Post Mid Terms - who should challenge Trump in 2020?

[AResistor]

MaceB, I can see you've never run into HillBots before. You should be happy about that. Those who have frequented twitter know how fanatical they can be. They and the Trump boomers are mirror images of each other with only some differences.

Again, you're trying to peg it all on one generation rather than admitting that boomers clearly carry faults as well. See, I'm saying both generations have clear things they need to work out - you're acting as only one does which isn't the case. It's two-fold. Part of the boomer flaw is being unable to take responsibility and acting like it was all the other's fault.

Just because someone has experience doesn't mean that they can relate and understand everyone's issues. Millennials fell for Bernie not because of his policies, but because he was speaking TO THEM rather than DOWN to them. Many still don't get that. It wasn't name, it wasn't really policies per se either, it was trust from earnestness that he saw them and had their back.

And again - I keep on repeating that I personally hold nothing against Biden (so you asking for me to attack Biden, no can do - because as said, my issue is from the shift and narrative the election can easily fall into). My problem is with the clear generational war and divide that we shouldn't have to contend with again in 2015.

 

[MaceB]

I'm telling you guys. You take on Bernie or Warren, and it might work out... but man.... it's gonna be another nail biter where both sides are deadset against each other. And in that environment, it's really anyone's game.

Joe Biden hits all the boxes. He's hardly a run to the center. The guy is progressive. He just wants to be a progressive from inside, rather than from the outside.

 

[AResistor]

Joe Biden hits all the boxes.

If he can communicate well with millennials - so far he's only shown he knows how talk down to them, like Hillary did. Look what happened. He needs to become a better speaker that can reach all. Any youth campaign manager would similarly advise him of this flaw. You're making him out to be flawless. What I'm saying is - if you want him, he has to fix and work on this flaw.

 

[MaceB]

Again, you're trying to peg it all on one generation rather than admitting that boomers clearly carry faults as well. See, I'm saying both generations have clear things they need to work out - you're acting as only one does which isn't the case. It's two-fold.

No I'm not. I think the Dems made a horrible mistake picking Hillary and that Schieve should be expelled from leadership and from politics based on what she did in '16. I want a President who cares about millennials and their interests, sure. I'm arguing in favor of the guy who is liberal on millennial issues, but who's also acceptable to a lot of moderates as well. You seem to be the one who is arguing that only one side needs to change, not me.

Just because someone has experience doesn't mean that they can relate and understand everyone's issues. Millennials fell for Bernie not because of his policies, but because he was speaking TO THEM rather than DOWN to them. Many still don't get that. It wasn't name, it wasn't really policies per se either, it was trust from earnestness.

And that's a problem. Talk is cheap. Voters should want a candidate who can pass liberal policies, not just speak to them. That's Joe Biden. He is the one who is the most prepared to hit the ground running, the one who is most likely to be able to convince conservatives to side with him to pass substantive legislation.

And again - I keep on repeating that I personally hold nothing against Biden. My problem is with the clear generational war and divide that we shouldn't have to contend with again in 2015.

That's cool. This is not personal... purely an academic discussion. I'm arguing against your argument here; not you at all. You seem cool enough to me. But in the spirit of this gesture, I'll say that I have nothing against the other, more progressive candidates. Their position is probably more similar to mine than Biden's are. I'll gladly vote for them in the general.

 

[AResistor]

No I'm not. I think the Dems made a horrible mistake picking Hillary and that Schieve should be expelled from leadership and from politics based on what she did in '16. I want a President who cares about millennials and their interests, sure. I'm arguing in favor of the guy who is liberal on millennial issues, but who's also acceptable to a lot of moderates as well. You seem to be the one who is arguing that only one side needs to change, not me.

And that's a problem. Talk is cheap. Voters should want a candidate who can pass liberal policies, not just speak to them. That's Joe Biden. He is the one who is the most prepared to hit the ground running, the one who is most likely to be able to convince conservatives to side with him to pass substantive legislation.

That's cool. This is not personal... purely an academic discussion. I'm arguing against your argument here; not you at all. You seem cool enough to me. But in the spirit of this gesture, I'll say that I have nothing against the other, more progressive candidates. Their position is probably more similar to mine than Biden's are. I'll gladly vote for them in the general.

I'm arguing Biden needs to learn how to be a better shaker - knowing how to talk to millennials, so far he just knows how to speak down to them which will work against him. There was a much more pragmatic way to say what he did without shooting himself in the foot. Can you honestly look at what he said and say he knows how to speak with and sway millennials? He sounded like Clint Eastwood yelling at kids to get off his lawn.

Talk isn't cheap. Talk is what politics is all about.

Can anyone for the life of them really name what Trump's policies were? I certainly can't - wall... um... I'm so very lost. What he is however - I'll give him kudos on this - he's an excellent speaker when reaching the people that he's going after. He knows how to offer nothing and making it look like gold. He knows how to frighteningly pin the desperations of people all onto fear.

He's like the anti-Obama. Obama inspired people out of hope, Trump went the other way and inspired people eerily out of fear. Hope and fear are two sides of basically the same coin. He's a used car-salesman shaker.

Hillary on the other hand - she had a speaking problem, she really couldn't shake. She went over fly-over-states - didn't even really consider speaking with them and when she did she certainly didn't know how to speak about their problems, she didn't ring as an ally to numerous millennials which led to protest voting, and for some reason she thought saying "deplorable" was the best campaign move she could make. Heck, there was a quote somewhere with Tom Perez who even said she's not a great communicator and that was part of her problem. Thus, her campaign team was certainly knowledgable about this flaw.

You have to be both a mover and a shaker. Hillary was a mover, but she certainly wasn't a shaker. Biden's a mover, but if he can't shake nor tries to with groups of people - there's no way that will end good either. Biden needs to sound more like Tom Hanks (a father figure who's got your back) and less like Clint Eastwood - angry that a kid threw a ball onto his yard.

Bernie came off as a reliable father figure who’s always in your corner and has your back. The kind of father you can achieve anything with. That’s why so many millennials and younger generations fell for him. He became, sorta, a surrogate political “father” to many.

Why teens call Bernie Sanders "Daddy" - The Record

This is also, likely, why unconsciously Bernie is often depicted as Obi-Wan Kenobi (a father figure to Luke).

Biden needs to be less Eastwood when dealing with millenials and more Hanks or Bernie.

Politics, when campaigning, is all about talking and baby kissing. One would hope it's about the moving, but when on the campaign trail - it's all about the shaking. That isn't the optimistic view, but it's the cold hard truth of the matter.

 

[moviedoors]

And not exactly what the message from the midterms were.

Right? A lot of unapologetic left wing politicians WON. In my state, for the first time in as long as I can remember, a non-Republican got close. And he didn't do it by being a milquetoast establishment Democrat. He was unabashedly left leaning.

 

[Manasrepublic]

Bring back Michael Dukakis!!! I think Biden, Harris or Warren would be solid. The main issue is to really not passover states which were close but went to Trump at the end. Hillary I felt had an arrogance about her by seeiminglu ignoring these states and of course the whole deplorables thing didn’t help either. The democratic candidate can’t afford verbal mistakes like this despite the fact that Trump is one of the biggest mistakes of humanity period.

 

[AResistor]

Bring back Michael Dukakis!!! I think Biden, Harris or Warren would be solid. The main issue is to really not passover states which were close but went to Trump at the end. Hillary I felt had an arrogance about her by seeiminglu ignoring these states and of course the whole deplorables thing didn’t help either. The democratic candidate can’t afford verbal mistakes like this despite the fact that Trump is one of the biggest mistakes of humanity period.

Here's the thing though - gotta consider the audience and how it's used.

Right-wingers were able to take "deplorable" and lead people into saying Hillary viewed all in the Southern and fly-over states that way and it was further backed up by Hillary not going to those states which allowed them to say that and get away with it too.

Trump, on the other hand, made many bigoted statements - but he made these against minorities to people who largely either don't care or they're bigots as well who fell in love because he was one of them. While to humanists, what Trump said are really huge "mistakes" (really red flags rather than mistakes since no way a person can make mistakes like that and not be a bigot) - to the people he was after, it frighteningly sounded like he was playing Beethoven.

 

[Lighthouse]

One of the big problems with the left is you always have that section that's looking for unicorns.

 

[jolldan]

Can't say I know every candidate on that list but honestly there isn't a candidate yet for the democrats that I have thought would beat Trump.

Bernie would probably be the strongest candidate for just how different he is to Trump.

I like Biden (mainly for those memes of him and Obama lol) but I think Trump would tare him to pieces hasn't he already ran twice?

 

[AResistor]

If "experience" was an issue - Trump wouldn't have gotten in - so to me, 2020 is all about showing the new face of the party.

Horses I'd bet on -

Beto: speaks to both generations, doesn't seem to really have baggage, knows how to talk to the rust-belt since he was close to turning Texas blue (people born in Texas favored him over Cruz).

Kennedy: this campaign practically writes itself especially when we have Nixon 2.0 in the White House. Speaks to both generations, has a commanding speaking presence, and Trump will especially look like an ogre next to him which works wonders for optics. I can see why people treated the Kennedys like they were rock stars back in the day.

I'd love to win, but being honest it'd be difficult due to bigotry:

Pete Buttigieg: people's choice for DNC chair (or at least from how people talked about him online), he knows how to call the Democratic party out while still keeping attention of party faithfuls, knows how to speak across generations in a strong and inspiring manner, knows the rustbelt and how to speak to them, he's a war veteran - it’s time we get somebody who knows the battlefield rather than a draft dodger. Pete reads like Harvey Milk running for President. As a bi dude this is the campaign I'd love to work on the most - it just feels like it'd somewhat be similar to what it was like campaigning for Harvey Milk, with Pete I feel like an lgbtq guy could one day get the White House (clarifier - one who’s open since, technically, Abraham Lincoln was likely bi).

Could 36-Year-Old Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg Topple Trumpism? – Rolling Stone

Buttigieg Gets Closer to a 2020 Campaign

As said though, pessimistic about how Conservatives will react and there’s many homophobes on the left as well. He’d be my dream candidate to win though - his DNC chair debate caught on online like rapid fire.

 

[MaceB]

If "experience" was an issue - Trump wouldn't have gotten in.

There's more than one way to win. Just because Trump is the first reality tv president, I don't think that means we should throw away 200 years of respect for the office by demanding that we go the celebrity route as well. This isn't a popularity contest... it's running the country. This idea that we should value charisma and likability over experience and ability is not something I'm down to embrace at this moment. It's an example of how rotten our culture has become, and I reject it.

And Biden is most definitely a shaker. The guy is one of the best blue collar politicians out there. He's extremely likable across multiple demographics in the country. He can shake hands and talk to the middle class as well as almost anyone..

 

[AResistor]

There's more than one way to win. Just because Trump is the first reality tv president, I don't think that means we should throw away 200 years of respect for the office by demanding that we go the celebrity route as well. This isn't a popularity contest... it's running the country. This idea that we should value charisma and likability over experience and ability is not something I'm down to embrace at this moment. It's an example of how rotten our culture has become, and I reject it.

Beto, Kennedy, and Buttigieg aren't "celebrities" nor reality TV stars. Obama has charisma, Trump for his base has charisma (as sickening as that is), Hillary doesn't (her campaign, or at least Perez, knew this and never really fixed this) and she lost to both. Charisma - matters, how can anyone say it doesn't?

'Barack Obama [NOT TRUMP] fundamentally changed the ‘experience’ question in presidential politics. Is that good thing?' (2014)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cs-is-that-good-thing/?utm_term=.3193a9a23526

And Biden is most definitely a shaker. The guy is one of the best blue collar politicians out there. He's extremely likable across multiple demographics in the country. He can shake hands and talk to the middle class as well as almost anyone..

Biden acting like Eastwood yelling for kids to get off his lawn - isn’t shaking towards millennials. I find it hard to believe anyone with any honesty finds him telling millenials he has no empathy for them a good way to phrase things, let alone how to win people over.

If you actually want Biden to win hope he finds a campaign manager who tells him demeaning millennials won’t get him their votes. Nobody is infallible and that is an area - the way he addresses millennials - that he needs to fix to win.

We get it. You love Biden and believe he has no flaws. But a campaign manager with that level of adoration will only guarantee he loses, it certainly did for Hillary. A campaign manager must recognize flaws in a candidate and fix them for that candidate to have a realistic shot to win. A candidate who comes off as the grumpy old man who yells at kids isn’t any way to garner admiration among young voters, rather the opposite.

Millennials googling Biden millennials - Google Search to see where he stands - finds PAGES of Biden trash talking their generation. That is terrible optics - it’d only be good to his opponent and any campaign manager worth his salt will see this and fix it so that Biden can win. It’s a major image problem. I get you loathe that “optics” and “image” are a part of it, but there’s a reason they’re campaign terms.

So far your only attempt at spin really is "millennials need to learn not to care that my candidate trash talks them, they should support him regardless because of - experience!" Basically, you're bringing up the same "spin" that Hillary's camp tried in 2015, which blew up in their faces. That's how I know that method of spin doesn't work. As said and I'll say this again - Biden has got to change to fix this image problem; I doubt you want him to be left behind with the times.

 

[Herofan]

Bloomberg, Cuomo or Zuckerberg would be hilarious running against Trump (certainly fitting his idea of the elite) and Zuckerberg also just bizarre and sad if he wouldn't realize until then how unpopular with liberals he has become.

In the primaries I think the strongest would probably be Cory Booker, a centrist who could go/seem just liberal enough (especially if there are multiple progressives running and splitting the vote), or Sherrod Brown, a populist. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and maybe Kirsten Gillibrand have OK chances, though. Biden would probably lose most early support unless he won early on from younger candidates attacked each other and divided their support.

General election against Trump, probably Brown or Booker but maybe Biden.

 

[AResistor]

In the primaries I think the strongest would probably be Cory Booker, a centrist who could go/seem just liberal enough (especially if there are multiple progressives running and splitting the vote).

Cory's a candidate who saw he had a problem and rather than argue against it, he sought to fix it. This is great going forward since, I believe, he no longer has this questionable baggage by the left (I believe, although I could be wrong, that Kennedy still does).

Cory Booker puts 'pause' on fundraising from pharma companies

"Well, we put a pause on even receiving contributions from pharma companies because it arouses so much criticism and just stopped taking it," Booker told NPR's Rachel Martin.

"The other thing that we're trying to do which I'm very proud of is just focus on individual contributions from people around the country," Booker said.

"And I'm proud that the majority of my contributions come from individual contributors, often small-dollar contributors."

In a statement to The Hill, Booker's spokesman Jeff Giertz said that Booker "won't resume" the donations from pharmaceutical companies and executives because "they became a distraction from his efforts to bring down prescription drug costs."

"Earlier this year and without fanfare, Senator Booker stopped accepting corporate contributions from pharmaceutical companies — not only their corporate and industry PACs, but also individual senior executives," Giertz wrote in an email.

This will bode very well for him in the 2020 campaign.

 

[Herofan]

If Biden though he’s going to SERIOUSLY need to course correct on millennial issues.

In 2016 protest voting came from disillusioned millennials who didn’t vote and millennials who wanted to give a middle finger to the system by protest voting.

There has been a lot of declaring at them that that was such a terrible mistake, don't you regret it, we're now in such a nightmare-not sure if that has gotten through. Biden wouldn't need to win back all of those who protested as such but he would need to win many.

 

[AResistor]

There has been a lot of declaring at them that that was such a terrible mistake, don't you regret it, we're now in such a nightmare-not sure if that has gotten through.

It's all about being inspired to vote. This issue crops up every year. 2016 being a major one. To vote, most typically need to like who they're voting for (unless they're a minority, like I am, and need to strictly for survival). Without that, many can't see the "complex" stakes and lack the motivation it takes.

Biden wouldn't need to win back all of those who protested as such but he would need to win many.

Biden's issue isn't winning over protest votes, it's that millennials will have a difficult time working up the motivation to vote for "the old man who yells at kids to get off his lawn." His entire approach from the "no empathy" take has got to change so that - if it comes to be - they have the motivation to vote for him. Telling them to get over it, accept that he talks down to them, and support him anyway doesn't inspire hope - it didn't in 2016 - he has to change his approach.

Also, Biden needs to do something which changes the first pageS of google results from painting him in this light to painting him as an ally.

 

[Sithborg]

I think you are splitting hairs.

 

[AResistor]

I think you are splitting hairs.

Biden needs to be able to talk to millennial voters on their level to get them to vote for him. So far, he's demonstrated he's great at talking down to and condescending them - or, to put it bluntly, he communicates to them in the same manner which initially turned so many millennials off of Hilary Clinton which led to so many of them not or protest voting.

Many think it was all about the policies that led people to Bernie rather than Hillary, but a large part of it was actually the manner in which they addressed certain demographics. Hillary could have had the same positions as Bernie and many millennials would still have the same view towards her. In fact, she did take on many of Bernie's positions toward the end. So, what's the key fundamental difference? One talked to millennials (Bernie) while the other (Hillary) talked down or condescended to them. The manner in which a person presents themselves to you will determine a lot whether you trust them or not.

The cranky old man on the yard schtick never establishes youth generation trust.

 

[Herofan]

I'm telling you guys. You take on Bernie or Warren, and it might work out... but man.... it's gonna be another nail biter where both sides are deadset against each other. And in that environment, it's really anyone's game.

Bernie would get pretty crushed. I'm not sure but I think Warren would be nearly (probably not quite as) disliked by the right as Hillary was but a lot less disliked or distrusted by centrists/independents (not a flip-flopper, not close to Wall Street banks, not much of an insider, no scandals aside from the ethnic minority identification).

 

[Sithborg]

Honestly, Anita Hill is a bigger weight to Biden than "talking down to millennials". We saw what happened with Bredesen when he put out his support for Kavanaugh, even though there was no reason to. If you are going to put past comments against Biden, use something that will actually hurt him.

 

[AResistor]

Honestly, Anita Hill is a bigger weight to Biden than "talking down to millennials". We saw what happened with Bredesen when he put out his support for Kavanaugh, even though there was no reason to. If you are going to put past comments against Biden, use something that will actually hurt him.

"Past comments" - see it's not a past flaw, it's a part of his personality. It's how he views millennials, in a manner of condescending to them that many millennials can easily pick up on. That's what this whole transparency thing is all about. Earnestness. Honesty. Hillary, with millennials, never really had that whereas Bernie did and that's why many of us went with Bernie - and with Hillary it was all about the subtle nuances since she didn't outright say it. It's very easy to tell who's delivering lip service and who isn't these days. So, no, it isn't a past comment - it's that his approach has to change.

 

[Sithborg]

Not really? Because I remember a recent comment talking about the next generation needing to take over leadership.

 

[AResistor]

Not really? Because I remember a recent comment talking about the next generation needing to take over leadership.

Hillary did too. The first couple pages of google, top results, of Biden millennials is all about Biden trash talking the generation - those are the more popular reports, that's not good. Now google Obama millennials or Bernie millennials - those are the kind of results Biden needs. If he can show and prove it isn't lip service, that's a good thing and great. The question is, can he truthfully demonstrate it. Going forward, this is one area his campaign team needs to focus on.

Adding twitter results to this (go down, compare the number of positive to negative tweets) :

biden millennials - Twitter Search

Facebook as well:

https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=biden millennials&epa=SERP_TAB

These results aren't just coming up for google alone. A campaign manager would fail at his or her job if they didn't catch onto this.

Millennial views towards Biden is a major image problem that his campaign is going to need to address. I don't see how it can't be when the majority of results for "Biden Millennials" across the net are negative.

 

[MaceB]

"Past comments" - see it's not a past flaw, it's a part of his personality. It's how he views millennials, in a manner of condescending to them that many millennials can easily pick up on. That's what this whole transparency thing is all about. Earnestness. Honesty. Hillary, with millennials, never really had that whereas Bernie did and that's why many of us went with Bernie - and with Hillary it was all about the subtle nuances since she didn't outright say it. It's very easy to tell who's delivering lip service and who isn't these days. So, no, it isn't a past comment - it's that his approach has to change.

All of this based on one comment apparently.