DNC Panel rule: If you want to run be a registered Democrat! (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 09:36:18 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  DNC Panel rule: If you want to run be a registered Democrat! (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: DNC Panel rule: If you want to run be a registered Democrat!  (Read 5541 times)
Rookie Yinzer
RFKFan68
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,188
United States


« on: June 09, 2018, 10:09:07 AM »

Guys, the rule just says this:


You literally just have to write a letter to the DNC saying, “Yes I’m a Democrat, yes I will accept the Democratic nomination if nominated (duh), and yes I will serve as a Democrat.”

So Berners were exaggerating and creating conspiracy theories once again? Cool.
Logged
Rookie Yinzer
RFKFan68
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,188
United States


« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2018, 12:05:40 PM »
« Edited: June 09, 2018, 12:08:58 PM by RFKFan68 »

So yes, white people are still the base of the democratic party. Bernie actually did pretty poorly with some white people he should have been able to win (midwestern & appalachian-besides WV- whites).
There was really no excuse for Bernie to lose Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Hell, he even could have kept Tennessee closer. There were swaths of white voters who he didn't appeal to so I'm not sure why that other poster went out of his way to declare POC were not the base... ok, and Bernie didn't appeal to enough white people either lol

No Democrat is going to win the presidency without winning the votes of minorities by large margins. Without minorities Democrats wouldn't even have a chance at winning several swing states (if you remove large diverse cities from purple states they will turn red).
The black, Latino, and young Obama '12 non-voters were more consequential than the "Obama -> Trump WWC voter" who supposedly would have voted for Bernie if he were on the ballot. Hopefully Senator Sanders can evolve in his rhetoric on how the Democratic Party should galvanize voters moving forward. I have been very turned off by some of his assertions. I have seen him turn the corner a bit on that, so thankfully someone has gotten in his ear.
Logged
Rookie Yinzer
RFKFan68
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,188
United States


« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2018, 01:21:45 PM »


No Democrat is going to win the presidency without winning the votes of minorities by large margins. Without minorities Democrats wouldn't even have a chance at winning several swing states (if you remove large diverse cities from purple states they will turn red).
The black, Latino, and young Obama '12 non-voters were more consequential than the "Obama -> Trump WWC voter" who supposedly would have voted for Bernie if he were on the ballot. Hopefully Senator Sanders can evolve in his rhetoric on how the Democratic Party should galvanize voters moving forward. I have been very turned off by some of his assertions. I have seen him turn the corner a bit on that, so thankfully someone has gotten in his ear.


If we're talking about pure numbers, this is incorrect. There were about 6 million Obama --> Trump voters. If they all voted for Hillary instead of Trump, that would be a net gain of 12 million in Hillary's margins. You can turn out twice as many Latinos (which is almost impossible b/c that would be 92% turnout) and you still wouldn't get the same net gain as simply keeping all of the Obama --> Trump voters.

Turning out black people is a slightly better strategy, but even a whopping 100% black turnout would not give the same margin as simply keeping all of the Obama --> Trump voters.

I'm not saying what strategy the democratic party should do. I am just saying this strategy of trying to turn out young people + miniorities (and good f'ing luck turning out young latinos...) without focusing on swing voters is OK in the Popular Vote, poor in the electoral college, and bad in midterms... and a complete disaster in the Senate, which is comprised of many rural white states. The democratic party relies on a ton of old white people (they get about 40% of the old white vote). Even Obama got a lot of old white people to vote for him in 2008. Not as much in 2012, but still got plenty of them to vote for him.


Granted, I am of the opinion that by Nov 2020, Trump will be so damaged that anyone even marginally better than Hillary would easily win. But the educated white + young + miniority coalition is not as effective as people hype it up to be... you need to add something else to it. Obama added midwestern whites to this coalition.


The Obama non-voters were certainly consequential in the Electoral College. Hillary wins Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida with 2012 black turnout alone.

I do agree with you though, I wasn’t trying to make that point at all. I just rejected Sanders’s assertion that we lost because of “identity politics” and we have to have muted responses to certain issues that might make certain whiteconstituencies uncomfortable. He is evolving on that though, so I give him credit there. It is important to keep the inelastic base engaged. I have no problem reaching out to swing voters. I support freaking Steve Bullock for 2020, and I know damn well he won’t be an Uber-liberal SJW. Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 14 queries.