If some Democrats are thinking what strategists say they are, it’s not fair or good.

0
243

You guyz and galz all know my mantra by now. once is an accident, twice is a habit. And I’ve herd the same thing twice in the last 5 days, and unlike McDonald’s, I am not “loving it.”

Two different Democratic strategists/activists, on two different networks, CNN and MSNBC, have both reported the same rumblings. Both say that while on the road, working in the states, specifically Midwest and rust belt states, are hearing, even from women, that while they love the diversity of the Democratic field this year, they are to say the least gun shy, and in some cases scares silly of running a woman for President in 2020, due to the way that Trump manhandled Clinton. They say that beating Trump is job one, and they’re worried that no female candidate can do it.

I really hope this isn’t true, because if it is, these Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. This is just wrong on so many fundamental levels. If the Democrats are truly the party of equality and diversity, then they dare not just “settle” for a candidate because he comes with the “option package.”

For starters, two of the top five candidates right now, numbers 2 and 3, or 2 and 4 depending on the poll you read, are highly qualified and popular women. If you give in to that fear, then you tell approximately 32% of the Democratic base that they may be right, and Warren or Harris might well be the best qualified candidate, but that we just “can’t take that risk,” beating Trump is too important for another possibly failed lab experiment in democracy. Forget about “talking points,” to make that even a “whispering point” would rob the Democrats of all of the grassroots enthusiasm they have generated for our diversity.

second, their math doesn’t work in the first place. The last reputable national polls were spot on, and Hillary Clinton smacked them right in the snoot. Clinton won the popular count nationally by almost three million votes, which assayed out to 2% points, almost exactly what the final polls showed when handicapping the race. Donald Trump won the electoral college, with the valued assistance of Vlad the Imp, by convincing 77,000 internet addled fools in three states to make the worst decision of their pathetic lives. This is not an acceptable reason to throw two of our strongest candidates to the wolves out of fear.

But the biggest reason that this is a terrible idea is because it is based on a possible “strategy” brought on by the current dynamics of the race itself, a strategy what may well be flawed from its inception.

Right now, Joe Biden is the front runner in just about every poll out there. So,obviously the strategy should be to play to Biden’s strength as a candidate, right? And what is Biden’s greatest alleged strength? Biden is the one who can hands down “win back” those 77,000 Trump voters who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and flip those states back to the Democrats again, retaking the electoral college. Sounds good, right? But what if it’s not the right strategy?

Look, forget about those 77,000 twisted sisters for a moment, you might not even need them if you play your cards right. In 2018, the Democrats flipped 40 seats in retaking the House, and they didn’t do it by winning back any disaffected Obama-Biden voters. They did it by winning “soccer moms,” and other Republican and independent voters in the former GOP strongholds of suburbs and exurbs of major cities with enough of an IQ to flip the channel occasionally, and ran from Trump like a scalded cat. That’s the Democrats “secret sauce” for 2020, and the GOP knows it.

Presidential votes are counted at the statewide level, not district by district, or county by county. With a highly qualified and inspirational presidential candidate and running mate, ya think there are a combined 77,000 votes in the suburbs of Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia to more than offset those  piddly ass votes that Trump squeaked by with in 2016? Especially since the African American vote in the suburbs of Milwaukee that sat out 2016 was more than three times the number of the margin that Trump won Wisconsin by. And Pennsylvania will be voting with redrawn district maps by the PA Supreme Court, in response to the GOP’s flagrant gerrymandering in that state. And one more thing, all three of those states, PA, MI, and WI flipped blue in the Democratic tidal wave of 2018. Give the people what they want, and they’ll come out for the show. Every time.

And what about Florida? I believe Trump won Florida by a tight 100,000 votes or so statewide. You think a red hot Democratic candidate might be able to scrape up 100,000 votes in the suburbs of Miami, Tampa, and Orlando? I do. After all, long time GOP incumbent Ileana Ros-Lehtinen bailed out in 2018 rather than have to run with the stain of Trump on her soul. And Trump hardly cake walked home in either Arizona or North Carolina either, think Trump fatigue and a highly motivated Democratic base could collect the 200,000 or less needed votes to flip those too Why not, considering that in 2018 the Democrats more than doubled Clinton’s winning margin over Trump in 2016 nationally.

My whole point is that not only is this dread of nominating a woman candidate to go up against Trump unfounded,even by the numbers in 2016, it’s also antithetical to everything that the Democratic party purports to stand for. And in this particular case, that fear may well be baseless and unfounded. Because,it’s true, especially when dealing with the likes of Donald Juan Trump, there’s more than one way to skin a rat.

 

 

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.

1 COMMENT

  1. I keep wondering who they’re polling? Older white people in rural areas? Older white people in rustbelt states? Older white people in diners in Wisconsin?

  2. The argument that a woman can’t win with Clinton as a case study is really odd, specifically when we consider that Trump’s case against Clinton didn’t really involve her gender. He painted her as corrupt, scandal-prone, too hawkish, etc.

    I mean…if we are going to suggest that we base our nomination choice on which arguments worked for Trump in 2016, I’d suggest that the socialist/too liberal attack was more effective than the gender attack, and that would seem to indicate that we should distance ourselves from someone who comes off as too socialist.

    (I don’t hold this to be true personally, FYI. I think the socialist attack will be employed and more or less equally effective across all of our candidates, so I wouldn’t lean centrist just for that reason. I’m just saying that if someone wanted to use 2016 as a case study, ideology should be a litmus test more than gender. I don’t think either should be, because electability arguments are largely unsubstantiated and unscientific.)

    Also…personally, if a woman candidate was polling higher than Trump, looking better than Trump, and putting him in his place, I think his resulting meltdown would work to our favor. I think a woman candidate might be a better choice for this reason.

    • Given that the attack on Hillary that kept OUR voters home was that she was a “warmongering neoliberal corporate Wall Street shill” it’s absurd to sat the “socialist/too liberal” attack “was effective.” It wasn’t. No one heard this message if it even existed (I never heard it at all). What did work was painting her as corrupt and scandal-prone, which was driven by media coverage as well as Trump. The NYT ran FIVE TIMES more stories about the transparent, scandal-free Clinton Foundation as they did about the criminal Trump Foundation. They ran more front-page stories about Hillary’s emails in the six days before the election than about all policy issues combined in the 69 days before the election. And when I canvassed, I heard a number of times that “of course I would never vote for Trump but I don’t like Hillary.” When I asked why, the answer was always “I keep hearing on TV about her emails.”

      • I don’t disagree, but what the Republicans (well…Russia) is very, very good at is micro-targeting.

        If you are liberal, you’d get exposed to the argument you mention. If you are conservative, they pushed the socialist too liberal argument. Social media allows you to gaslight an entire nation by portraying someone as opposite things at the same time.

        But your point comports with what I was saying – it’s always the ideology smears that work. So I don’t understand why people assume a gender smear would.

  3. I think in different times taking a chance on Elizabeth Warren as the nominee might be worth the risk. Now is not the time. Goal number 1 is making Trump a one term President. Do I love Joe Biden like I did Hillary Clinton? No, but I like and respect him and feel he is getting a very raw deal from the Left, the MSM, and of course the Right. I am kind of hoping Biden wins the nomination and he offers Warren the VP slot and she accepts. I feel this will be a good way to help her get into the White House eventually– in a much less risky way. Biden, one term President, Warren runs after his term and has a good shot of winning if the economy holds and things run smoothly under a President Biden.

    Whatever happens I wish the Left would stop demonizing every Democrat with whom they disagree. It hurts us all and empowers the Right.

    • I do not consider myself The Left with a capitol L. I am a pragmatic Democratic, and I honestly can’t tell you what compelling issues Biden is running on. He seems to be running on “I’m good old Joe and people like me.” He’s adequate policy wise, but what worries me about him is that he has spent a huge chunk of his campaign so far stumbling through trying to fix gaffes — and there are more waiting to blow up. I’m not “demonizing” him but I fail to see how an endless string of walk-backs and justifications and excuses is going to make a strong campaign and I don’t see how he’ll excite women, black voters, younger voters and others we need to turn out.

  4. Every time he opens his tiny mouth, or tweets with his tiny thumbs, he strengthens the case against him. He’s the best campaigner to excite the vote on our side, against him, there is.

  5. Wisconsin and Michigan were for sure won by voter suppression. So take that 34,000 votes out of the equation and instead of squandering resources trying to beg Trump voters to flip, make it possible for those people to vote. Luckily both states now have Democratic governors. Trump probably also won Florida by voter suppression so hopefully the lawsuit against the legislature trying to block the passage of the initiative restoring felon voting rights will be successful. It’s estimated that would restore the voting rights of 1.5 million Floridians. How much did you say Trump carried Florida by again? Add Florida to the list of states carried solely by voter suppression.

    We should not fall for this ridiculous pundit focus on Trump voters. We can turn out 10 or 20 of our voters for every Trump voter we could maybe possibly persuade. But pundits love to talk about how Democrats should play it safe. It’s them — not the voters — who are uncomfortable with a woman president. And given that Biden’s campaign so far has been a litany of walking back, justifying or making excuses for a series of gaffes, he’s hardly a “safe’ choice.

  6. Yeah those folks are correct. Warren and her ‘plans’ have no shot; Harris an even smaller one. I just don’t get why we continue to mistake our bubble — every bit the density-equal of the other side’s model — for the real Amurrica of 2020. And please don’t cite ‘issue polls,’ the bird-cage liner of our era. And don’t cite 2018 either. Trump himself wasn’t on the ballot. Add in the near-certainty that the Purity Wars this time will make us nostalgic for 2016, and you have the cliff coming up fast.

  7. Well here is the potential problem from the Washington Post. The article starts obviously with the “squad” and a poll from youguv that tests the favorable versus unfavorable results. (If you go to the poll the rating for these women start about page 42). The results are not good.

    Notice that Warren is also on the list just down from the “squad “.

    “Whatever Trump’s real motivations here, he has a political incentive to keep the focus on these three women (not to mention the next two people on the list, who are also women: Pelosi and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts).

    “That doesn’t necessarily mean Trump’s tweets were a good idea — it’s possible to keep the focus on the right opponents without tweeting something racist that could alienate swing voters — but Trump is a politician obsessed with pleasing his base. If his supporters respond to something, he’s going to keep doing it. And he suggested as much in a new interview with the Daily Mail. Asked whether he was pleased with how this whole situation panned out, he said, “Well, let’s put it this way: I’m not unhappy.”

    “Trump has shown before that he’s perfectly willing to demean his political opponents, especially women (Clinton) and racial minorities (Obama), in intensely personal ways. What happens when his targets are both of those things? It seems we’re about to find out, over and over again.”

    I believe dt is trying to drive the negative numbers on these women up because he already has a problem with women voters and he needs white males to hate these women and by extension Warren and Harris.

    I care about 1 thing and that is beating the hell out of dt and if a woman can’t do it right now I can live with that. As a woman what I can’t live with us 4 more years of dt.

  8. Now we need to urge state legislators, in states with the 74 more electoral votes needed, to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

    There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College – more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
    To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

    Instead, state legislation, The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
    Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

    Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
    No more distorting, crude, and divisive and red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
    No more handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.
    We can limit the power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 40 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 271 electoral votes.
    The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

    NationalPopularVote

  9. I don’t think the fear is based on any sense that any of our candidates is less than awesome. We all know that would be nonsense.

    I think the fear is based on the principle that Good has its limits; Evil has none. Misogyny being evil, it has no limits. And that perception may indeed be stronger among older voters, since we have seen it in action for longer times than younger voters.

    that said, Warren is still my first choice.

  10. Crikey, I hate to sound like Chicken Little, but I think so many of us are still suffering from P-PTSD……….that is, political post-traumatic stress disorder brought on by the shocks to our systems when we realized we’d been beaten in 2016 even though we’d won the popular vote and that we’d have a kray-kray in the White House as a consequence. Never mind that on top of this, we’ve now been enduring shit, protesting against it, and sending money to stop the worst onslaughts our government has dealt with since the Civil War almost tore us asunder.
    Still. If anyone can take on the great orange rot, it is in my opinion Kamala Harris. I don’t think that woman is afraid of a damned thing, and which we have to know will drive Trump off of a cliff. He is a bully and she simply won’t be bullied.
    Among my concerns about Biden? Not his age. He is far sharper than Trump was when he was 46 and partying on down with Epstein. It’s that he just may be too damned nice–and this is like raw meat to Trump. He mistakes decency for weakness unless it is encased in a steel and not a velvet glove.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here