Steve Bullock is the guy for 2020.

[Coraxion]

Sorry, white guys. He isn't winning the primary, assuming he runs.

[Coraxion]

Bullock is nowehere near as "conservative" or "moderate" as people here seem to believe he is, so his crossover appeal is extremely exaggerated. Another thing to keep in mind that Bullock running for president could very well result in him losing the nomination (extremely likely) and Steve Daines winning reelection to the Senate, so it would be a lose-lose situation for Democrats. Like I said before, Daines could lose to some other Democrat as well, but Bullock would be their best bet.

Yeah, but Bullock doesn't need to be conservative OR moderate to reach out to culturally moderate-to-conservative Obama-Trump voters.

That's not a winning strategy. Turning out the true base of the party, people of color, as well as consolidating the Romney-Clinton vote and Stein voters, is.

[Coraxion]

Bullock is nowehere near as "conservative" or "moderate" as people here seem to believe he is, so his crossover appeal is extremely exaggerated. Another thing to keep in mind that Bullock running for president could very well result in him losing the nomination (extremely likely) and Steve Daines winning reelection to the Senate, so it would be a lose-lose situation for Democrats. Like I said before, Daines could lose to some other Democrat as well, but Bullock would be their best bet.

Yeah, but Bullock doesn't need to be conservative OR moderate to reach out to culturally moderate-to-conservative Obama-Trump voters.

That's not a winning strategy. Turning out the true base of the party, people of color, as well as consolidating the Romney-Clinton vote and Stein voters, is.

Turning out the base isn't enough when a lot of states don't have a large enough base to begin with. If we actually do manage to win with that strategy the margin will be incredibly narrow. Turning out the base is difficult and solidifying Romney Clinton voters is even more so. WWC is much more elastic. Plus it's antithesis to Democratic goals to become the party of moderate conservatism.

"Muh WWC" is orgasmic for Trump. They aren't going to vote for any Democrat over him. Why? White identity politics. The Democrat would only win those voters if they railed against Mexicans and Muslims. On the other hand, Romney-Clinton voters don't have those attitudes and so wouldn't flip to Trump. Also, chasing the wild goose that is "muh WWC" is what would make us the party of moderate conservatism.

I'm very frustrated by alt-leftists seeking to undermine the Party's civil rights stances. If they get their way, we (minorities) won't have a voice in government because neither party would care about us.

[Coraxion]

Bullock is nowehere near as "conservative" or "moderate" as people here seem to believe he is, so his crossover appeal is extremely exaggerated. Another thing to keep in mind that Bullock running for president could very well result in him losing the nomination (extremely likely) and Steve Daines winning reelection to the Senate, so it would be a lose-lose situation for Democrats. Like I said before, Daines could lose to some other Democrat as well, but Bullock would be their best bet.

Yeah, but Bullock doesn't need to be conservative OR moderate to reach out to culturally moderate-to-conservative Obama-Trump voters.

That's not a winning strategy. Turning out the true base of the party, people of color, as well as consolidating the Romney-Clinton vote and Stein voters, is.

Turning out the base isn't enough when a lot of states don't have a large enough base to begin with. If we actually do manage to win with that strategy the margin will be incredibly narrow. Turning out the base is difficult and solidifying Romney Clinton voters is even more so. WWC is much more elastic. Plus it's antithesis to Democratic goals to become the party of moderate conservatism.

"Muh WWC" is orgasmic for Trump. They aren't going to vote for any Democrat over him. Why? White identity politics. The Democrat would only win those voters if they railed against Mexicans and Muslims. On the other hand, Romney-Clinton voters don't have those attitudes and so wouldn't flip to Trump. Also, chasing the wild goose that is "muh WWC" is what would make us the party of moderate conservatism.

I'm very frustrated by alt-leftists seeking to undermine the Party's civil rights stances. If they get their way, we (minorities) won't have a voice in government because neither party would care about us.

The WWC is no longer "orgasmic" for Trump. His approvals in the midwest have collapsed. There's no need to bash Mexicans and Muslimsee in order to regain these voters. Obama did very well with these voters, and he was black. Obama managed to appeal to these groups without resorting to moderate conservatism, so we can do it again. Hillary Clinton on the other spent her entire campaign appealing to moderate suburban voters and fell flat on her face.

And? Studies of these voters show their deplorable attitudes towards Muslims, immigrants in general, and black people. They probably voted for Obama over Romney because they preferred his economic policies over Romney's. And last year, they were okay with both Trump and Clinton's economic policies, so they were free to vote based on "culture war" issues.

In any case, as long as the Dem nominee doesn't have the second-worst favorability ratings for any major party nominee in history, they should have the Rust Belt trio that decided the election locked up.

[Coraxion]

I'm very frustrated by alt-leftists seeking to undermine the Party's civil rights stances. If they get their way, we (minorities) won't have a voice in government because neither party would care about us.

What civil rights stance? Mass incarceration under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?

Shut up.

[Coraxion]

I'm very frustrated by alt-leftists seeking to undermine the Party's civil rights stances. If they get their way, we (minorities) won't have a voice in government because neither party would care about us.

What civil rights stance? Mass incarceration under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?

Shut up.

Did you mean police shootings under Obama?

I'm talking about shoving minorities aside, talking about "White Middle America", trashing any candidate that isn't a white male, etc.