US Presidential Election 2020

DreamsBurnDown

briany wrote: »

Anyone running against Trump is going to have to find a way to deflect or absorb his verbal attacks. I understand that most politicians still subscribe to the dignified statesman role model and are reticent to mud wrestle with Trump, but whether they do or not, he's still going to splash mud on them, and worse is that when you're trying to promote a squeaky clean image, any little mud that does get on you is that much more noticeable, whereas Trump's been covered in mud from the beginning.

Any bland candidate, promoting a vague message of unity and progress, is going to find the going hard against Trump.

Kamala would make bits of him. A 3 decade state deputy DA/DA/AG isn't going to wilt facing a bully.

DreamsBurnDown

Twenty Grand wrote: »

What I gather from that poll is that people don't know what the f*ck they want.

This is a huge problem for Dems. As candidates get whittled down they'll lose voters to Republicans.

It's far too early in the process. Half the candidates are not even well known nationally.

peddlelies

Buttigieg is very impressive I must say, prob the best speaker of the lot and an impressive CV. I'd say he's the dark horse and I expect him to pick up momentum as the months roll on.

Like Bernie, he's going to do a town hall on Fox.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/439088-buttigieg-fox-news-in-talks-on-town-hall

"Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is in talks with Fox News about appearing in a town hall event on the network, a campaign spokesperson told The Hill on Tuesday.

The spokesperson, speaking a day after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) appeared on a Fox town hall, told The Hill that “reaching out to the Fox audience is something we intend to do.”"

is_that_so

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

It's far too early in the process. Half the candidates are not even well known nationally.

Joe Biden expected to announce on Thursday.

is_that_so

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Agreed, the big mistake Democrats could make is underestimate him and assume anyone could beat him. They are two key issues for 2020, (i) the state of the economy next November, and (ii) the quality of the candidate the Democrats run.

Regardless of how unpopular Trump is, the first issue is huge, as there is a natural resistance to change when the economy is doing well. In the only two cases in the past fifty years where a first term president was not reelected (Carter and Bush Sn), the country was in recession and unemployment was roughly 8%.

This is why the Democratic nominee and platform is so critical. The lessons of history are clear. Nixon was a very unpopular figure in 1972, but because Democrats ran the wrong candidate and the economy was strong, he won in an absolute landslide.

The path for Democrats is clear, run a strong candidate who can unite the party, and can clearly articulate a vision for the country that the electorate believes can be accomplished.

I don't think they have to go that far. Picking someone who can win should do that. They can worry about all those cracks after, they're very good at fretting anyway!

Rjd2

is_that_so wrote: »

I don't think they have to go that far. Picking someone who can win should do that. They can worry about all those cracks after, they're very good at fretting anyway!

Yep, pick the person most likely to win the rust belt states that Trump edged in 2016 and its game over. Its that simple. Biden and Sanders look the safest bets in that scenario.

Mods, might I suggest this thread gets moved to a new one ever month or so? The poll is pointless with only one vote over a couple of years, whereas monthly ones would be interesting.

is_that_so

Rjd2 wrote: »

Yep, pick the person most likely to win the rust belt states that Trump edged in 2016 and its game over. Its that simple. Biden and Sanders look the safest bets in that scenario.

The sensible view outside the Dems. Whether they can see that is another question, I don't think Bernie suits now. Far too inclined to rant and seem to be as intransigent as Trump on some things. Makes him an easier target. Biden might be the person or one of the others might hit that middle ground. Either way they need that field to reduce fast and resist bouncing way left.

Quin_Dub

Twenty Grand wrote: »

What I gather from that poll is that people don't know what the f*ck they want.

This is a huge problem for Dems. As candidates get whittled down they'll lose voters to Republicans.

The problem that Democrats have in general is that their voters are far more interested in the candidate then the "badge" as it were.

It's not that they'll lose votes to the GOP , they'll just lose voters.

US Democrat voters have a tendency to simply stay at home if their preferred candidate isn't on the ballot.

There are significantly more Democrat voters in the US than Republicans.

The single biggest thing that every single one of the losers in the Democratic primary can do, is stand on the Dais repeatedly and tell their supporters to vote for the winning Democratic party candidate , even if that means "holding their nose" to some extent because the winner is too centrist or too Left-wing or whatever for their particular liking.

oscarBravo

Twenty Grand wrote: »

What I gather from that poll is that people don't know what the f*ck they want.

I made the point in the aftermath of Trump's election that what the people seem to want is to be told what they want to hear, which isn't exactly a recipe for a happy electoral outcome.

briany

peddlelies wrote: »

Buttigieg is very impressive I must say, prob the best speaker of the lot and an impressive CV. I'd say he's the dark horse and I expect him to pick up momentum as the months roll on.

Like Bernie, he's going to do a town hall on Fox.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/439088-buttigieg-fox-news-in-talks-on-town-hall

"Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is in talks with Fox News about appearing in a town hall event on the network, a campaign spokesperson told The Hill on Tuesday.

The spokesperson, speaking a day after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) appeared on a Fox town hall, told The Hill that “reaching out to the Fox audience is something we intend to do.”"

The big elephant in the room regarding Paul Buttigieg is that he's a gay man. It's not something I expect any high profile political commentator or political opponent to question in terms of political attack ads, but I expect it to be a big issue in the minds of every conservative-leaning voter that isn't exactly happy with Trump Republicanism. Political dark matter, I suppose you could say.

Watching his town hall, I thought he was very composed and handled the questions well, but he seemed a bit rehearsed as well. I wonder how that cool, calm, studious approach will hold up if Trump comes out swinging in the 2020 debates (and you have to think he will). I didn't work out that great for Hil.

Gbear

briany wrote: »

The big elephant in the room regarding Paul Buttigieg is that he's a gay man. It's not something I expect any high profile political commentator or political opponent to question in terms of political attack ads, but I expect it to be a big issue in the minds of every conservative-leaning voter that isn't exactly happy with Trump Republicanism. Political dark matter, I suppose you could say.

Watching his town hall, I thought he was very composed and handled the questions well, but he seemed a bit rehearsed as well. I wonder how that cool, calm, studious approach will hold up if Trump comes out swinging in the 2020 debates (and you have to think he will). I didn't work out that great for Hil.

I would've thought the bulk of the homophobes will be fairly securely in Trump's camp, and will be unlikely to switch to a gay-friendly Democratic party come what may.

I can't see it being a big deal for either the base or the bulk of the floating vote.

With things this polarised I think it's important for candidates not to waste time worrying about things they can't change.

There's a larger electorate of Democrats than Republicans. They'll gain more by having someone energetic and who motivates large turnout than they will by trying to work in the margins of wooing dyed in the wool conservatives.

eagle eye

If he's gay he has no hope and even less against Trump. It'll be pointed out that he is not a family man and doesn't understand what it's like to have kids. Then there is the religious side.
No chance he gets elected.
Beto is the one who will beat Trump of he gets the chance.

Rjd2

is_that_so wrote: »

The sensible view outside the Dems. Whether they can see that is another question, I don't think Bernie suits now. Far too inclined to rant and seem to be as intransigent as Trump on some things. Makes him an easier target. Biden might be the person or one of the others might hit that middle ground. Either way they need that field to reduce fast and resist bouncing way left.

Bernie would be the more dodgy of the two as older voters don't trust him, but he is very strong in those states and Trump simply can not win if he loses any of those states.

I'd stick Warren as his VP which would keep the more establishment dems happy. In a perfect world it would be Gabbard, but sadly this is not her moment and she alienates a lot of the mainstream dems. Some have suggested other lefty options, but Bernie needs to be sensible here and try to unite the party, having Warren as VP would do that.

briany

Gbear wrote: »

I would've thought the bulk of the homophobes will be fairly securely in Trump's camp, and will be unlikely to switch to a gay-friendly Democratic party come what may.

I'm thinking more of middle-America, really. To them, I wonder if the idea of having a gay man as POTUS is just a bit too unusual. The reason I call it political dark matter is because it could be one of those things that's an issue but remains unspoken and exists as a lingering thought in the back of the U.S. electorate's mind. Something hard to accurately poll.

Rjd2

The biggest concern for Mayor Pete, is how much support does he have? Others have made the point better than I, but while the media clearly love him does it translate into votes? The media for the most part are upper class, white, and would consider themselves liberal, but outside of that bubble can he win?

The hard left are Sanders die hards and the likes of Biden will eat into the more centreist older base.

briany

Is there any merit to me having the feeling that Joe Biden is running because it's "his turn"? With this super delegates thing the Democrats have it seems to be that the their primaries are weighted in favour of one person.

Rjd2

Biden is the most likely person to beat Bernie and most importantly Trump, those are the reasons why he is running.

DreamsBurnDown

Rjd2 wrote: »

Biden is the most likely person to beat Bernie and most importantly Trump, those are the reasons why he is running.

If Biden had run in 2016 we wouldn't have Trump. The DNC deciding it was Hillary's "turn" was a huge mistake, as was shafting Bernie which kept millions of young voters from voting.

DreamsBurnDown

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

If Biden had run in 2016 we wouldn't have Trump. The DNC deciding it was Hillary's "turn" was a huge mistake, as was shafting Bernie which kept millions of young voters from voting.

New York was a joke. Loads of people wanted to vote for Sanders but the date to register as a Democrat was very early.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/12/new-york-primary-deadlines-voter-registration

eagle eye

Rjd2 wrote:

Biden is the most likely person to beat Bernie and most importantly Trump, those are the reasons why he is running.

It's hard to beat an incumbent, old guy vs incumbent old guy won't work imo.

Fr Tod Umptious

eagle eye wrote: »

It's hard to beat an incumbent, old guy vs incumbent old guy won't work imo.

But as said many times here you have to look at where the election is won and lost.

In 2016 that was the so called rust belt.

What is the demographic of voters in the rust belt.
My theory is that they would be older rather than younger.
As people get older they get more conservative, that's why Sanders is more popular with the younger generation.
Trump's base is older rather than younger.
So your target voter is going to be older and lean more center right than center left.

That makes Biden the perfect choice to win those states.

He'll still win NY and California and lose Mississippi, but that doesn't matter as long as he can appeal to the rust belt.

Fr Tod Umptious

Rjd2 wrote: »

Biden is the most likely person to beat Bernie and most importantly Trump, those are the reasons why he is running.

Is he actually running ?

batgoat

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Is he actually running ?

He's expected to announce today.

The Phantom Jipper

Deleted User wrote: »

New York was a joke. Loads of people wanted to vote for Sanders but the date to register as a Democrat was very early.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/12/new-york-primary-deadlines-voter-registration

The rules were the same for both candidates. In any event, the result was 58 -42 to Clinton, a convincing win by any measure.

Bernie did well in caucuses, which are less accessible and democratic than primaries. The process worked in his favour in that regard, and he lost out in others.

Paleface

I think Biden can beat Trump. Obama will come out hard backing him too with a lot of the same people who worked for him involved in running the campaign behind the scenes.

pixelburp

And with that, the cracking sound you hear is the Democrat voting base splitting in twain once more, between the indentured establishment figure in Biden, and brazenly socialist Bernie Sanders. Unless Harris or Warren get a bump once the campaigning begins in earnest (and the former would easily take Biden's place as the 'establishment' hate figure), it seems safe to assume we're looking down the barrel of another Democratic sh*tshow of infighting, and ideological Purity Tests.

Maybe, maybe there's a chance the base won't make the same mistake twice, given from their point of view the very worst outcome occurred last time, but I don't imagine this is the case. Assuming the super-delegates stack the deck for Biden, it's a nice theory to imagine the spurned, so-called 'Bernie bros' will swallow their pride - but that's just it, a theory.

The Phantom Jipper

pixelburp wrote: »

And with that, the cracking sound you hear is the Democrat voting base splitting in twain once more, between the indentured establishment figure in Biden, and brazenly socialist Bernie Sanders. Unless Harris or Warren get a bump once the campaigning begins in earnest (and the former would easily take Biden's place as the 'establishment' hate figure), it seems safe to assume we're looking down the barrel of another Democratic sh*tshow of infighting, and ideological Purity Tests.

Maybe, maybe there's a chance the base won't make the same mistake twice, given from their point of view the very worst outcome occurred last time, but I don't imagine this is the case. Assuming the super-delegates stack the deck for Biden, it's a nice theory to imagine the spurned, so-called 'Bernie bros' will swallow their pride - but that's just it, a theory.

It's hypocrisy on their part in my opinion. You don't get to complain about corporate tax cuts, children locked in cages etc if you couldn't even be bothered to vote against Trump. Susan Sarandon and others spoke of Trump winning having some silver linings, as it would hasten the "revolution".The privilege you must have to impose such hardship on people rather than betray your sense of ideological purity is staggering.

Eric Cartman

pixelburp wrote: »

And with that, the cracking sound you hear is the Democrat voting base splitting in twain once more, between the indentured establishment figure in Biden, and brazenly socialist Bernie Sanders. Unless Harris or Warren get a bump once the campaigning begins in earnest (and the former would easily take Biden's place as the 'establishment' hate figure), it seems safe to assume we're looking down the barrel of another Democratic sh*tshow of infighting, and ideological Purity Tests.

Maybe, maybe there's a chance the base won't make the same mistake twice, given from their point of view the very worst outcome occurred last time, but I don't imagine this is the case. Assuming the super-delegates stack the deck for Biden, it's a nice theory to imagine the spurned, so-called 'Bernie bros' will swallow their pride - but that's just it, a theory.

+1 Sanders is actually the most dangerous person to have around , he makes anyone else on the dem side look like an establishment hack and makes their more centerist policies look more to the right. Aslong as he's in the running its just fracturing and division

rossie1977

pixelburp wrote: »

And with that, the cracking sound you hear is the Democrat voting base splitting in twain once more, between the indentured establishment figure in Biden, and brazenly socialist Bernie Sanders. Unless Harris or Warren get a bump once the campaigning begins in earnest (and the former would easily take Biden's place as the 'establishment' hate figure), it seems safe to assume we're looking down the barrel of another Democratic sh*tshow of infighting, and ideological Purity Tests.

Maybe, maybe there's a chance the base won't make the same mistake twice, given from their point of view the very worst outcome occurred last time, but I don't imagine this is the case. Assuming the super-delegates stack the deck for Biden, it's a nice theory to imagine the spurned, so-called 'Bernie bros' will swallow their pride - but that's just it, a theory.

Don't see it. Biden wouldn't be seen as establishment like Clinton was, in fact Harris, Booker would be considered establishment more than Biden.

Among Sanders voters Biden is overwhelmingly second choice with 34%, Warren second in 16%. Same with Biden supporters, their second choice is Sanders with 34%, Harris next on 11%

pixelburp

I don't think Sanders is 'dangerous', his policies obviously resonate with many and wouldn't ruffle feathers in much of the EU, but his presence is the Final Mutation with a two-party system: candidates who are left of centre have to plant their flag somewhere if they want to get ahead in American politics, and with the Republicans fully embracing the Tea Party, that leaves the Democrats. Sanders himself IIRC ran as an independent for the longest time.

By all accounts, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Omar and other more obviously socialist - or socialist-adjacent - politicians should be running as part of a Third Party, but it doesn't exist so they're wedged into this increasingly ideologically overstuffed Democratic party. Under normal circumstances, Nancy Pelosi & Ocasio-Cortez would have no business sharing the same floor, yet bizarrely they do. It's no wonder the fractures show.

Sad Professor

The Dems are no more ideologically overstuffed than the Republicans are. The two US parties aren't parties as we would understand them. More like alliances of different parties. Also, Sanders (a social democrat) and AOC (a left liberal) would have fit in the party just fine in the post-war New Deal/Great Society era. The domination of the party by people that would have been considered moderate Republicans (which is how Obama described himself) in previous decades is the thing that needs to change.

Anyway I think Dems like the idea of Biden more than the man himself who is incredibly gaffe prone and boring. I don't think he can win.

MadYaker

A Biden / Sanders ticket would be strong but I don't think they are compatible. I think Biden has a better shot overall than Bernie does but only if he can get the bernie supporters out to vote for him. He could do this by taking on board some of sanders proposals. I wonder who he'll pick as a running mate. Probably have to be a woman?

Jimmy_oc1998

I always find US elections funny. They spend months grilling people in their own party and then once all that is out of the way they're supposed to support each other.

Sleepy Joe is in good shape for a 76 year old. Be 81 by the time he'd be finished.

Fr Tod Umptious

MadYaker wrote: »

A Biden / Sanders ticket would be strong but I don't think they are compatible. I think Biden has a better shot overall than Bernie does but only if he can get the bernie supporters out to vote for him. He could do this by taking on board some of sanders proposals. I wonder who he'll pick as a running mate. Probably have to be a woman?

In a general election he does not need Bernie supporters he needs people who voted for Trump because Hiliary was such a poor choice.

MadYaker

He does need the bernie supporters as well though. They stayed at home instead of voting for clinton. I hope they realise this time around that by staying at home they might as well vote for trump.

SoundsRight

Biden is their best hope, but it would go against all their posturing over the years. They want politics to be less pale, male and stale, so are they going to select a white guy in his seventies ahead of a woman or POC? I would imagine it would leave a lot of voters disinterested.

MadYaker

SoundsRight wrote: »

Biden is their best hope, but it would go against all their posturing over the years. They want politics to be less pale, male and stale, so are they going to select a white guy in his seventies ahead of a woman or POC? I would imagine it would leave a lot of voters disinterested.

I think that was true the last time around but Trump is no longer an unknown quantity. I think at the moment priority number one for the democrat base is getting the orange guy out of the white house. Anyone else is better for now and in 2024 they can worry about electing a progressive. The majority of Americans aren't ready for Sanders or his type yet anyway. They need to wait for another election cycle or two for some more of the older generation to die and stop voting for dinosaurs like biden and trump.

DreamsBurnDown

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

In a general election he does not need Bernie supporters he needs people who voted for Trump because Hiliary was such a poor choice.

He (or whoever wins the nomination) needs to get back at least some of the white working class vote which has historically voted Democrat but largely abandoned the party in 2016. Something like 45% of eligible voters are white without a college degree, and Trump won that demographic by 2:1 over Hillary. It's actually an astonishing statistic when you consider Democrats have historically been the party of the working man and Republicans the party of the rich.

The question for Democrats is how to appeal to that huge segment and get some of them back. I think anyone sensible recognizes what won't work, calling them racists, sexists, etc. You simply have to appeal to them on policy that your vision for the country includes them and will improve their standard of living. The focus should be on reducing heath care costs, increasing minimum wage, support for small business and manufacturing, maintaining low income taxes for low to moderate income, etc.

You can do that and attack Trump at the same time. You don't have to attack his potential voters as Hillary did in 2016, you need to bring some of them and those on the fence on board. Obama was able to unite the party and appeal to a broad spectrum of voters in 2008, Biden can do the same and should select either Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren as his running mate, as two old white guys would be a terrible optic (four in total including Trump and Pence).

Itssoeasy

I'm sorry if this point has been raised in this thread, but let's say trump doesn't win reelection in 2020 and therefore a new president will assume office in January 2021. Given what he was saying prior to the last election about whether he'd except the election result and from memory he wouldn't say he would at the time. Do posters thing he'll except a defeat even remotely gracefully ? The few inaugurations I've seen live and others I've found footage of the persistent line is that the USA has this "peaceful transition of power" and I don't think Trump will do it honestly. Nothing I've seen in nearly three years makes me think he'll leave if he loses. Who'd force him to leave the White House honestly ?

DreamsBurnDown

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'm sorry if this point has been raised in this thread, but let's say trump doesn't win reelection in 2020 and therefore a new president will assume office in January 2021. Given what he was saying prior to the last election about whether he'd except the election result and from memory he wouldn't say he would at the time. Do posters thing he'll except a defeat even remotely gracefully ? The few inaugurations I've seen live and others I've found footage of the persistent line is that the USA has this "peaceful transition of power" and I don't think Trump will do it honestly. Nothing I've seen in nearly three years makes me think he'll leave if he loses. Who'd force him to leave the White House honestly ?

He'd be led out in handcuffs if he didn't accept the result.

rossie1977

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The question for Democrats is how to appeal to that huge segment and get some of them back. I think anyone sensible recognizes what won't work, calling them racists, sexists, etc.

First up Clinton didn't call the entire working class of the us anything. She was specifically referring to the hardcore Trump supporters, most likely those that follow him to rallies. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-us-2016-37329812/clinton-half-of-trump-supporters-basket-of-deplorables

Those folks are gone, they will not vote anyone but Trump. Dems could put Jesus Christ himself on the ticket and they will still vote Trump.

You simply have to appeal to them on policy that your vision for the country includes them and will improve their standard of living. The focus should be on reducing heath care costs, increasing minimum wage, support for small business and manufacturing, maintaining low income taxes for low to moderate income, etc.

So basically copy Clintons policies https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

The problem is nobody listened or cared about policies last election. It was all about the emails, Benghazi, look her up, crooked Hillary, Hillary dying. No doubt same tactics will be used again regardless what Dem candidate emerges.

The mainstream media focused all of their time last election on either giving Trump thousands of hours of free advertising or the emails and Benghazi. The right wing media and Republicans portrayed Clinton as biggest monster on the planet.

You can do that and attack Trump at the same time. You don't have to attack his potential voters as Hillary did in 2016, you need to bring some of them and those on the fence on board. Obama was able to unite the party and appeal to a broad spectrum of voters in 2008, Biden can do the same and should select either Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren as his running mate, as two old white guys would be a terrible optic (four in total including Trump and Pence).

Trump attacked muslims, blacks, hispanics, women constantly during last election. He will do it again during 2020 election.

marno21

McConnell came out yesterday and stated he would be the "grim reaper" if a post 2020 Democratic president tries to push through "socialism" by blocking anything that comes before the Senate

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1121491566173065217

Whatever about Trump, there is going to be a sorry legacy to this individuals tenure.

MadYaker

marno21 wrote: »

McConnell came out yesterday and stated he would be the "grim reaper" if a post 2020 Democratic president tries to push through "socialism" by blocking anything that comes before the Senate

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1121491566173065217

Whatever about Trump, there is going to be a sorry legacy to this individuals tenure.

Whats the logic behind allowing one guy in the senate to block votes at a whim? Seems incredibly undemocratic to me.

vetinari

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

In a general election he does not need Bernie supporters he needs people who voted for Trump because Hiliary was such a poor choice.

This has been shown to be wrong multiple multiple times. Elections are not about getting other party members to vote for you. They're about getting your own base out. Personally I think Biden is a poor choice from that standpoint. He's too old. The best comparison the Democrats can do is have a significantly younger candidate. Trump is currently showing serious signs of senility. Why run a candidate whom similar accusations could be leveled against?


It's an issue for the leading democratic candidates. Warren, Biden and Sanders are all too old. They need one of the younger candidates (60 or younger) to start gaining some traction. That will give them an advantage in the general election in terms of the comparison to Trump.

vetinari

MadYaker wrote: »

Whats the logic behind allowing one guy in the senate to block votes at a whim? Seems incredibly undemocratic to me.

If (very big if) the Democrats win the presidency, senate and the house, you'll see the fillibuster for legislation get removed imo. Warren has already talked about it. It ultimately helps the Republicans more than the Democrats.

briany

Eric Cartman wrote: »

+1 Sanders is actually the most dangerous person to have around , he makes anyone else on the dem side look like an establishment hack and makes their more centerist policies look more to the right. Aslong as he's in the running its just fracturing and division

This is the biggest excuse going for presidential candidates. "If that wing nut hadn't siphoned off votes, I would have won. Wah."

Maybes if your policies weren't so bland and boring, offering little hope of positive change, you would have all the votes you need.

Additionally, it doesn't matter if Bernie makes them look like establishment hacks, because Trump definitely will. He'll be throwing haymakers from the out and dispensing with all nicety. If they try to debate Trump, responding to his jabs with a dismissive head shake and chuckle, they will be in trouble.

DreamsBurnDown

rossie1977 wrote: »

First up Clinton didn't call the entire working class of the us anything. She was specifically referring to the hardcore Trump supporters, most likely those that follow him to rallies. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-us-2016-37329812/clinton-half-of-trump-supporters-basket-of-deplorables

Those folks are gone, they will not vote anyone but Trump. Dems could put Jesus Christ himself on the ticket and they will still vote Trump.

The problem with your analysis is that millions of white working class who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 switched their vote to Trump in 2016. Are they deplorables? 25% of white working class voters who had voted for Obama twice abandoned the Democratic party in 2016. If you don't believe that Democrats had lost touch with the working class in much of America, and not just whites, I probably can't convince you, but the evidence suggests it.

Hillary Clinton isn't solely to blame for that obviously, but she was deeply unpopular (as was Trump) and regarded as part of the same old crowd in Washington who talked the talk but never delivered. While banks were bailed out, companies left in droves and lobbyists still controlled Washington, nobody seemed to care about working people who continued to struggle to make ends meet.

The issues that working Americans care about are decent paying jobs, outsourcing which has decimated manufacturing, cost of health care and health insurance, corruption in government, protecting social security, keeping Wall Street in check, etc. The reality is that after eight years of Obama and the promise of change, the standard of living of most working class Americans declined, wages were stagnant or declined, and the cost of health care, third level education, etc. went through the roof.

It was also an election campaign unlike no other in living memory, so the potential for an upset was always a possibility.

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

First up Clinton didn't call the entire working class of the us anything. She was specifically referring to the hardcore Trump supporters, most likely those that follow him to rallies.

She said half, which turned out to be over 30 million people.

Even calling a single voter deplorable would be an idiotic thing for any candidate to do.

"She didn't say all! Only half!" is such a lazy cop out, especially when used in hindsight.

BluePlanet

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The problem with your analysis is that millions of white working class who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 switched their vote to Trump in 2016. Are they deplorables? 25% of white working class voters who had voted for Obama twice abandoned the Democratic party in 2016.

I would need convincing of that figure.
IMO some of those may have been Bernie supporters that couldn't or wouldn't hold their nose and vote for Clinton. But i doubt they represent a switch of party affiliation.