Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a 'Russian asset' groomed to ensure Trump reelection

[Deleted member 365]

Maybe you didn't read my post. You were saying that we have to have candidates like biden because other candidates are too black/hispanic, gay, or female or young. I was asking why too young is an issue. I understand that there are a lot of people who might not vote for a woman or a homosexual or a POC but I dont understand why anyone would be against voting for someone in their mid 50's or something

I’m pretty sure I read your post and my response is still the same. Young white Democrats will encounter the same problems; attracting the whiter, older, more conservative vote of the rust belt states needed to win the EC. Until Texas, Georgia, and Arizona become reliably blue, Democrats need to placate to rust belt states. While Many of their younger candidates are seen to be too liberal, too college educated, too gay, too black, too female etc to win in the rust belt.

I’d like to see some younger candidates too. Someone like Jared Polis, from Colorado. He’s under 50. But can he win the rust belt while also getting turnout from urban centers? Andy Beshear is like 44 and he won in Kentucky.

So there are some candidates that we might see throw their hats in the ring if Biden chooses to not run for re-election.

But the challenge again is going to be:

How do you thread the needle of being attractive to a base that is increasingly more liberal and diverse while also pandering to the 3 rust belt states you need to secure the EC?

 

[fishonjazz]

While Many of their younger candidates are seen to be too liberal, too college educated, too gay, too black, too female etc to win in the rust belt.

Why would a straight, white, male in his 50's who isn't very liberal be seen as too gay, too black, too female or too liberal?
Also fwiw that obama guy won twice.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Why would a straight, white, male in his 50's who isn't very liberal be seen as too gay, too black, too female or too liberal?
Also fwiw that obama guy won twice.

I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying:

1. The Democratic Party and it’s base is becoming more diverse. So it’s harder for a straight white male to win the primary.
2. The rust belt states needed to win the general are becoming whiter and more conservative.

Obama won in a different time. Whites have fled the Democratic party since 2008 and 2012 (especially working class whites w/o college degrees). So while Democrats have picked up votes from the LGBT and college educated vote, they haven’t been offset by the working class white vote that they’ve lost. Republicans have figured that demo out. Yet, Democrats can’t just pander to that demo or else risk losing their party base, the diverse and urban vote.

This results in Democrats increasingly finding success with the popular vote but losing the electoral college.

BTW, Obama winning twice is what created Trump’s winning coalition. Without Obama, there’s no white backlash that elects Trump.

 

[Gameface]

I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying:

1. The Democratic Party and it’s base is becoming more diverse. So it’s harder for a straight white male to win the primary.
2. The rust belt states needed to win the general are becoming whiter and more conservative.

Obama won in a different time. Whites have fled the Democratic party since 2008 and 2012 (especially working class whites w/o college degrees). So while Democrats have picked up votes from the LGBT and college educated vote, they haven’t been offset by the working class white vote that they’ve lost. Republicans have figured that demo out. Yet, Democrats can’t just pander to that demo or else risk losing their party base, the diverse and urban vote.

This results in Democrats increasingly finding success with the popular vote but losing the electoral college.

And so in conclusion a younger candidate can't win?

I'm confused.

 

[LogGrad98]

I really hate the idea of political dynasties, like with a Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and then they tried again with Jeb Bush, Bill Clinton then eventually Hillary Clinton. I mean it's not quite as bad as this push for celebrity candidates like Oprah and a few others but I still don't like it.

I wish we had a better way of finding good Presidential candidates. Ideally there would be scholars and philosophers and retired military leadership, but what we have are lawyers turned politicians for the most part, followed by celebrities and reality TV personalities.

Ugh.

Essentially, since we are a 100% media (read internet-driven, everything from news outlets to social media, etc.) driven society then the ones who have the biggest public presence are the ones that are known and get voted for. Hence Trump. He had this dark segment of society that loved his no-nonsense "you're fired" approach to **** and ended up sharing his racist and misogynistic attitudes as well that nearly carried him to a second term. It is this silent (until recently) majority type of group that is the real X-factor when it comes to the next elections. But this group was tapped into because Trump had the media presence to be known to them to begin with. This is why you will almost never see any academics or philosophers in the presidential elections, no one knows who they are and those will never garner enough public attention to be on anyone's radar.

 

[Deleted member 365]

And so in conclusion a younger candidate can't win?

I'm confused.

Win what? The primary or general?

That’s the quandary guys. You and fish keep talking about one election when I keep talking about two. There are two elections that a candidate must win, the primary nomination and the general. For Democrats, you almost two completely different candidates to win them both.

1. A younger and more diverse and lesser known candidate would most likely excite the base and win the primary.
2. To win the general, you desperately need name recognition. A white and older candidate is more appealing to the rust belt states that are increasingly older and whiter in order to win for the EC.

So if Biden doesn’t run in 2024, can a young white male candidate win? Absolutely as long as he wins the nomination. Hell need to appeal to the party’s increasingly more diverse, liberal, and college educated base.

Will he win the general? That could be difficult as old white dudes give you the best chance to win rust belt states.

That’s why Biden got the nomination in SC once Jim Clayborn swung the entire primary with the black vote. Otherwise, you were probably looking at a Mayor Pete or Sen Sanders vs Trump general. Clayborn did that because Biden was seen as the best candidate to beat Trump. He was a known commodity with the most name recognition. He wasn’t an unknown or a gay person who could be attacked relentlessly in the rust belt.

Republicans don’t face the same issue. They can rely on their base and due to the advantages the EC provides them, they can win the EC off their base. Even if they lose the popular vote by millions, as long as they lock up 270 EC votes, they win.

 

[Deleted member 365]

@fishonjazz it should also be noted that Republicans turned against democracy once Obama won re-election. Now, they don’t give a **** if Russian helps their candidate win or if their candidate starts an insurrection. They just want to win.

A black man being elected did that.

The Republican revolt against democracy, explained in 13 charts

The Trump years revealed a dark truth: The Republican Party is no longer committed to democracy. These charts tell the story.

www.vox.com

 

[Gameface]

Win what? The primary or general?

That’s the quandary guys. You and fish keep talking about one election when I keep talking about two. There are two elections that a candidate must win, the primary nomination and the general. For Democrats, you almost two completely different candidates to win them both.

1. A younger and more diverse and lesser known candidate would most likely excite the base and win the primary.
2. To win the general, you desperately need name recognition. A white and older candidate is more appealing to the rust belt states that are increasingly older and whiter in order to win for the EC.

So if Biden doesn’t run in 2024, can a young white male candidate win? Absolutely as long as he wins the nomination. Hell need to appeal to the party’s increasingly more diverse, liberal, and college educated base.

Will he win the general? That could be difficult as old white dudes give you the best chance to win rust belt states.

That’s why Biden got the nomination in SC once Jim Clayborn swung the entire primary with the black vote. Otherwise, you were probably looking at a Mayor Pete or Sen Sanders vs Trump general.

Republicans don’t face the same issue. They can rely on their base and due to the advantages the EC provides them, they can win the EC off their base. Even if they lose the popular vote by millions, as long as they lock up 270 EC votes, they win.

To be fair I think Fish has advocated for younger candidates. I think his "young, white, straight" candidate was an attempt to satisfy your other stated requirements.

What is it specifically about a younger candidate that the Democratic base along with rust belt Democrats won't go for? What is it about being younger than 68 that makes certain voters hesitant?

I think if you get a well enough known charismatic 40 year old you'd do just fine. I don't think people have this built-in desire to have a 70+ year old President.

 

[Deleted member 365]

To be fair I think Fish has advocated for younger candidates. I think his "young, white, straight" candidate was an attempt to satisfy your other stated requirements.

What is it specifically about a younger candidate that the Democratic base along with rust belt Democrats won't go for? What is it about being younger than 68 that makes certain voters hesitant?

I think if you get a well enough known charismatic 40 year old you'd do just fine. I don't think people have this built-in desire to have a 70+ year old President.

That’s a complicated issue.

Rust belt voters tend to identify more with candidates that look like them. So older, whiter, more conservative, religious, etc. i also even suspect Democrats could do a better job of targeting those voters through traditional tv ads and Facebook. It’ll be interesting.

The problem really lies in finding a candidate who can churn out turnout in the primary from a diverse base while threading the needle and winning an older, whiter, and more conservative demographic in the general. It’s going to be that way until Arizona, Texas, and Georgia consistently go blue. Then that’ll force Republicans to actually give a damn about minorities. Which will cause Democrats to have to adjust as well.

Right now we’re in a weird space with demographics shuffling. For decades, Democrats could rely on the rust belt. Not anymore. Now Democrats are shifting to gain support in southern and western states but it’s not quite enough to win 270. Yet. Republicans meanwhile used to need a few east coast states. Now they don’t. All they need is to Turn out their base (that locks up most of the south) and They’ll win as long as they pick off a few Midwestern states (Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin).

 

[Deleted member 365]

To be fair I think Fish has advocated for younger candidates. I think his "young, white, straight" candidate was an attempt to satisfy your other stated requirements.

What is it specifically about a younger candidate that the Democratic base along with rust belt Democrats won't go for? What is it about being younger than 68 that makes certain voters hesitant?

I think if you get a well enough known charismatic 40 year old you'd do just fine. I don't think people have this built-in desire to have a 70+ year old President.

I know fish has been advocating for younger candidates for a while. But it’s not like we just barely started electing older candidates. Eisenhower was 62. Reagan was 69. Trump was 70. Yes, Biden is ancient and I hope someone else runs in 24. But don’t you think Trump and his pro authoritarian party might change the calculation in 2024? Do Democrats try and go with someone younger? Do they go with a woman? Do they go with a gay person and hope Trump and Fox News don’t demagogue the **** out of the LGBT community? I mean, we see everyday here how xenophobic people are about trans kids playing sports. I can only imagine what would happen, especially in Utah or the Midwest, if Mayor Pete came out with Chasten. Mormons here would lose their **** just as many Catholics and evangelicals would in the Midwest.

 

[Gameface]

I know fish has been advocating for younger candidates for a while. But it’s not like we just barely started electing older candidates. Eisenhower was 62. Reagan was 69. Trump was 70. Yes, Biden is ancient and I hope someone else runs in 24. But don’t you think Trump and his pro authoritarian party might change the calculation in 2024? Do Democrats try and go with someone younger? Do they go with a woman? Do they go with a gay person and hope Trump and Fox News don’t demagogue the **** out of the LGBT community? I mean, we see everyday here how xenophobic people are about trans kids playing sports. I can only imagine what would happen, especially in Utah or the Midwest, if Mayor Pete came out with Chasten. Mormons here would lose their **** just as many Catholics and evangelicals would in the Midwest.

You're saying that Democrats have to put forward a candidate that Republicans will approve of?

Do you just not have an answer to the actual question Fish has asked or that I have asked? It's okay if you don't.

 

[Deleted member 365]

You're saying that Democrats have to put forward a candidate that Republicans will approve of?

What?

Do you just not have an answer to the actual question Fish has asked or that I have asked? It's okay if you don't.

I’m pretty sure I’ve answered your question.

What is it specifically about a younger candidate that the Democratic base along with rust belt Democrats won't go for? What is it about being younger than 68 that makes certain voters hesitant?

To which is responded:

That’s a complicated issue.

Rust belt voters tend to identify more with candidates that look like them. So older, whiter, more conservative, religious, etc. i also even suspect Democrats could do a better job of targeting those voters through traditional tv ads and Facebook. It’ll be interesting.

The problem really lies in finding a candidate who can churn out turnout in the primary from a diverse base while threading the needle and winning an older, whiter, and more conservative demographic in the general. It’s going to be that way until Arizona, Texas, and Georgia consistently go blue. Then that’ll force Republicans to actually give a damn about minorities. Which will cause Democrats to have to adjust as well.

Right now we’re in a weird space with demographics shuffling. For decades, Democrats could rely on the rust belt. Not anymore. Now Democrats are shifting to gain support in southern and western states but it’s not quite enough to win 270. Yet. Republicans meanwhile used to need a few east coast states. Now they don’t. All they need is to Turn out their base (that locks up most of the south) and They’ll win as long as they pick off a few Midwestern states (Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin).

I apologize if this answer doesn’t meet your expectations. But I don’t understand you get
You're saying that Democrats have to put forward a candidate that Republicans will approve of?

From what I typed above. Are you talking about the primary? The general? A younger candidate has a better chance of winning the primary because primary voters consist of the base. The base is younger and more diverse. A younger candidate may struggle to win the general because Midwest states needed for the EC are older, more conservative, and more working class.

So please clarify your question better since I believe I’m explained this pretty thoroughly already. And I really don’t get why you think republicans need to approve of anything. That was a weird post.