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

[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.

 

[Deleted member 365]

@fishonjazz i think you Will see a lot of younger candidates going for the nomination in 2024 if Biden decides not to run. There are a number of governors from North Carolina, Kentucky, Michigan, and illinois who might run. You also have senators like Klobuchar who could run. You also have folks in the administration like Kamala Harris and Mayor Pete. So I think you’ll see younger candidates.

However, those candidates will need to prove they can excite the base to win the nomination but balancing it out with someone who can win the older and more conservative rust belt states. Sanders might’ve won the nomination in 2020 had Biden not. He was extremely popular with white college aged and liberal voters (less so with African american and Hispanic voters). But then sanders would’ve gotten destroyed in the general and lost all those rust belt states plus Georgia and Arizona because “socialism” and “Jew.”

Or do you think sanders would’ve done just as well or better in the general as Biden?

 

[gandalfe]

This.

The really sad thing is, looking at the stable of possible horses to run in the upcoming races, there are exactly zero thoroughbreds. We don't have anyone ready or with the reach to be president who isn't basically exactly who we have had for the past 2 election cycles. In fact, in the foreseeable future (say next 2-3 presidential election cycles), barring the quick rise of some young gun, I can't see anyone being in the role that will make a positive difference or move the needle from these last 2 geezers. Not a very good outlook for the ultimate leadership of our country.

Divided we fall, and the fall is shaping up to be pretty ****ing precipitous.

Remember, both Obama and Clinton were basically unknown before the election cycle started.

 

[fishonjazz]

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.

I disagree. You are making it way more complicated.
If trump runs then we know all the trumpers vote for him. All the hard core republicans will vote for him. Everyone else will vote for the other candidate regardless. In this scenario might as well provide us with a good younger candidate since we already know how the voting is going to go no matter who the candidate is.

If trump doesn't run then the democratic party should be trying to get people like me to vote for their candidate. Put another biden out there and im either not voting at all or im voting for the republican.

 

[fishonjazz]

@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

I disagree. I think they just wanted to win badly and trump rubbed off on them. I also dont think "the rupublicans" turned against democracy so much as the trump campaign did. I dont think obama being black had the effect that you think it had.

 

[fishonjazz]

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.

You know that people who look like biden are quite literally a dying demographic (cause people die when they get to be biden age)
If people are voting for candidates that look like them then im quite certain that there are way more people in our country between 40-60 than 60-80 simply based on the fact that more people die the older they get.

 

[fishonjazz]

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.

I think his answer was that no one would vote for a younger candidate because people only vote for candidates that look like them and apparently there are only a bunch of 70+ year olds in this country.

 

[fishonjazz]

@fishonjazz i think you Will see a lot of younger candidates going for the nomination in 2024 if Biden decides not to run. There are a number of governors from North Carolina, Kentucky, Michigan, and illinois who might run. You also have senators like Klobuchar who could run. You also have folks in the administration like Kamala Harris and Mayor Pete. So I think you’ll see younger candidates.

However, those candidates will need to prove they can excite the base to win the nomination but balancing it out with someone who can win the older and more conservative rust belt states. Sanders might’ve won the nomination in 2020 had Biden not. He was extremely popular with white college aged and liberal voters (less so with African american and Hispanic voters). But then sanders would’ve gotten destroyed in the general and lost all those rust belt states plus Georgia and Arizona because “socialism” and “Jew.”

Or do you think sanders would’ve done just as well or better in the general as Biden?

Would sanders have been running against trump? If the answer is yes then I think he would have done as well or better. Better in fact since he is actually competent and wouldn't look like he didn't know where he was half the time.

 

[Deleted member 365]

You know that people who look like biden are quite literally a dying demographic (cause people die when they get to be biden age)
If people are voting for candidates that look like them then im quite certain that there are way more people in our country between 40-60 than 60-80 simply based on the fact that more people die the older they get.

Actually, this is incorrect.

Boomers have constituted the largest voting bloc over the last few decades, so that 60-80 demo has actually been one of the largest voting blocs. It’s not a perfect science since we divide the bands differently than 60-80… but generally speaking the youngs don’t vote (they bitch about things on the Internet) while the old farts do vote.

millennials/Gen z may constitute the largest this cycle as they’re a huge population bloc and they’re becoming engaged with politics. But we’ll see.

The U.S. electorate is aging: 52% of registered voters are ages 50 and older, up from 41% in 1996. This shift has occurred in both partisan coalitions. More than half of Republican and GOP-leaning voters (56%) are ages 50 and older, up from 39% in 1996. And among Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, half are 50 and older, up from 41% in 1996.

Another way to consider the aging of the electorate is to look at median age. The median age among all registered voters increased from 44 in 1996 to 50 in 2019. It rose from 43 to 52 among Republican registered voters and from 45 to 49 among Democratic registered voters.

What the 2020 electorate looks like by party, race and ethnicity, age, education and religion

What does the 2020 electorate look like politically, demographically and religiously as the race enters its final days?

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Deleted member 365]

I think his answer was that no one would vote for a younger candidate because people only vote for candidates that look like them and apparently there are only a bunch of 70+ year olds in this country.

Seriously? Do I really deserve such a snide comment? Is that really what I said? That’s really disappointing man.

 

[fishonjazz]

Seriously? Do I really deserve such a snide comment? Is that really what I said? That’s really disappointing man.

Well you are obviously hard to understand since both me and gameface still have no idea what your answer is to the question why cant a candidate in the 40-60 range win. Take some responsibility for not being clear enough maybe.

 

[fishonjazz]

In the 2020 election I think that literally any of the democratic candidates would have beat trump. Tulsi, mayor pete, bernie, bloomberg, warren, harris, etc etc. There were simply that many people who were sick of seeing trumps stupid face and hearing his stupid voice and seeing his stupid tweets and rallies and fan club wearing his merchandise. Any and every candidate would have beat him.
Problem is the democrats went with biden and now there is a lot of voters remorse because of this war and inflation and gas prices. Then you add that biden seems like an inept senile old folks home resident and its even worse. They think I would love to have trump back if it means lower prices, I will simply do a better job of ignoring his antics (ya right).
For me I will gladly pay more for stuff to not have to have trump shoved down my throat everywhere but there are a lot of people who feel different.
If the current president was someone like mayor pete and we still had high gas and inflation and whatnot but mayor pete could at least come across as charming, intelligent, and competent then maybe there would be less voter remorse.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Well you are obviously hard to understand since both me and gameface still have no idea what your answer is to the question why cant a candidate in the 40-60 range. Take some responsibility for not being clear enough maybe.

Because that’s not generally how surveys are made. Pew and other survey groups don’t break the age groups down the way you want them to. When I was doing my undergraduate work I helped one of my professors develop a political survey to be deployed using landlines. He does this about every election cycle. He might have the metadata to break it down the way you want? Otherwise, you just follow the demographic data published by reliable surveys.

How about you actually read what I say instead of jumping to conclusions or making lame *** snide comments?

What you said:
I think his answer was that no one would vote for a younger candidate because people only vote for candidates that look like them and apparently there are only a bunch of 70+ year olds in this country.

What I actually said:
Rust belt voters tend to identify more with candidates that look like them. So older, whiter, more conservative, religious, etc.

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.

Take responsibility. You demand I answer every one of your questions clearly and then you put words in my mouth because you don’t read.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Would sanders have been running against trump? If the answer is yes then I think he would have done as well or better. Better in fact since he is actually competent and wouldn't look like he didn't know where he was half the time.

I don’t think so. I think Bernie loses and loses bigly. A Jewish Democratic socialist is not winning Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. That’s a Trump win. And he most likely loses Pennsylvania and Michigan, resulting in a Trump blowout.

 

[Deleted member 365]

@Gameface essentially, yes a younger, more liberal, more diverse, candidate can win the primary. The question lies on if they can win the general? The general is where things become difficult as general election voters tend to be older and more moderate ideologically than democratic base voters in the primary.

This will be especially troublesome since Democrats desperately need to win rust belt states, and those states are trending red.

So the question is, do you go with a younger candidate who might be more liberal ideologically? Who might be gay, a woman, or black? Because they might turn off some general election voters. Sure, you might juice your base but no one cares if you win the popular vote by millions fail to reach 270 EC votes.
This worked for Obama but didn’t work for Gore, Dukakis, or Mondale.

-OR-
​

Do you go for someone old and moderate and hope that you get 270 by appealing to moderates but risk depleting your base’s turnout?
This worked for Bill Clinton and Joe Biden but didn’t work for Hillary Clinton. And had Bernie been the nominee in 2020, I think it would’ve resulted in a Trump re-election. Way too many general elections voters would’ve been spooked by democratic socialism.

Republicans don’t have to worry about this because they’ve given up going for the popular vote. They’ve found that they can juice their base and their base is good enough to win enough EC votes. The EC actually favors rural less populated states. That’s why Bush won in 2000, why trump won in 2016, and why trump was close to winning despite losing the popular vote by millions in 2020.

So we probably will see younger candidates in 2024 if Biden doesn’t run. It’d be hard to find older candidates! But there’s a real dilemma facing Dems since a candidate might be extremely popular for them in the primary and might be more popular nation wide, might be completely unpopular in key EC states for the general and cost them the White House.

 

[fishonjazz]

Because that’s not generally how surveys are made. Pew and other survey groups don’t break the age groups down the way you want them to. When I was doing my undergraduate work I helped one of my professors develop a political survey to be deployed using landlines. He does this about every election cycle. He might have the metadata to break it down the way you want? Otherwise, you just follow the demographic data published by reliable surveys.

How about you actually read what I say instead of jumping to conclusions or making lame *** snide comments?

What you said:
I think his answer was that no one would vote for a younger candidate because people only vote for candidates that look like them and apparently there are only a bunch of 70+ year olds in this country.

What I actually said:
Rust belt voters tend to identify more with candidates that look like them. So older, whiter, more conservative, religious, etc.

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.

Take responsibility. You demand I answer every one of your questions clearly and then you put words in my mouth because you don’t read.

Every one of my questions lol. I asked you one question. I still dont know your answer.

 

[fishonjazz]

I don’t think so. I think Bernie loses and loses bigly. A Jewish Democratic socialist is not winning Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. That’s a Trump win. And he most likely loses Pennsylvania and Michigan, resulting in a Trump blowout.

I disagree. Trump didn't lose az, ga, and wisconsin because the voters loved biden. Trump lost those states because the voters were sick of/hated trump. They would still have been sick of trump if bernie was the candidate. Same with penn and michigan.