be someone who acknowledges immigration is a problem, and is willing to do something to fix it. As a moderate Dem, I totally agree that most of the candidates are advocating for functionally open borders, though they're smart enough not to use the term. And it's concerning and not in step with what most of the country wants, clearly.

The country is declining in population without counting immigration. We need immigrants to fill the positions vacated by baby boomers. Without immigration US will be stuck with a stagnating or declining economy like much of europe and japan as their population are declining.

I'm the PP you're responding to. I'm not stupid. I understand that some level of (legal, orderly) immigration is needed and I'm all for it - my parents are immigrants. But conflating legal immigration with what's going on at the border with Central American migrants is a problem, and that's what's going to be a big issue for the Democratic candidate in 2020.

People walking up to the border and requesting asylum (or surrendering to CBP) because they want to escape gang violence, domestic violence, or poverty should not be considered legal immigration and frankly, shouldn't be admitted. It's not racist or bad to say that prospective immigrants to the US should apply through existing channels. But Democrats are refusing to say this aloud, much less offer any policies that genuinely address the issue, which is clearly of concern to many, many voters. And not providing a reasonable alternative to Trump is going to get him reelected, which is going to lead to even more humanitarian issues and horrible things like children being put in cages, people dying from lack of medical care, etc. The Democrats need to acknowledge that this is a problem and offer a solution besides "let them all in," because that's not going to fly with the voters they need to win the election, i.e. moderates in swing states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amy Klobuchar. It has to be someone who acknowledges immigration is a problem, and is willing to do something to fix it. As a moderate Dem, I totally agree that most of the candidates are advocating for functionally open borders, though they're smart enough not to use the term. And it's concerning and not in step with what most of the country wants, clearly.

The country is declining in population without counting immigration. We need immigrants to fill the positions vacated by baby boomers. Without immigration US will be stuck with a stagnating or declining economy like much of europe and japan as their population are declining.

So we need "breeders" is what you're saying.

Maybe you count you and your family as breeders. Because historically immigrants are more hard working, smart, educated and high achievers. I didn't say let anyone come in. Let us make immigration merit based and welcoming to all people so the country is vibrant. We need to compensate for the the dead weight, entitled native born who won't move to new and better jobs or retrain or educate themselves to compete in knowledge economy.

This country is now driven by smart, educated Asian immigrants. They are the professionals who are creating new companies, doctors, engineers, scientists and innovators. We need more of the same. Maybe they would be role models for the lazy native born Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amy Klobuchar. It has to be someone who acknowledges immigration is a problem, and is willing to do something to fix it. As a moderate Dem, I totally agree that most of the candidates are advocating for functionally open borders, though they're smart enough not to use the term. And it's concerning and not in step with what most of the country wants, clearly.

The country is declining in population without counting immigration. We need immigrants to fill the positions vacated by baby boomers. Without immigration US will be stuck with a stagnating or declining economy like much of europe and japan as their population are declining.

I'm the PP you're responding to. I'm not stupid. I understand that some level of (legal, orderly) immigration is needed and I'm all for it - my parents are immigrants. But conflating legal immigration with what's going on at the border with Central American migrants is a problem, and that's what's going to be a big issue for the Democratic candidate in 2020.

People walking up to the border and requesting asylum (or surrendering to CBP) because they want to escape gang violence, domestic violence, or poverty should not be considered legal immigration and frankly, shouldn't be admitted. It's not racist or bad to say that prospective immigrants to the US should apply through existing channels. But Democrats are refusing to say this aloud, much less offer any policies that genuinely address the issue, which is clearly of concern to many, many voters. And not providing a reasonable alternative to Trump is going to get him reelected, which is going to lead to even more humanitarian issues and horrible things like children being put in cages, people dying from lack of medical care, etc. The Democrats need to acknowledge that this is a problem and offer a solution besides "let them all in," because that's not going to fly with the voters they need to win the election, i.e. moderates in swing states.

The GOP doesn't want to pass comprehensive immigration bill and they scuttled it twice already once during W's presidency and another time during O's presidency. Now the conman would rather rile up his frothing base and play white identity politics and actually win rather than lose by 3 million votes. But the issue is the GOP has won the popular vote just once since 1988 and Americans are simply not with the fraud trickle down party which gives tax cut after tax cut for the wealthy while cutting education, healthcare and infrastructure budget that screws their base. But they get the base to vote by playing white identity politics. This fraud can't go on endlessly.

Conman started with 3 million fewer votes and now has lost even more. His approval is negative in the midwest states he won and NC, AZ etc. He has driven away even more minorities, women and educated people. He is not trying to expand his base, so he is likely gonna lose and his fraud and lies will eventually catch and goes down as the worst president ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amy Klobuchar. It has to be someone who acknowledges immigration is a problem, and is willing to do something to fix it. As a moderate Dem, I totally agree that most of the candidates are advocating for functionally open borders, though they're smart enough not to use the term. And it's concerning and not in step with what most of the country wants, clearly.

The country is declining in population without counting immigration. We need immigrants to fill the positions vacated by baby boomers. Without immigration US will be stuck with a stagnating or declining economy like much of europe and japan as their population are declining.

I'm the PP you're responding to. I'm not stupid. I understand that some level of (legal, orderly) immigration is needed and I'm all for it - my parents are immigrants. But conflating legal immigration with what's going on at the border with Central American migrants is a problem, and that's what's going to be a big issue for the Democratic candidate in 2020.

People walking up to the border and requesting asylum (or surrendering to CBP) because they want to escape gang violence, domestic violence, or poverty should not be considered legal immigration and frankly, shouldn't be admitted. It's not racist or bad to say that prospective immigrants to the US should apply through existing channels. But Democrats are refusing to say this aloud, much less offer any policies that genuinely address the issue, which is clearly of concern to many, many voters. And not providing a reasonable alternative to Trump is going to get him reelected, which is going to lead to even more humanitarian issues and horrible things like children being put in cages, people dying from lack of medical care, etc. The Democrats need to acknowledge that this is a problem and offer a solution besides "let them all in," because that's not going to fly with the voters they need to win the election, i.e. moderates in swing states.

Except, they have. There's been multiple immigration reform efforts that have built majority and bi-partisan support. Those efforts have been scuttled by a small group of extremist Republicans.

The whole DACA thing is only an issue because Trump decided to just end the administrative fix so he could use their suffering as a bargaining chip. I don't know what more you want them to do. Trump isn't trustworthy, multiple deals have been agreed to and then withdrawn at the last minute. McConnell has washed his hands of everything (except nominations).

Can't have agreement on a fix, when one small segment of one side refuses to allow majority compromise. Meanwhile the administration's entire negotiating strategy is quite simply to be a dick unless he gets a vanity wall down the middle of a freaking river.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amy Klobuchar. It has to be someone who acknowledges immigration is a problem, and is willing to do something to fix it. As a moderate Dem, I totally agree that most of the candidates are advocating for functionally open borders, though they're smart enough not to use the term. And it's concerning and not in step with what most of the country wants, clearly.

The country is declining in population without counting immigration. We need immigrants to fill the positions vacated by baby boomers. Without immigration US will be stuck with a stagnating or declining economy like much of europe and japan as their population are declining.

I'm the PP you're responding to. I'm not stupid. I understand that some level of (legal, orderly) immigration is needed and I'm all for it - my parents are immigrants. But conflating legal immigration with what's going on at the border with Central American migrants is a problem, and that's what's going to be a big issue for the Democratic candidate in 2020.

People walking up to the border and requesting asylum (or surrendering to CBP) because they want to escape gang violence, domestic violence, or poverty should not be considered legal immigration and frankly, shouldn't be admitted. It's not racist or bad to say that prospective immigrants to the US should apply through existing channels. But Democrats are refusing to say this aloud, much less offer any policies that genuinely address the issue, which is clearly of concern to many, many voters. And not providing a reasonable alternative to Trump is going to get him reelected, which is going to lead to even more humanitarian issues and horrible things like children being put in cages, people dying from lack of medical care, etc. The Democrats need to acknowledge that this is a problem and offer a solution besides "let them all in," because that's not going to fly with the voters they need to win the election, i.e. moderates in swing states.

The GOP doesn't want to pass comprehensive immigration bill and they scuttled it twice already once during W's presidency and another time during O's presidency. Now the conman would rather rile up his frothing base and play white identity politics and actually win rather than lose by 3 million votes. But the issue is the GOP has won the popular vote just once since 1988 and Americans are simply not with the fraud trickle down party which gives tax cut after tax cut for the wealthy while cutting education, healthcare and infrastructure budget that screws their base. But they get the base to vote by playing white identity politics. This fraud can't go on endlessly.

Conman started with 3 million fewer votes and now has lost even more. His approval is negative in the midwest states he won and NC, AZ etc. He has driven away even more minorities, women and educated people. He is not trying to expand his base, so he is likely gonna lose and his fraud and lies will eventually catch and goes down as the worst president ever.

The fact that Trump got 3 million fewer votes than HRC is a complete diversion from the real focus here, which is that the general election is and will continue to be determined by the EC. I hate it too, but it doesn't change the facts. Which means that the voters that a Dem candidate has to win over are moderate (white) voters in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. And even if Dems want to expand their base instead of trying to attract moderate/formerly Republican voters, I don't think saying things like "ABOLISH ICE" or trying to frame sensible immigration controls as "white identity politics" is going to work. I'm a minority and a faithful Democratic voter, and find that position to be a total turn off. I am sincerely hoping that whoever survives this primary will be smarter than that. And despite all the vile things Trump has done, he has succeeded in making immigration a huge wedge issue. Plenty of people will hold their noses and vote for him on that alone if we don't offer a reasonable alternative.

I'm not sure what reasonable alternative can be actually passed, because obviously the GOP has never cooperated on this issue and are now fixated on the wall, and I'm not an immigration policy expert. But it starts with the Democrats actually taking a sensible position and actually acknowledging that we need to stop the flow at the border.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amy Klobuchar. It has to be someone who acknowledges immigration is a problem, and is willing to do something to fix it. As a moderate Dem, I totally agree that most of the candidates are advocating for functionally open borders, though they're smart enough not to use the term. And it's concerning and not in step with what most of the country wants, clearly.

The country is declining in population without counting immigration. We need immigrants to fill the positions vacated by baby boomers. Without immigration US will be stuck with a stagnating or declining economy like much of europe and japan as their population are declining.

Ask yourself why the native-born population is declining. And ask yourself why many immigrants feel compelled to leave their native country. Do realize in both cases U.S. policy is problematic. A Democrat who actually acknowledges this should be golden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amy Klobuchar. It has to be someone who acknowledges immigration is a problem, and is willing to do something to fix it. As a moderate Dem, I totally agree that most of the candidates are advocating for functionally open borders, though they're smart enough not to use the term. And it's concerning and not in step with what most of the country wants, clearly.

The country is declining in population without counting immigration. We need immigrants to fill the positions vacated by baby boomers. Without immigration US will be stuck with a stagnating or declining economy like much of europe and japan as their population are declining.

I'm the PP you're responding to. I'm not stupid. I understand that some level of (legal, orderly) immigration is needed and I'm all for it - my parents are immigrants. But conflating legal immigration with what's going on at the border with Central American migrants is a problem, and that's what's going to be a big issue for the Democratic candidate in 2020.

People walking up to the border and requesting asylum (or surrendering to CBP) because they want to escape gang violence, domestic violence, or poverty should not be considered legal immigration and frankly, shouldn't be admitted. It's not racist or bad to say that prospective immigrants to the US should apply through existing channels. But Democrats are refusing to say this aloud, much less offer any policies that genuinely address the issue, which is clearly of concern to many, many voters. And not providing a reasonable alternative to Trump is going to get him reelected, which is going to lead to even more humanitarian issues and horrible things like children being put in cages, people dying from lack of medical care, etc. The Democrats need to acknowledge that this is a problem and offer a solution besides "let them all in," because that's not going to fly with the voters they need to win the election, i.e. moderates in swing states.

The GOP doesn't want to pass comprehensive immigration bill and they scuttled it twice already once during W's presidency and another time during O's presidency. Now the conman would rather rile up his frothing base and play white identity politics and actually win rather than lose by 3 million votes. But the issue is the GOP has won the popular vote just once since 1988 and Americans are simply not with the fraud trickle down party which gives tax cut after tax cut for the wealthy while cutting education, healthcare and infrastructure budget that screws their base. But they get the base to vote by playing white identity politics. This fraud can't go on endlessly.

Conman started with 3 million fewer votes and now has lost even more. His approval is negative in the midwest states he won and NC, AZ etc. He has driven away even more minorities, women and educated people. He is not trying to expand his base, so he is likely gonna lose and his fraud and lies will eventually catch and goes down as the worst president ever.

The fact that Trump got 3 million fewer votes than HRC is a complete diversion from the real focus here, which is that the general election is and will continue to be determined by the EC. I hate it too, but it doesn't change the facts. Which means that the voters that a Dem candidate has to win over are moderate (white) voters in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. And even if Dems want to expand their base instead of trying to attract moderate/formerly Republican voters, I don't think saying things like "ABOLISH ICE" or trying to frame sensible immigration controls as "white identity politics" is going to work. I'm a minority and a faithful Democratic voter, and find that position to be a total turn off. I am sincerely hoping that whoever survives this primary will be smarter than that. And despite all the vile things Trump has done, he has succeeded in making immigration a huge wedge issue. Plenty of people will hold their noses and vote for him on that alone if we don't offer a reasonable alternative.

I'm not sure what reasonable alternative can be actually passed, because obviously the GOP has never cooperated on this issue and are now fixated on the wall, and I'm not an immigration policy expert. But it starts with the Democrats actually taking a sensible position and actually acknowledging that we need to stop the flow at the border.

+1 Thank you for your very sensible and realistic post.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure what reasonable alternative can be actually passed, because obviously the GOP has never cooperated on this issue and are now fixated on the wall, and I'm not an immigration policy expert. But it starts with the Democrats actually taking a sensible position and actually acknowledging that we need to stop the flow at the border.

Um.... actually, they did. The trouble is that the GOP allowed what the Dems and the secure border that was promised never happened. That was long ago under Reagan and was repeated to a lesser extent a couple of other times.

[Anonymous]

I don't know if immigration will be as important as you think. Yes, it will be important, but, that importance will mainly be related to turning out/activating Trump's base. For them, it almost doesn't matter what the Democrats do. Any action or inaction they take is wrong according to the circular logic.

That being said, there are only three states that matter, PA, MI, and WI. Every other state is irrelevant. Now I certainly do think that, not alienating white men is important, but, I'm not sure that immigration is their make or break issue. HRC ran a horrendous top down microtargeted campaign that depressed her turnout while Trump maximized his turnout. If they run a bottom up broad based campaign they'll win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amy Klobuchar. It has to be someone who acknowledges immigration is a problem, and is willing to do something to fix it. As a moderate Dem, I totally agree that most of the candidates are advocating for functionally open borders, though they're smart enough not to use the term. And it's concerning and not in step with what most of the country wants, clearly.

The country is declining in population without counting immigration. We need immigrants to fill the positions vacated by baby boomers. Without immigration US will be stuck with a stagnating or declining economy like much of europe and japan as their population are declining.

So we need "breeders" is what you're saying.

Maybe you count you and your family as breeders. Because historically immigrants are more hard working, smart, educated and high achievers. I didn't say let anyone come in. Let us make immigration merit based and welcoming to all people so the country is vibrant. We need to compensate for the the dead weight, entitled native born who won't move to new and better jobs or retrain or educate themselves to compete in knowledge economy.

This country is now driven by smart, educated Asian immigrants. They are the professionals who are creating new companies, doctors, engineers, scientists and innovators. We need more of the same. Maybe they would be role models for the lazy native born Americans.

This country is driven by a small group of people that is almost entirely white, male, and native born. Saying otherwise is hilariously wrong. 'Asian immigrants' or immigrants from other regions are here in no small measure due to the immiseration of vast swathes of the native born population (including blacks and other minorities) and the foreign policy/natsec policies, undertaken to serve that small group of mostly white men, that disadvantage many native-born Americans AND force many immigrants to leave their country of birth. Address these concerns and you'll be closer to winning in 2020. Continue on this same line of Democratic Party nonsense, a line that is symbiotic with the anti-immigrant nonsense, and things won't work out nearly so well for the Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amy Klobuchar. It has to be someone who acknowledges immigration is a problem, and is willing to do something to fix it. As a moderate Dem, I totally agree that most of the candidates are advocating for functionally open borders, though they're smart enough not to use the term. And it's concerning and not in step with what most of the country wants, clearly.

The country is declining in population without counting immigration. We need immigrants to fill the positions vacated by baby boomers. Without immigration US will be stuck with a stagnating or declining economy like much of europe and japan as their population are declining.

So we need "breeders" is what you're saying.

Maybe you count you and your family as breeders. Because historically immigrants are more hard working, smart, educated and high achievers. I didn't say let anyone come in. Let us make immigration merit based and welcoming to all people so the country is vibrant. We need to compensate for the the dead weight, entitled native born who won't move to new and better jobs or retrain or educate themselves to compete in knowledge economy.

This country is now driven by smart, educated Asian immigrants. They are the professionals who are creating new companies, doctors, engineers, scientists and innovators. We need more of the same. Maybe they would be role models for the lazy native born Americans.

I'm first gen and "a breeder." Many of my pals - also first-gen - are also "breeders," and our kids are not lazy by any stretch of the imagination. However, what you're suggesting is a band aid approach. Once we get past the "immigrant" phase, the future generations - native-born Americans - become lazy.

So we have to keep bringing in the professional immigrants. Eventually, however, future generations will become lazy, yes? based upon your post

But the Asians are the exception???? Is that your belief?

[Anonymous]

Let's see after the recession hits and hits hard!

[Anonymous]

Who is Jay Inslee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's see after the recession hits and hits hard!

You are pathetic, wishing the worst for your own country.

Signed,

Immigrant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amy Klobuchar. It has to be someone who acknowledges immigration is a problem, and is willing to do something to fix it. As a moderate Dem, I totally agree that most of the candidates are advocating for functionally open borders, though they're smart enough not to use the term. And it's concerning and not in step with what most of the country wants, clearly.

The country is declining in population without counting immigration. We need immigrants to fill the positions vacated by baby boomers. Without immigration US will be stuck with a stagnating or declining economy like much of europe and japan as their population are declining.

I'm the PP you're responding to. I'm not stupid. I understand that some level of (legal, orderly) immigration is needed and I'm all for it - my parents are immigrants. But conflating legal immigration with what's going on at the border with Central American migrants is a problem, and that's what's going to be a big issue for the Democratic candidate in 2020.

People walking up to the border and requesting asylum (or surrendering to CBP) because they want to escape gang violence, domestic violence, or poverty should not be considered legal immigration and frankly, shouldn't be admitted. It's not racist or bad to say that prospective immigrants to the US should apply through existing channels. But Democrats are refusing to say this aloud, much less offer any policies that genuinely address the issue, which is clearly of concern to many, many voters. And not providing a reasonable alternative to Trump is going to get him reelected, which is going to lead to even more humanitarian issues and horrible things like children being put in cages, people dying from lack of medical care, etc. The Democrats need to acknowledge that this is a problem and offer a solution besides "let them all in," because that's not going to fly with the voters they need to win the election, i.e. moderates in swing states.

The GOP doesn't want to pass comprehensive immigration bill and they scuttled it twice already once during W's presidency and another time during O's presidency. Now the conman would rather rile up his frothing base and play white identity politics and actually win rather than lose by 3 million votes. But the issue is the GOP has won the popular vote just once since 1988 and Americans are simply not with the fraud trickle down party which gives tax cut after tax cut for the wealthy while cutting education, healthcare and infrastructure budget that screws their base. But they get the base to vote by playing white identity politics. This fraud can't go on endlessly.

Conman started with 3 million fewer votes and now has lost even more. His approval is negative in the midwest states he won and NC, AZ etc. He has driven away even more minorities, women and educated people. He is not trying to expand his base, so he is likely gonna lose and his fraud and lies will eventually catch and goes down as the worst president ever.

The fact that Trump got 3 million fewer votes than HRC is a complete diversion from the real focus here, which is that the general election is and will continue to be determined by the EC. I hate it too, but it doesn't change the facts. Which means that the voters that a Dem candidate has to win over are moderate (white) voters in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. And even if Dems want to expand their base instead of trying to attract moderate/formerly Republican voters, I don't think saying things like "ABOLISH ICE" or trying to frame sensible immigration controls as "white identity politics" is going to work. I'm a minority and a faithful Democratic voter, and find that position to be a total turn off. I am sincerely hoping that whoever survives this primary will be smarter than that. And despite all the vile things Trump has done, he has succeeded in making immigration a huge wedge issue. Plenty of people will hold their noses and vote for him on that alone if we don't offer a reasonable alternative.

I'm not sure what reasonable alternative can be actually passed, because obviously the GOP has never cooperated on this issue and are now fixated on the wall, and I'm not an immigration policy expert. But it starts with the Democrats actually taking a sensible position and actually acknowledging that we need to stop the flow at the border.

White Identity politics is WINKING and Dog whistling and calling white racist supremacists and Anti-Fascists as same. You can't get away with blatant racism like that.

White Identity politics is railing up NON-Existent brown people are taking over your jobs when unemployment is low.

White Identity politics is picking the pocket of the poor, uneducated whites by denying them good education, better healthcare(while the suicide rate and drug ODs are way up) BUT making them froth at the mouth by blaming the "OTHERS" and "NON WHITES".

White Identity politics is giving tax cuts to the rich and corporations, provide the white middle class pittance and claim they got the biggest tax cuts WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY cutting down other benefits.

TRUMP and the GOP Fraud party cant keep on winning just by EC alone because math can't be beaten all the time.