An Inconvenient Truth: Hard data that shows that a centrist Democrat would be a losing candidate

[ondma]

Democrats had a guy that could sell ice cream to an Eskimo,

His policies along with those of his republican predecessors is why you have what you have today.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/b...undwork-for-trumps-ugly-immigration-policies/

No, Donald Trump, a bunch of old, senile, white republican senators, and a third of the population that wants to return to the 1950's is why we have what we have today.

 

[Jhhnn]

Really hard to say if the centrist approach "failed" or if it was just that Hillary was a terrible candidate. And I put failed in quotes, because Hillary actually won the popular vote. In any case, it is an unpopular position on these forums, but IMO, it was more a matter of Hillary being an unattractive candidate than the centrist policies that failed. First she was just unlikable to a lot of people, she failed to campaign effectively in the rust belt states that swung the election, and she had the baggage of Benghazi and the e-mails that Trump (a model of ethical behavior) exploited very effectively. Finally, the fact that Hillary lost does not prove a more left wing candidate would have won. He/she could have lost by a larger margin.

Hillary got slimed, plain & simple. How anybody could see her & Trump side by side & determine that she's the crooked one passes all understanding. The double standard was insane. From a policy perspective she was a very progressive candidate if not as much as Bernie. His supporters were granted unprecedented input into the platform, as well. Not good enough. What's she hiding? Can't trust Hillary! Uranium One! Wall St speeches! Clinton Foundation! Benghazi! Email Server! Pizza Parlor! Crooked Hillary!

Left & Right, the chumps fell for it.

 

[Indus]

So we are supposed to believe this guy in contrast to all the other analysts who are saying the opposite? And it certainly is not "an inconvenient truth". It is simply one theory among many. Something worth thinking about, but personally I disagree.

No you are supposed to believe Centrist Hillary 2016!

And what Einstein/ Obama said..

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

 

[Vic]

Left or right isn't the issue nor is "speaking to class issues." The one thing a Dem candidate needs to do is speak to the needs of voters period, the vast majority of those voters aren't consumed with 'class issues'. Hillary Clinton was perceived as ignoring the concerns of the Rust Belt, taking their votes for granted and calling folks "deplorables" and she paid for it. Trump spoke to their wants and needs (admittedly feeding them a line of bullshit, but he actually spoke to their concerns and aspirations).

That's why the line about "class issues" is so wrong-headed IMHO. Whether the 1% has more money than them is not a non-factor it's just not what drives people whose actual concerns and needs are much more granular and specific. Voters want a POTUS and representatives who get the basics done - roads built and paved, schools funded, an economy that doesn't suck, not invading somewhere in southwest Asia or Africa. Someone like Buttigieg is doing great because his focus does largely align with the simple good governance/bread and butter stuff like infrastructure. Compared with someone like Warren whose ideas aren't necessarily repelling people, but folks don't vote based upon a 14 point plan to break up Amazon because they're selling their own branded products on the site which is "anti-competitive."

All you're really saying here is that the Dems need to find a candidate that appeals to the voters emotionally, like Trump does, and Obama did. And not logically, like Hillary did and Warren does.

 

[Vic]

No you are supposed to believe Centrist Hillary 2016!

And what Einstein/ Obama said..

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

Sure, but which insanity are we repeating? 2016? or 1972?

 

[Indus]

Sure, but which insanity are we repeating? 2016? or 1972?

The country is not in 1972.. it's population, politics and demographics aren't 1972.

And when we had hillary run like she was avoiding 1972.. she got trounced by Trump.

 

[uclaLabrat]

I see a lot of Monday morning quarterbacks trying to win the last election.

 

[blankslate]

Well at a recent CA candidate event a John Delaney managed to get himself booed for an extended amount of time for suggesting "Medicare 4 All" isn't an idea worthy of thought....

Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk responds to his stupidity of being a centrist candidate in the Democratic Primary with appropriate anger... (too little of it imho)

AOC's reponse to John Delaneys dumb AF comments were

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1135310167313178625

I'm tired of these MF centrists who gave us Trump and don't want to learn crap from 2016


______________

 

[Vic]

It's unfortunate that a lot of folks who stayed home in 2016 think it was the centrists' fault that Trump won.
And just like in 2016, this kind of division and discouragement among Democrats is Trump's best hope to win.
Progress, some progressives choose not to understand, is incremental by definition.

 

[Indus]

It's unfortunate that a lot of folks who stayed home in 2016 think it was the centrists' fault that Trump won.
And just like in 2016, this kind of division and discouragement among Democrats is Trump's best hope to win.
Progress, some progressives choose not to understand, is incremental by definition.

All you have to see is how popular the progressive policies are..

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/maj...uch-as-paid-maternity-leave-free-college.html

Then you have to question why centrists don't understand this and want to be Republican- Lite (aka Hillary). Is it because they don't want to hurt their donors financially?

If they know this but choose to be this way to court donors like Hillary did.. they fucking deserve to lose like Hillary did!

 

[dawp]

All you have to see is how popular the progressive policies are..

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/maj...uch-as-paid-maternity-leave-free-college.html

Then you have to question why centrists don't understand this and want to be Republican- Lite (aka Hillary). Is it because they don't want to hurt their donors financially?

If they know this but choose to be this way to court donors like Hillary did.. they fucking deserve to lose like Hillary did!

It's like I said earlier in this thread, the party does not know what to do with real liberals like AOC. we need to get rid of the old guard and bring in some fresh blood. until there is a purge of the top the party will remain stagnant. I think there's too many over 50 -60 and not enough candidates under 40 -45.
this coming from someone 56yo.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm going to start calling you guys the Michael Moore Democrats.

 

[sportage]

The media keeps showing polls where Trump's approval is 38% and disapproval 56%.
Kinda like they projected back in 2016. And then Donald Trump won.
It doesn't look good, no not at all.
38% turns into a win with everyone in shock.
Democrats had better get cracking and get someone up there that can actually win this thing in 2020.
I trust the candidate for 2020 has yet to come forward. Some democrat that will feel an overwhelming patriotic duty.
I cant wait to see who it is but one thing is for sure, it won't be any of these current jokers.
Shit.... none of them can even give an Obama-like speech. Words to uplift and empower the people.
So how does any of them think they can win when the name calling begins and the belittling goes full steam?

 

[pmv]

This is why I don't really mind the hard-right troll thread starters. Pointing out those guys are full of it is quite relaxing and easy, compared with arguments between liberals and the left. That's much harder work and requires consulting books and stuff. I don't know that I have the energy, and it's also very dispiriting to bring out those divisions when you know the right are just loving every moment of it. Yet when there's a candidate to be chosen it seems unavoidable.

I quite like Michael Moore, though. He's not perfect, he's very much a populist and hence can be rather simplistic and overly propagandistic (i.e. distorting the facts when it makes a better story), but I agree with his general outlook. And he correctly predicted Trump's win.

 

[dank69]

All you have to see is how popular the progressive policies are..

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/maj...uch-as-paid-maternity-leave-free-college.html

Then you have to question why centrists don't understand this and want to be Republican- Lite (aka Hillary). Is it because they don't want to hurt their donors financially?

If they know this but choose to be this way to court donors like Hillary did.. they fucking deserve to lose like Hillary did!

Hillary was far from Republican-Lite. She basically adopted Bernie's entire platform and had the second most progressive voting record in the Senate right behind Sanders. You know this, too.

 

[ivwshane]

Hillary was far from Republican-Lite. She basically adopted Bernie's entire platform and had the second most progressive voting record in the Senate right behind Sanders. You know this, too.

I don't think he realizes that he's repeating right wing propaganda.

 

[ondma]

No you are supposed to believe Centrist Hillary 2016!

And what Einstein/ Obama said..

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

Yea, and your version of "doing it over and over again" is equating Hillary with every other centerist democrat. It is like saying every quarterback who has the same gameplan would have the same outcome of the game. Obviously even with the same gameplan (i.e. policies) some would execute much better than others.

 

[Greenman]

So the logical option is to go far left. I think the dems should give it try. I think that would put Bernie and Liz on top, unless Joe comes up with something more than his five trillion dollar carbon plan.

 

[glenn1]

Hillary was far from Republican-Lite. She basically adopted Bernie's entire platform and had the second most progressive voting record in the Senate right behind Sanders. You know this, too.

I guess if your focus is exclusively on a limited set of economic issues. In many other ways she very much did behave like Republican-lite such as having a very interventionist foreign policy (including having been chief architect of the current mess in Libya and notable hawkish neoliberal, refusing to rule out military action against Iran, and of course voting for the Iraq invasion), near Orwellian levels of devotion to the surveillance state, and high level of cozy with Wall Street on numerous fronts including opposing reimposition of Glass-Steagall and having paid speeches to Wall Street big wigs where she suggests they limit themselves so she wouldn't need to regulate them directly. Bernie and to a lesser extent Elizabeth Warren are progressives who want to substantially remake the current system, Hillary Clinton is an establishment person to the core whose preferred changes are around the margins. Whether Bernie or Warren would actually be effective in getting their big picture changes is another story, but to say Hillary Clinton would behave similarly to them defies logic and her entire history of actual political acts.

 

[Jhhnn]

I guess if your focus is exclusively on a limited set of economic issues. In many other ways she very much did behave like Republican-lite such as having a very interventionist foreign policy (including having been chief architect of the current mess in Libya and notable hawkish neoliberal, refusing to rule out military action against Iran, and of course voting for the Iraq invasion), near Orwellian levels of devotion to the surveillance state, and high level of cozy with Wall Street on numerous fronts including opposing reimposition of Glass-Steagall and having paid speeches to Wall Street big wigs where she suggests they limit themselves so she wouldn't need to regulate them directly. Bernie and to a lesser extent Elizabeth Warren are progressives who want to substantially remake the current system, Hillary Clinton is an establishment person to the core whose preferred changes are around the margins. Whether Bernie or Warren would actually be effective in getting their big picture changes is another story, but to say Hillary Clinton would behave similarly to them defies logic and her entire history of actual political acts.

Magnificent bullshit artistry. Not the equal of Trump or Barr, but quite good, really. It's the same concoction the right wing used to poison Bernie supporters. Crooked Hillary! Can't trust Hillary! Not good enough!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Scales_and_rankings

 

[Jaskalas]

*looks at topic....
Biden +4 In Texas.... (PDF)

Hrmm.... fake news, driving us towards the loser centrist candidate?
My reaction is you don't know what you've got til you've got it. The debates would hammer in the election results. As well as economic disaster resulting from Trump's trade wars. It's possible anyone could beat him in 2020.

 

[akenbennu]

Dem campaign slogan for 2020, no matter who it is; If you didn't like the 2016 result, get out and vote.

 

[Jhhnn]

So the logical option is to go far left. I think the dems should give it try. I think that would put Bernie and Liz on top, unless Joe comes up with something more than his five trillion dollar carbon plan.

I always love the "Far Left" characterization from conservatives. It's not like anybody is promoting the dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

[ivwshane]

I guess if your focus is exclusively on a limited set of economic issues. In many other ways she very much did behave like Republican-lite such as having a very interventionist foreign policy (including having been chief architect of the current mess in Libya and notable hawkish neoliberal, refusing to rule out military action against Iran, and of course voting for the Iraq invasion), near Orwellian levels of devotion to the surveillance state, and high level of cozy with Wall Street on numerous fronts including opposing reimposition of Glass-Steagall and having paid speeches to Wall Street big wigs where she suggests they limit themselves so she wouldn't need to regulate them directly. Bernie and to a lesser extent Elizabeth Warren are progressives who want to substantially remake the current system, Hillary Clinton is an establishment person to the core whose preferred changes are around the margins. Whether Bernie or Warren would actually be effective in getting their big picture changes is another story, but to say Hillary Clinton would behave similarly to them defies logic and her entire history of actual political acts.

Your post highlights the issue with candidates who run on policies and not feel good slogans. The American people are too stupid and too lazy to understand policies that go beyond slogans, as your post illustrates.

For example, your claim that Clinton didn't support reinstating glass stegall is technically correct but that's because she saw glass stegall as inadequate and supported a plan that would actually address the issue of "too big to fail". Americans don't have the attention span to follow that logic and instead fall for misleading bull shit talking points just like you did.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/

It probably explains why plain speaking Biden and his lack of detailed policies is leading the way.

 

[Sunburn74]

Yea, and your version of "doing it over and over again" is equating Hillary with every other centerist democrat. It is like saying every quarterback who has the same gameplan would have the same outcome of the game. Obviously even with the same gameplan (i.e. policies) some would execute much better than others.

This is somewhat true.
I firmly believe the outcome of the last election was more Hillary losing it than trump winning it. She had several horrendous gaffes that pretty much cost her the whole thing (the handling of the email scandal, the poor running mate choice, failing to campaign in key states and instead going to dicey states you didn't need like arizona, the negative ad campaign strategy, the failure to compose her message down to simple points as opposed to the book the campaign published on their aims).