A lot of people just hated Hillary no matter what her positions were. Over simplification, but if someone else runs on her exact platform I don't think they necessarily lose in '16.

Not to mention I don't think typical voters are even aware that parties have platforms, much less know the contents.



>>
>>Saying he wouldn’t touch the safety net doesn’t
>>wipe out the other right wing shit he was slangin.
>
>This isn't an issue of your opinion versus mine. There is very
>clear data on this.
>
>https://news.gallup.com/poll/196064/trump-seen-less-conservative-prior-gop-candidates.aspx
>
>It wasn't just his false promises on medicare and SS. He said
>he wanted an infrastructure deal, which has been a Dem
>priority for decades. He said he'd cut taxes for the middle
>class and raise taxes for the wealthy and corporations. He
>said he supported LGBT rights. He said the NRA had too much
>influence, for God's sake.

Right- he had the fake populist stuff down, no question. I think that is more of an issue with Clinton and the Dems though- how did a billionaire Republican out-populist them?

>
>He didn't just say he was gonna kill Obamacare, he said
>Obamacare was "failing," an uncontroversial view at the time
>as it's what the press had reported for years. But he said
>he'd find a way to give people "terrific" health care and he
>specifically said "we're gonna preserve preexisting." He
>didn't even know what the word meant but he knew he had to
>promise it. He benefited a lot from vagueness, and he gave
>people the impression that they'd just revert to the
>pre-Obamacare system with the only change being that everyone
>would get coverage.
>
>Clever people like you and I were able to see through those
>patently false promises. But the overall voting public, on
>average, saw a non-politician, running against his party's
>longstanding priorities, "telling it like it is." They also
>saw a billionaire who couldn't have become a billionaire
>without being a genius negotiator, who has enough money that
>he "can't be bought."
>
>Voters are fucking idiots. Being the reality-based party, we
>will always be forced to contend with this unfortunate
>reality.

Well to your point I am definitely giving voters too much credit I guess- in this case anyway.

The only thing I will say, though, is Obama was very popular at the end of his presidency. So I struggle with this idea that the current/departing president was incredibly popular, his former SOS running for Pres, and the Billionaire who spent the previous 8 years or whatever claiming said popular president wasn't born in the US, the guy calling Mexicans rapists, etc- was the more moderate option.

>
>
>
>>The Dems whole strategy was that Hill would
>>be the more reasonable candidate and pick up
>>suburban GOP votes.
>
>There was a "two lane" dynamic where the public was seeing
>Hillary as the candidate who spoke in a more reasonable way
>while also seeing Trump as the candidate who would be less
>partisan. And a lot of voters decided they didn't care how
>Trump talks.
>
>But the problem for the campaign was: there just wasn't a way
>for them to break this dynamic where Trump was seen as less
>partisan. Trump could speak against base priorities without
>offending his base. Hillary could not. 'Conservatives' were
>hungry after being out of power for eight years, and
>progressives were complacent and thought the world had
>actually changed when it most certainly had not.

I definitely agree that our side was complacent. I remember election night '12, some talking head talking about the GOP may never win the presidency again unless they become more inclusive. I even believed it at the time.

>
>The campaign blared every day that they had the most
>progressive platform in history. The small number of voters
>who considered themselves progressive loved it. Even the
>Bernie voters, who I'll admit largely did fall in line thanks
>to the party jerking them off. The much larger group of voters
>who didn't consider themselves progressive got worried.

But how many voters really know whats in the party platform, though?

And again I don't want to rehash '16 too much, but the Clinton campaign didn't do a great job communicating/selling their message in my opinion- so even if she did take on a very partisan platform, I question how much people even knew that.

I just don't think many voters checked her website and said "nope, too progressive...Trump seems more reasonable"

>
>This is classic political strategy -- you run to the center in
>the general election. Trump was allowed to run to the center
>and Hillary was not. That wasn't a Hillary thing, or a Trump
>thing, or a Bernie thing. It's just the dynamics of one party
>holding the presidency for eight years.
>
>Faced with this major disadvantage, the Clinton campaign did
>what they could, they ran as the campaign with less partisan
>rhetoric when they couldn't escape the fact that they had a
>significantly more partisan platform. And of course it didn't
>work, but it was the best they could have done.
>
>
>>From immigration, to torching Obamacare, to Iran,
>>Etc- He was right wing with a populist bent.
>>
>>That said, did anyone even believe him on not
>>touching the safety net?
>
>Yup. Voters are stupid.
>
>But by the way, he didn't touch the safety net. Paul Ryan
>wanted it. He had a bill all written up. They held all three
>branches of government, and nothing happened. Trump will run
>on that in 2020. He'll say he protected Medicare from Paul
>Ryan but these Democrats want to destabilize it by throwing
>ten times as many people at it. And people will fall for it.
>And in this case, it won't be entirely untrue.

Well, in this case I consider Obamacare part of the safety net. So, he *shouldn't* be able to run on not trying to touch it.

>
>
>>Hillary was the safe choice- the continuity.
>>
>>
>>And even if you really believe that Trump was the
>>moderate in the race- there’s no way in hell he’d
>>be the moderate in 20.
>
>When I first read that from you, I rolled my eyes at your
>naive optimism in the American voter. However it appears there
>is at least some data to back it up and it was key to the blue
>wave in 2018.
>
>https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-think-trump-has-moved-to-the-right/
>
>But remember, in 2018, the Dems who won ran on dividing power
>to check the executive branch, and preserving Obamacare. The
>platform being lined up for 2020 by every plausible candidate
>except Biden is to promise things that assume monopolized
>power again, including taking away most people's health care.

Yeah, and this is where I agree with you for the most part.

I hope its not too late for the candidates/party to tighten their message.

I go back and forth. A public option is probably the more acceptable answer at this point. But its essentially universal access rather than coverage.

That said, M4A is going to scare voters- especially because I don't think I trust Dems to sell/explain it.

That isn't just my typical cynicism with the party, its complicated to explain.

Especially when voters are hearing that they'll lose their insurance, private insurance may be illegal depending on the plan, etc.

How do you explain it all to voters? How do you explain do voters who actually like their insurance that they are still at the mercy of their employer.


Hell, my insurance isn't too bad honestly. But its expensive as fuck and goes up every year. And because I have a pre-existing, I pause when considering other career options.

Its a trap in a sense. How are Dems going to help voters who like their insurance see that?

I'm rambling at this point, but bottom line is that I see your reasoning.

>
>
>
>>He’s spent his admin essentially being president
>>to his base and his base only.
>>
>>He doesn’t even pretend to give a fuck about
>>anyone else.
>>
>>
>>The Dems would have to go left as fuck to make
>>Trump seem moderate.
>
>Warren, Sanders, and Harris have all said they would
>nationalize one of the largest industries in America; one
>that, however reviled, is directly connected to people's very
>survival. There is very little room further "left as fuck"
>than that (though Warren, the candidate who more than any of
>the rest of them, honestly knows better, has already promised
>it in about a dozen ways). You're right, we SHOULD be able to
>run as the sensible, honest, pragmatic, thoughtful party. But
>we're not, and it looks like we won't see the light on that
>until 2024.

I need to do more research on each candidate's individual healthcare plans. I wonder if there is something between M4A and a public option.

I go back and forth man. I get the reasoning of we need to beat Trump so lets play it safe. I get it. And I think I would be more on board if it wasn't Biden, honestly. My issue with Biden isn't his plans/platform/whatever nearly as much as its just Biden himself. I don't trust him to not fuck it up.


I am very anxious to see Warren and Biden debate for a lot of reasons. But I really want to see her present her healthcare plan and why it would be better. I want to see her try to convince Biden voters.