Party strategies for 2020

[Grifman]

There are a number of ways the parties can approach 2020 (though it appears we already know what the Republican strategy will be) so I thought it would be a interesting to have a thread about this.

There's been a ongoing debate within the Democrats as to whether they should reach out to Obama/Trump voters (who really swung the election) or double down on the base, pushing to win by turning out young and minority voters, with additional emphasis on suburbanites who might be tiring of Trump.

I have an ongoing concern about how far to the left the Democratic candidates are moving. It's a fact (at least I think it is) that the Dems won the House by winning in many districts by running moderate candidates in districts that Trump won. I think the get out the base group is missing this. I am afraid that the the Dems are running a national election and forgetting that they have to run a state by state election (due to the electoral college). I read an article today that it is entirely possible that Trump could win with only 45% of the vote due to the electoral college. Getting out the Democratic base might boost the popular vote but it may not shift enough votes in the battleground states.

I read a very good article on this but can't find it right now. If I do, I will come back and post it.

[Grifman]

Here's a summary of Trump's strategy and it is as expected:

https://www.axios.com/inside-the-trump- ... dc0bf.html

Will it work? Time will tell.

[Defiant]

I think the Democratic candidate needs to run a consensus campaign, trying to appeal to the different wings of the party, while not being too far left as to scare away moderate Independents and Never Trump Republicans. Stuff like getting rid of private health insurance or giving votes to people currently in prison and other things that weren't even raised as an issue before should be avoided.

I don't think that's something Sanders would be able to do, but I do think the other top-5 candidates could do it, to varying degrees of success.

[em2nought]

I'm pretty sure the tech giants won't be caught napping, due to overconfidence, this time which is good news for the democrats.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/07/ ... g-in-2020/

Personally, I think the Republicans need a "Make America's Children Great Again" platform for the future, but I don't think it would be a winning platform. "Hey dude, your socialist kids suck!" would go over like a lead balloon.

[LawBeefaroni]

GOP strategy: Trump!
DEM strategy: Not Trump!

[hepcat]

Personally, I think the Republicans need a "Make America's Children Great Again" platform for the future, but I don't think it would be a winning platform. "Hey dude, your socialist kids suck!" would go over like a lead balloon.

One problem: your average GOP voter can't spell "socialist".

What the dems should focus on is the fact that Trumpies don't even know what socialism really is. If they did, and they hate it so much, they’d refuse those social security checks and Medicaid benefits.

[Grifman]

This article encapsulates my view quite well:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/20/opin ... 0.amp.html

[LordMortis]

I'll be damned if I know the democrats are doing but the GOP are getting in line with Trump or they are coordinated. I can never tell. The strategy appears to be America needs to protected from "The Squad" and their hatred of America. "It's not racial. It's protection against hatred and socialism. Trump disapproves of racism. He said so."

One problem: your average GOP voter can't spell "socialist".

What the dems should focus on is the fact that Trumpies don't even know what socialism really is. If they did, and they hate it so much, they’d refuse those social security checks and Medicaid benefits.

Nazis had socialist in their name. Socialists are Nazis. Social programs are socialism. Social programs are Nazi.

[Pyperkub]

I think the Democratic candidate needs to run a consensus campaign, trying to appeal to the different wings of the party, while not being too far left as to scare away moderate Independents and Never Trump Republicans. Stuff like getting rid of private health insurance or giving votes to people currently in prison and other things that weren't even raised as an issue before should be avoided.

I don't think that's something Sanders would be able to do, but I do think the other top-5 candidates could do it, to varying degrees of success.

I strongly disagree. I think the Dem candidate needs to expose Trump and Trump's base for the racist authoritarians that they are, and focus the election on exactly how un-American this Administration and the Republican Party have become. Trump *needs* to lose, and lose badly based on this if we are to be the America we want to be.

Not doing so is a tacit endorsement that this is the America and the Republican Party we have to live with, and ensure that it will be the same until America takes a stand for what is right, and what we claim to stand for.

This is not a policy election, this is a direction of our country election - racism and fascism and lies, or truth, justice and the American way.

Trump wants to fight on racist ground - great. Kick his ass there.

If we don't, the sad reality is that the next GOP Presidential Candidate will be even worse than Trump.

[Defiant]

I think the Democratic candidate needs to run a consensus campaign, trying to appeal to the different wings of the party, while not being too far left as to scare away moderate Independents and Never Trump Republicans. Stuff like getting rid of private health insurance or giving votes to people currently in prison and other things that weren't even raised as an issue before should be avoided.

I don't think that's something Sanders would be able to do, but I do think the other top-5 candidates could do it, to varying degrees of success.

I strongly disagree. I think the Dem candidate needs to expose Trump and Trump's base for the racist authoritarians that they are, and focus the election on exactly how un-American this Administration and the Republican Party have become. Trump *needs* to lose, and lose badly based on this if we are to be the America we want to be.

And that's completely consistent with what I mentioned. You can try to be a unity candidate that's trying to bridge the various parts of the party together as well as independents/never Trumpers, while at the same time exposing Trump and base for their flaws.

In fact, a unity/consensus candidate would be a great contrast to Trump, who is focused only on his base.

(And yes, making sure that Trump loses by a considerable amount is an important goal, to help ensure that future politicians avoid his tactics. It could also be helpful in trying to drive up turnout if you make it clear that it's not just important that he lose by as wide a margin as possible, to motivate people who think he's going to lose anyway. Although I would hope that most people would realize from the last election the foolishness of making such an assumption)

[Pyperkub]

I think the Democratic candidate needs to run a consensus campaign, trying to appeal to the different wings of the party, while not being too far left as to scare away moderate Independents and Never Trump Republicans. Stuff like getting rid of private health insurance or giving votes to people currently in prison and other things that weren't even raised as an issue before should be avoided.

I don't think that's something Sanders would be able to do, but I do think the other top-5 candidates could do it, to varying degrees of success.

I strongly disagree. I think the Dem candidate needs to expose Trump and Trump's base for the racist authoritarians that they are, and focus the election on exactly how un-American this Administration and the Republican Party have become. Trump *needs* to lose, and lose badly based on this if we are to be the America we want to be.

And that's completely consistent with what I mentioned. You can try to be a unity candidate that's trying to bridge the various parts of the party together as well as independents/never Trumpers, while at the same time exposing Trump and base for their flaws.

In fact, a unity/consensus candidate would be a great contrast to Trump, who is focused only on his base.

(And yes, making sure that Trump loses by a considerable amount is an important goal, to help ensure that future politicians avoid his tactics. It could also be helpful in trying to drive up turnout if you make it clear that it's not just important that he lose by as wide a margin as possible, to motivate people who think he's going to lose anyway. Although I would hope that most people would realize from the last election the foolishness of making such an assumption)

Ah, ok. I just have a problem phrasing it as being a consensus candidate. In no way, shape or form should the Dem candidate try to appease Trump's base - it's a losing strategy, IMHO. No "I've worked with segregationists in the past, I can do so again" bullshit. Marginalize them, and make the race about how flat out evil the GOP has become by catering to them.

Otherwise, this is a "Peace in our time" moment, which will only make things worse down the road.

[Defiant]

Ah, ok. I just have a problem phrasing it as being a consensus candidate. In no way, shape or form should the Dem candidate try to appease Trump's base - it's a losing strategy, IMHO. No "I've worked with segregationists in the past, I can do so again" bullshit. Marginalize them, and make the race about how flat out evil the GOP has become by catering to them.

Otherwise, this is a "Peace in our time" moment, which will only make things worse down the road.

Definitely don't appease Trump's base or try to go after them, but try to appeal to everyone get-able, from Never Trump Republicans to third party independents to people who didn't vote to moderates and progressive Democrats, with something different to each group, but nothing that would drive people away. Ideologically, someone like Obama would be a good fit, I think (somewhat more left than Biden, but not nearly as far left as a bunch of the candidates are going). Though there's also other ways to appeal to the different groups (especially if you've got good oratory skill/"charisma" or if you're making a good faith effort (and it's seen as a good faith effort) to reach out to them and to put potential fears at ease).

[Pyperkub]

Ah, ok. I just have a problem phrasing it as being a consensus candidate. In no way, shape or form should the Dem candidate try to appease Trump's base - it's a losing strategy, IMHO. No "I've worked with segregationists in the past, I can do so again" bullshit. Marginalize them, and make the race about how flat out evil the GOP has become by catering to them.

Otherwise, this is a "Peace in our time" moment, which will only make things worse down the road.

Definitely don't appease Trump's base or try to go after them, but try to appeal to everyone get-able, from Never Trump Republicans to third party independents to people who didn't vote to moderates and progressive Democrats, with something different to each group, but nothing that would drive people away. Ideologically, someone like Obama would be a good fit, I think (somewhat more left than Biden, but not nearly as far left as a bunch of the candidates are going). Though there's also other ways to appeal to the different groups (especially if you've got good oratory skill/"charisma" or if you're making a good faith effort (and it's seen as a good faith effort) to reach out to them and to put potential fears at ease).

I have no problem with driving people away if they aren't interested in burying Trump and the GOP's racism and authoritarianism - they need to decide where they will stand and vote *for* America, not just against Trump.

[Defiant]

I have no problem with driving people away if they aren't interested in burying Trump and the GOP's racism and authoritarianism - they need to decide where they will stand and vote *for* America, not just against Trump.

But then you're giving them an ultimatum. You want to bury Trump and his racism and authoritarianism, happy to have you on board. Just so long as you're fully 100% committed with every left-wing policy we want. If not too bad.

If defeating Trump, and in particular, defeating him by the largest margin possible, is the goal, that's a dangerous game that will get those people to tune out and not vote at all (or vote third party) - "a pox on both houses".

[rittchard]

Ah, ok. I just have a problem phrasing it as being a consensus candidate. In no way, shape or form should the Dem candidate try to appease Trump's base - it's a losing strategy, IMHO. No "I've worked with segregationists in the past, I can do so again" bullshit. Marginalize them, and make the race about how flat out evil the GOP has become by catering to them.

Otherwise, this is a "Peace in our time" moment, which will only make things worse down the road.

Definitely don't appease Trump's base or try to go after them, but try to appeal to everyone get-able, from Never Trump Republicans to third party independents to people who didn't vote to moderates and progressive Democrats, with something different to each group, but nothing that would drive people away. Ideologically, someone like Obama would be a good fit, I think (somewhat more left than Biden, but not nearly as far left as a bunch of the candidates are going). Though there's also other ways to appeal to the different groups (especially if you've got good oratory skill/"charisma" or if you're making a good faith effort (and it's seen as a good faith effort) to reach out to them and to put potential fears at ease).

I can think of someone who is doing this lol!

Obviously I am way too biased (Pete), but I think the best party strategy (Pete) would be to rally behind the best candidate (Pete) as soon as possible. Or get Michelle Obama to run with Oprah as her running mate lol.

Seriously, though, Pete is a fantastic candidate that can and has already shown he can appeal to a wide variety of voter bases, including Republicans and Independents. While he still has a (perceived?) problem with black voters, if the party rallied behind him I'm certain he would win them over and it's pretty clear he would likely pick a POC to run alongside him (Kamala or Stacey Abrams for example). Add an endorsement from Oprah and/or Obama and he wouldn't have to worry so much about it any more and could focus on other strategic points in the midwest. He has blue collar and military appeal, young people, seniors, even appeal to many religious voters.

[Pyperkub]

I have no problem with driving people away if they aren't interested in burying Trump and the GOP's racism and authoritarianism - they need to decide where they will stand and vote *for* America, not just against Trump.

But then you're giving them an ultimatum. You want to bury Trump and his racism and authoritarianism, happy to have you on board. Just so long as you're fully 100% committed with every left-wing policy we want. If not too bad.

If defeating Trump, and in particular, defeating him by the largest margin possible, is the goal, that's a dangerous game that will get those people to tune out and not vote at all (or vote third party) - "a pox on both houses".

It's not a direct Ultimatum. It's just don't campaign on appeasement just to get votes for people who will claim to have been betrayed and go back to the ways which got Trump and *this* GOP elected. It's important to remember that Trump is a symptom, and when we elected Obama we treated the symptom, and the disease got worse.

Edit: And here's someone else saying it

It’s not just a few Trumpian intellectuals who are eager to embrace theocracy. So are some Trumpian politicians. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) doesn’t just reject abortion rights; he rejects the entire conception of individual liberty that underlies the Supreme Court’s abortion decisions...

...But the real star of the “national conservatism” conference, reports Jacob Heilbrunn in the New York Review of Books, was Fox host Tucker Carlson. An isolationist and nativist, he has called Iraqis “semiliterate primitive monkeys” and said immigrants make “our own country poor and dirtier and more divided.” At the Ritz-Carlton, which is a subsidiary of the largest hotel company in the world, Carlson’s theme was, “Big Business Hates Your Family.” (Maybe not Carlson’s family: His stepmother is an heir to the Swanson frozen-food fortune.)

There has already been talk of Carlson running for president, and, Heilbrunn wrote, “Carlson’s own coy disavowal on the podium was hardly a denial.” Tucker in ’24? Don’t laugh. Weep.

[Defiant]

I can think of someone who is doing this lol!

Obviously I am way too biased (Pete), but I think the best party strategy (Pete) would be to rally behind the best candidate (Pete) as soon as possible. Or get Michelle Obama to run with Oprah as her running mate lol.

Seriously, though, Pete is a fantastic candidate that can and has already shown he can appeal to a wide variety of voter bases, including Republicans and Independents. While he still has a (perceived?) problem with black voters, if the party rallied behind him I'm certain he would win them over and it's pretty clear he would likely pick a POC to run alongside him (Kamala or Stacey Abrams for example). Add an endorsement from Oprah and/or Obama and he wouldn't have to worry so much about it any more and could focus on other strategic points in the midwest. He has blue collar and military appeal, young people, seniors, even appeal to many religious voters.

*If* Pete can fix his problem in gaining traction with black voters - it *is* a real problem, and he's definitely been trying hard to address it, though if it's caused by him being gay then it might not be something easy to address - then I agree, he would do a formidable job of presenting a very sharp contrast to Trump, and provide a candidate that would appeals to all the different obtainable votes (he does well with both moderate and progressive voters), without scaring people away or making it a hard choice for them.

[malchior]

*If* Pete can fix his problem in gaining traction with black voters - it *is* a real problem, and he's definitely been trying hard to address it

Try as he might - he can't fix the "problem"

though if it's caused by him being gay

This is the "problem". He doesn't have enough street cred to overcome being gay with this segment. It could happen but it probably won't.

[Pyperkub]

*If* Pete can fix his problem in gaining traction with black voters - it *is* a real problem, and he's definitely been trying hard to address it

Try as he might - he can't fix the "problem"

though if it's caused by him being gay

This is the "problem". He doesn't have enough street cred to overcome being gay with this segment. It could happen but it probably won't.

There's also the local policing issues that he has taken a lot of hits from the local black community for.

[em2nought]

Trumpies don't even know what socialism really is. If they did, and they hate it so much, they’d refuse those social security checks and Medicaid benefits.

Yes, most people only "think" that they're fiscal conservatives.

[Kraken]

Trump needs the voters who approve of the economy but disapprove of everything else he does. Deplorables alone aren't enough, but "The conflicted voters, if they break for Trump, bring him “in range” to win, says the GOP pollster Gene Ulm: “He’s incredibly close. Can I predict that he’s going to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania? No, I can’t do that. But he is within spitting distance of that 47 [or so] mark he needs to win when you look at these chunks of people.”

Where both sides agree is that the key measure for Trump next year will be the share of voters who approve of his overall performance, not the (for now) wider group that gives him good marks on the economy. “They have to become approvers,” Ulm says. For incumbents, he adds, “job approval is your vote—it’s almost like religion.”

He can win if his overall approval is 46% or better. After last week's racist attacks, it rose to 45%. Trump needs to paint Democrats as scary gay brown Muslim socialists, and Democrats need to keep reminding voters that Trump is a lying immoral racist swindler.

In other words, both sides need to go negative like we've never seen before.

[UsulofDoom]

What the dems should focus on is the fact that Trumpies don't even know what socialism really is. If they did, and they hate it so much, they’d refuse those social security checks and Medicaid benefits.

That's funny, I should not get what's coming to me when I've been paying for it my whole working life. Try again.

[hepcat]

Educate yourself, my friend.

Nevertheless, because the American government plays such a dominant role in the U.S. Social Security system – deciding how much and when employees and employers pay into the system, how much individuals receive in benefits when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out – it seems fair to call the Social Security program a form of socialism. The program requires workers and their employers, along with self-employed individuals, to pay into the system throughout their working years. The government controls the money they contribute, and decides when and how much they get back after – and if – they reach retirement age.

We already have some socialist programs, but that doesn’t make us a socialist country.

[LordMortis]

Trump needs the voters who approve of the economy but disapprove of everything else he does. Deplorables alone aren't enough, but "The conflicted voters, if they break for Trump, bring him “in range” to win, says the GOP pollster Gene Ulm: “He’s incredibly close. Can I predict that he’s going to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania? No, I can’t do that. But he is within spitting distance of that 47 [or so] mark he needs to win when you look at these chunks of people.”

Where both sides agree is that the key measure for Trump next year will be the share of voters who approve of his overall performance, not the (for now) wider group that gives him good marks on the economy. “They have to become approvers,” Ulm says. For incumbents, he adds, “job approval is your vote—it’s almost like religion.”

He can win if his overall approval is 46% or better. After last week's racist attacks, it rose to 45%. Trump needs to paint Democrats as scary gay brown Muslim socialists, and Democrats need to keep reminding voters that Trump is a lying immoral racist swindler.

In other words, both sides need to go negative like we've never seen before.

I believe all of your premises and it makes me sad. I hope your conclusion is wrong. Even more so, because I believe the GOP are way way way better at going negative. It's what they do. It's where they live. It's their raison d'etre. If we're that close and that's the tipping factor, then we're waiting to follow the worms. Of course Brexit could be our wakeup call.

What the dems should focus on is the fact that Trumpies don't even know what socialism really is. If they did, and they hate it so much, they’d refuse those social security checks and Medicaid benefits.

That's funny, I should not get what's coming to me when I've been paying for it my whole working life. Try again.

You've been paying for the generation(s) before you your whole working life with the promise that the next generation will pay you back, only there is the possibility to renegotiate the promise and your influence on the possibility is negligible. 62, 65,67,72... Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may very well be) the US never accrued money before paying benefits, did we?

Now if they try seize your IRA or 401k, that'd be a different story. (And I do have a concern that our benevolent officials will change that deal or that the constraints of these vehicles are open to manipulation but that's a bit removed form pay roll taxes and expected future benefits)

[Paingod]

I'll be damned if I know the democrats are doing but the GOP are getting in line with Trump or they are coordinated.

It's my experience that doing the wrong thing is usually easier than doing the right thing, and a simple message is easier to get behind than a complex one. "TRUMP!" is as simple as they get, only beaten by the NRA's "NO!" stance. The Democrats can't hope to find a way to simplify what they stand for, not because it's wrong, but because what they want to achieve is complicated.

It is incredibly hard to take down a one-word belief political stance.

[Kraken]

Trump needs the voters who approve of the economy but disapprove of everything else he does. Deplorables alone aren't enough, but "The conflicted voters, if they break for Trump, bring him “in range” to win, says the GOP pollster Gene Ulm: “He’s incredibly close. Can I predict that he’s going to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania? No, I can’t do that. But he is within spitting distance of that 47 [or so] mark he needs to win when you look at these chunks of people.”

Where both sides agree is that the key measure for Trump next year will be the share of voters who approve of his overall performance, not the (for now) wider group that gives him good marks on the economy. “They have to become approvers,” Ulm says. For incumbents, he adds, “job approval is your vote—it’s almost like religion.”

He can win if his overall approval is 46% or better. After last week's racist attacks, it rose to 45%. Trump needs to paint Democrats as scary gay brown Muslim socialists, and Democrats need to keep reminding voters that Trump is a lying immoral racist swindler.

In other words, both sides need to go negative like we've never seen before.

I believe all of your premises and it makes me sad. I hope your conclusion is wrong. Even more so, because I believe the GOP are way way way better at going negative. It's what they do. It's where they live. It's their raison d'etre. If we're that close and that's the tipping factor, then we're waiting to follow the worms. Of course Brexit could be our wakeup call.

On the plus side, Republicans have to conjure all sorts of boogeymen and false accusations, while Democrats just need to show Trump and his collaborators for what they really are. One hopes that having reality on one's side will be a boon. The people that the GOP has to convert into "approvers" are not low-information voters.

[Paingod]

On the plus side, Republicans have to conjure all sorts of boogeymen and false accusations...

Sadly, this hasn't slowed support one iota. The more disconnected it gets from reality, the more rabid they seem to get.

[LordMortis]

Didn't the GOP senate just vote (and fail) to scale back SS benefits?

Today

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 ... 926804002/

Last year at this time

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghil ... -security/

Two months ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyaltma ... efit-cuts/

This will play well to the GOP love for the 60 and up vote. I'm not saying the COLA adjustment is bad, only that the GOP essentially lost for the time being and they will tout their loss as their victory and it will work.