2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

[the next guy]

 

[blotter]

 

[88m3]

People will criticize Bernie idk why his cult can't accept that

 

[FAH1223]

 

[afterlife2009]

Jon Ossoff thinking about a senate run in Georgia. Another L incoming
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/darrensands/jon-ossoff-johnny-isakson-georgia-senate

Jon Ossoff, who ran an unsuccessful special election campaign in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, is now seriously considering a run at one of the two open Senate seats in Georgia, three sources familiar with Ossoff’s plans told BuzzFeed News.

A Democratic source with direct knowledge of Ossoff’s conversations spoke on the condition of anonymity and said Ossoff is already considering a run in the Democratic primary to challenge incumbent Sen. David Perdue. On Wednesday, Georgia’s other Republican senator, Johnny Isakson, announced Wednesday he would resign at the end of the year, citing health issues. Two sources said the development made Ossoff more likely to run, with some kind of a formal announcement about his intentions coming soon.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

its opinion editorials for fukks sake. get over it.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[storyteller]

Here you go moving the goalposts.


You initially stated that Obama lost because he did not have bold policy proposals and that depressed the base.

Here you go oversimplifying my stance so that you don't have to confront nuanced takes.

Off the rip I've acknowledged that all presidents lose seats however, my claim is that Obama’s Losses were drastically higher than any other Dem since FDR and in line with only the least successful presidents since WW2; Eisenhower and Nixon. You remember that? The scope of losses under Obama means that there is likely more to the story of the massive losses under his watch. And no there is no one answer to this, there are variables. You seem to want extremely simple one size fits all explanations but the world doesn't work that way. Typical negative partisanship absolutely hit like it always does, but racism also played a role, and so did an inability to galvanize more voters due to bad strategy and a lack of bold policy that would turnout more independents in support of the Dems. If anyone actually reads through this, take that paragraph right there and peep Bitcofer's entire article.

You went on to suggest that Dems will lose because they are not progressive enough.

Quote where I say that the Democrats will lose in 2020 because they are not progressive enough. The closest I came to that is pointing out that the Dems losing a ton of seats during Obama's presidency was impacted by bad strategy and not having bold enough policy (implying that bold policy would increase turnout). Here's Bitcofer supporting my assertion and I'ma put it in regular quotes so that you can't cut it out and misrepresent it
"In Texas and Georgia, O'Rourke and Abrams both carried the votes of independents, whereas in Missouri and Indiana, where [incumbent senators] Claire McCaskill and Joe Donnelly positioned themselves much more in the Blue Dog camp in terms of issues positions, both of them lost independents.

So you might think, "Why is that? If one group of candidates took more liberal issue positions, why did they win over independents?" It seems counterfactual, and the reason is what mattered was turnout. O’Rourke and Abrams carried independents because turnout surged, with different independents showing up to vote, motivated by the targeting strategy deployed by those campaigns"

Other than that, I've only mentioned that I think there are factors that limit the size of the next blue turnout. Voter suppression, lack of impeachment proceedings and not leaning left enough to pull the potential third party voters into voting blue.

The study you cited did not support this. Further your retort does not dispel my initial statement that it is common for incumbents to lose seats.

Here's my actual claim: The study I cited, supports that
a. Moderate candidates in the last election underperformed compared to what they could have done.
b. This is because the independents that will vote Dem are different from the indepents that will vote Republican. Therefore you need strategies that target them and run left not moderate (ie: Abrams and Beto being left of common politics in their respective districts).
c. I've never claimed that it's uncommon for incumbents to lose seats. What I've said repeatedly is that the scope of losses under Obama are higher than a typical incumbent and that's based on the data you posted. So further explanations are needed.

Actually, the piece you quoted actually proves my point that many of those seats Obama lost were going to be lost anyway. While I was right in saying ACA and the bailout were major drivers for Obama losing I was wrong in that it wasn't so much about depressing the dem base, but his successes actually motivated Republicans at historic levels. So this normal trend coupled with gerrymandering gives up a better idea of why dems lost seats than you saying it's because dem legislation wasn't bold enough.

You keep ignoring the aspect of her study that suggests Democratic strategy has pushed moderate candidates who cannot increase voter turnout without negative partisanship to help them. Look back at the Abrams and Beto results compared to blue dogs. You also really struggle with the idea that more had to be at play for Obama to lose the amount of seats he did. Some losses make sense, but 1000 seats is not common.

Her critique on blue dogs is fine, but blue dogs only picked up 6 new seats in 2018. They were about as successful as progressives. And those who won on both sides were either in safe seats or spoke out against Trump and the GOP.

Here you go fronting again. She didn't only mention Blue Dog Dems. Here's another quote
"But in many districts, especially where the candidates were focusing on being moderate, the Democratic turnout still underperformed its potential, and still underperformed turnout among Republicans, according to this analysis that I'll be releasing after Labor Day."

Now again, you've oversimplified to seat counting as opposed to speaking on voter turnout potential. A Dem that won, may have had a chance to garner even bigger wins; a Dem that lost may have maximized their potential; there are a lot of other ways this data can show strategies that worked and failed. The core point however, is that the underperformances were mainly coming from Moderate strategies and not Progressive ones.

But that isn't what she said. She said that you have a finite window to pass legislation so you should pas whatever you ran on because you're going to lose those seats anyway.

That's directly at odds with how this started.

These are her exact words:
"And because Democrats have poor electoral strategy, they’re going to compound that problem, probably by not appealing to Democrats to get them to the polls. So no matter how moderate you keep your Blue Dogs' legislation, they’re all going to get wiped out anyway. So use your power where you have it. No. 2, there are ways to keep them in office, but the ways they’re choosing are not the ways to do it. "

See you must have missed number 2. That's where she says there are ways to keep Democrats in office which means it's not a foregone conclusion losses will happen. Bad strategy and depressed turnouts for Moderate candidates playing safe are at the core of these losses...

The funniest part is the type of candidate that seems ideal in her metric is almost someone like Hillary Clinton. :Madwithher:

Her model includes Hillary Clinton's loss and she mentions the importance of winning the Independent vote repeatedly because the Dems are gonna vote Dem and Republicans are gonna vote Republican. Hillary's inability to turn out more voters runs in direct contrast to what her model suggests a top notch candidate would be. Running from her model, we should start with candidates that do strong numbers with Independents against their opponents.

I dont forget all the progressives saying democrats running anti-trump campaigns wasn't the way to win back the house, but instead they need to focus on policies
:Obeezyha:

Yeah, I hate when some progressives roll like that. Fortunately, I've been on the "impeach trump" side of the progressives but feel free to correct any progressive that does bring the "don't go anti-trump."

 

[storyteller]

Damn, I have disagreements with Jimmy Dore on some substantial issues and strategies, but this was great...tired of Yang getting a pass for right wing talking points and approaches; correct and challenge him on them and he could improve as a candidate (I'm impressed that he's had this much success but feel like he could do way better rhetorically and policy wise ).

 

[the next guy]

its opinion editorials for fukks sake. get over it.

If this was kamala you would be crying. Stop being a clown about Bernie man.

 

[the next guy]

People will criticize Bernie idk why his cult can't accept that

I'm not in Bernie's camp but a lot of it is in bad faith. Plus voters supporting a guy who can't remeber what state he's in speaks badly of the electorate.

 

[blotter]

its opinion editorials for fukks sake. get over it.

if we're giving each other advice stop spam posting and address your mental health

 

[FAH1223]

Damn, I have disagreements with Jimmy Dore on some substantial issues and strategies, but this was great...tired of Yang getting a pass for right wing talking points and approaches; correct and challenge him on them and he could improve as a candidate (I'm impressed that he's had this much success but feel like he could do way better rhetorically and policy wise ).

I think it’s not right to say he wants to abolish minimum wage and destroy labor bargaining. Yang is a big fan of unions. He isn’t for a $15 min wage which is dumb. There are ways to protect smaller businesses.

 

[goatmane]

they shook of bernie. Editor was like "take out his name!!!"