Jump to content
9 Nines

Cherokee Hillary - Elizabeth Dukakis

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

Beto and Stacy Abrams would be a good ticket. 

 

The dems have to pay more than lip service to the minorities who came out in the mid terms.

This takes care of itself though. Minorities, especially blacks, have a very substantial say in who the democratic nominee is. This is due to all the primaries on super Tuesday in the south. If black folks want to choose the nominee, they can make a huge statement on supper Tuesday 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OILERMAN said:

Beto and Stacy Abrams would be a good ticket. 

 

The dems have to pay more than lip service to the minorities who came out in the mid terms.

I don’t think either of them have much chance.

 

I don’t see Beto as someone who is going to be a presidential contender. He may not be a flash in the pan but he isn’t ready for the presidential stage yet.

 

Same with Abrams. But in addition, if her strength is going to be based on her demographics then I see Cory Booker taking her edge with the black vote and a variety of women taking the women's vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 Nines   

Cherokee Hillary was one of the weakest Democrat candidates, in the entire nation, during a Democrat wave:

 

Harry Enten has interesting analysis on electability.

 

Most 2020 Democratic contenders outperformed the House baseline in their 2018 Senate races
2020 contenders Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar strongly outperformed the baseline in 2018.

 

Democratic Senate candidate

Senate result*

House result*,**

Senate overperformance

Amy Klobuchar, MinnesotaD +24D +11                              +13

Sherrod Brown, OhioD +7R +5                                              +12

Kirsten Gillibrand, New YorkD +34D +29                            +5

Beto O'Rourke, TexasR +3R +6                                             +3

Bernie Sanders***, VermontI +40D +43                               -3

Elizabeth Warren, MassachusettsD +24D +36                   -12

 

Klobuchar won her race by 24 points. Democratic House candidates in Minnesota won by 11 points. So Klobuchar had a 13-point overperformance.

Brown won his Ohio race by 7 points. Republican House candidates in Ohio beat Democratic House candidates by 5 points. In other words, Brown did 12 points better than the baseline.

 

Warren won in MA by 24 points. House Democrats, though, swept all the congressional races in the Bay State. Had all the Democratic US House candidates in Massachusetts had Republican opponents, it is calculated Democrats would have won the cumulative statewide House vote by 36 points. So, Warren under performed by 12 points.

 

Sanders won VT 67-27. Peter Welch won the at large House seat 69-26. So, Sanders under performed the Democratic Congressman by 3 points.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/politics/democrats-2020-electability-elizabeth-warren-amy-klobuchar-sherrod-brown/index.html

Edited by 9 Nines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 Nines   

Democrats need someone who outperforms in a conservative state, like Ohio, not one who underperforms in a liberal state. 

 

Sherrod Brown can deliver the same white collar message and he can get those voters to listen to him. 

Edited by 9 Nines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 9 Nines said:

Cherokee Hillary was one of the weakest Democrat candidates, in the entire nation, during a Democrat wave:

 

Harry Enten has interesting analysis on electability.

 

Most 2020 Democratic contenders outperformed the House baseline in their 2018 Senate races
2020 contenders Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar strongly outperformed the baseline in 2018.

 

Democratic Senate candidate

Senate result*

House result*,**

Senate overperformance

Amy Klobuchar, MinnesotaD +24D +11                              +13

Sherrod Brown, OhioD +7R +5                                              +12

Kirsten Gillibrand, New YorkD +34D +29                            +5

Beto O'Rourke, TexasR +3R +6                                             +3

Bernie Sanders***, VermontI +40D +43                               -3

Elizabeth Warren, MassachusettsD +24D +36                   -12

 

Klobuchar won her race by 24 points. Democratic House candidates in Minnesota won by 11 points. So Klobuchar had a 13-point overperformance.

Brown won his Ohio race by 7 points. Republican House candidates in Ohio beat Democratic House candidates by 5 points. In other words, Brown did 12 points better than the baseline.

 

Warren won in MA by 24 points. House Democrats, though, swept all the congressional races in the Bay State. Had all the Democratic US House candidates in Massachusetts had Republican opponents, it is calculated Democrats would have won the cumulative statewide House vote by 36 points. So, Warren under performed by 12 points.

 

Sanders won VT 67-27. Peter Welch won the at large House seat 69-26. So, Sanders under performed the Democratic Congressman by 3 points.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/politics/democrats-2020-electability-elizabeth-warren-amy-klobuchar-sherrod-brown/index.html

Well then sounds like we have nothing to worry about, as a weak candidate will not win the nomination.

 

I still honestly don't know what you are complaining about.

 

And I wish you'd knock it off with the Cherokee Hillary, but to each his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 9 Nines said:

Democrats need someone who outperforms in a conservative state, like Ohio, not one who underperforms in a liberal state. 

 

Sherrod Brown can deliver the same white collar message and he can get those voters to listen to him. 

Could be. Let's see how it all shakes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

9s entire point is don’t make the same mistake twice. I agree. 

Don't make what mistake?

 

And who should be wary of the "mistake?"

 

If we are talking about the Democratic Party, I don't see them putting a thumb on the scales for any candidate, and certainly not to the extent they did for Hillary. And in fact by changing the rules on Superdelegates the party has made it more possible for an outsider to emerge.

 

Otherwise, it's up to us. The voters.

 

I'm not being coy. I honestly don't get people freaking out when one candidate or the other throws their hat in the ring, or "OMG Hillary is thinking about running again!" It is healthy to have a vigorous debate with lots of candidates. The very people worrying about a mistake should embrace all of these candidates. Because a wide open, vicious Republican primary did not hurt Trump at all, whereas a primary where the decks were cleared for Hillary clearly hurt not only the party, but her, because it enraged Bernie supporters. 

 

I guess I don't understand what people want. Do people want the Democratic Party to exclude candidates from the process that you guys deem too "polarizing" or annoying, or whatever? I know you don't really mean that, but it sort of seems like it.

 

And putting everything else to the side, the addition of Warren is good for this process if what it is you want is a moderate candidate that can appeal to midwestern voters. Because Warren divides the progressive vote that 100% went to Bernie last go around. Furthermore, she draws fire from Trump as his favorite punching bag, and she likes to punch back, allowing other candidates to fly under the radar and take the high road. And Warren's #1 issue is one that happens to be very very important to non coastal elites, which is that banks have become too powerful and consumers are getting screwed by crony capitalizm run amock.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Legaltitan said:

Don't make what mistake?

 

And who should be wary of the "mistake?"

 

If we are talking about the Democratic Party, I don't see them putting a thumb on the scales for any candidate, and certainly not to the extent they did for Hillary. And in fact by changing the rules on Superdelegates the party has made it more possible for an outsider to emerge.

 

Otherwise, it's up to us. The voters.

 

I'm not being coy. I honestly don't get people freaking out when one candidate or the other throws their hat in the ring, or "OMG Hillary is thinking about running again!" It is healthy to have a vigorous debate with lots of candidates. The very people worrying about a mistake should embrace all of these candidates. Because a wide open, vicious Republican primary did not hurt Trump at all, whereas a primary where the decks were cleared for Hillary clearly hurt not only the party, but her, because it enraged Bernie supporters. 

 

I guess I don't understand what people want. Do people want the Democratic Party to exclude candidates from the process that you guys deem too "polarizing" or annoying, or whatever? I know you don't really mean that, but it sort of seems like it.

 

And putting everything else to the side, the addition of Warren is good for this process if what it is you want is a moderate candidate that can appeal to midwestern voters. Because Warren divides the progressive vote that 100% went to Bernie last go around. Furthermore, she draws fire from Trump as his favorite punching bag, and she likes to punch back, allowing other candidates to fly under the radar and take the high road. And Warren's #1 issue is one that happens to be very very important to non coastal elites, which is that banks have become too powerful and consumers are getting screwed by crony capitalizm run amock.

 

 

Maybe Democrats should do what they did to Bernie and work against Warren.

 

It didn't backfire at all last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 Nines   
40 minutes ago, Legaltitan said:

 

 

I guess I don't understand what people want. Do people want the Democratic Party to exclude candidates from the process that you guys deem too "polarizing" or annoying, or whatever? I know you don't really mean that, but it sort of seems like it.

 

I think Warren should know that she would be one of easier opponents for Trump. The election should be about policies and direction of leadership but she has already allowed him to taunt her into doing something stupid (DNA test), so she seems easy to knock off message.  Also, she should realize that she would have an uphill battle convincing white collar voters she is one of them or at least on their side just because she is an educated liberal lady, if nothing else. 

 

So she either is not aware of herself nor the political environment or doesn't care.  Why that is a problem to me:  There are a lot of young voters getting involved and they are a huge segmented of the population, so they carry a lot of weight. They do not seem that sophisticated in politics and also seem to take the attitude that a candidate has to be perfect for them to support.  If they got behind her, it could cause one or two situations: propel her to the nomination, in which case the best case scenario nominee for Trump, would happen, or she loses in a tough battle, and they drop out.  Either case would be good news for President Trump. Too much risk for me.  I wish she would just go away.  

Edited by 9 Nines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
begooode   
9 minutes ago, 9 Nines said:

So she either is not aware of herself nor the political environment or doesn't care.  Why that is a problem to me:  There are a lot of young voters getting involved and they are a huge segmented of the population, so they carry a lot of weight. They do not seem that sophisticated in politics and also seem to take the attitude that a candidate has to be perfect for them to support.  If they got behind her, it could cause one or two situations: propel her to the nomination, in which case the best case scenario nominee for Trump, would happen, or she loses in a tough battle, and they drop out.  Either case would be good news for President Trump. Too much risk for me.  I wish she would just go away.  

I think you are vastly underestimating antiTrump sentiment amongst the young electorate in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Warren is as bad as you say, she will be eliminated early on. So where is the outrage? Why should she just "go away?" 

 

Until then, though she will give Trump fits and shine a light on the anti-consumer, pro-corporatist policy of this administration, which is diametrically opposed to what the MAGAs in the midwest and coal country said that they wanted.

 

Seems a little early to fret when the first primary is more than a year away. Let's see how things play out.

Edited by Legaltitan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...