ADVERTISEMENT

How important is cross party appeal?

Hoosierhawkeye

HR King
Sep 16, 2008
52,252
48,637
113
41
Here is my thought. Since the moderates candidates are splitting the vote what if two of them teamed up? One basically comes out and says that the other is going to be their VP pick and they fold their campaigns together. (Kind of like what Cruz did in 2016)

Thing is they would have to do it early and someone would have to willingly accept the vice presidential slot while the number indicate that they have a chance at winning.

Only problem is if that team won the primary would that cause all the Bernie Bros to vote Green party? Or would they realize that this year is not the year to be voting 3rd party?
 
I do think it matters, but not in the way they talk about it. I think the potential to make serious gains appealing to Republicans to cross the aisle. They have to talk like that, but that's just not going to make any difference.

1. The anti-Trump republicans just didn't end up being a meaningful block. I'm one of them, but I can realize that we can scream all we want, and it just doesn't matter.

2. Even the "moderate" candidates are too far left for most Republicans. Most have staked themselves out to the left of Obama. It's fine, it's just what it is.

3. One element of Trump-skeptical Republicans are those that oppose his actions/behavior on religious/moral ground. Yes, he has rabid evangelical support, but it's not universal, and there are also Republican Catholics, mainline Protestants, etc. And for a large amount of those people, the Democratic flag planted on abortion up to and through birth is a big problem. I saw that Amy offered the slightest olive branch to pro-life voters, which was smart, but they'd be in a better position to peel off moderate Republican voters if they could even still talk about "safe, legal and rare".

4. Moderate and independent-thinking Republican voters have made a mass exodus off the party roles to "independent" status in the last decade or two. I'm one of them. That's one thing that gives a bit of a false impression of the Republicans moving more rightward, and being incredibly in lockstep with Trump. So when you talk about trying to pull Republican voters over to a Democratic vote, that's near impossible. Oddly, Democratic voters don't seem to have this trend...many Democrats have voted for Republican candidates since Reagan, and not changed their registration.

So, while they talk about appealing to Republicans, I don't think those numbers are enough to matter. What DOES matter though, is holding their OWN Democrats. I mean, Michigan voters identify Democrat over Republican 47-34%...there's no way that a Republican is even competitive there if Democrats aren't voting Republican.

Now, turnout matters too, but you know the anti-Trump dems are turning out this time, so I think that's slightly overrated as a reason to nominate the leftiest candidate.

I definitely think Amy/Pete is the best play available now with Biden flailing. I'm just not sure how you get there. And Frankly, I'm not sure how much it matters given the economy, and 70% saying they're better off than 4 years ago. That's almost unbeatable numbers for an incumbent, but with Trump's likelihood to step on his dick at every opportunity, you still have to prepare to win.
 
I do think it matters, but not in the way they talk about it. I think the potential to make serious gains appealing to Republicans to cross the aisle. They have to talk like that, but that's just not going to make any difference.

1. The anti-Trump republicans just didn't end up being a meaningful block. I'm one of them, but I can realize that we can scream all we want, and it just doesn't matter.

2. Even the "moderate" candidates are too far left for most Republicans. Most have staked themselves out to the left of Obama. It's fine, it's just what it is.

3. One element of Trump-skeptical Republicans are those that oppose his actions/behavior on religious/moral ground. Yes, he has rabid evangelical support, but it's not universal, and there are also Republican Catholics, mainline Protestants, etc. And for a large amount of those people, the Democratic flag planted on abortion up to and through birth is a big problem. I saw that Amy offered the slightest olive branch to pro-life voters, which was smart, but they'd be in a better position to peel off moderate Republican voters if they could even still talk about "safe, legal and rare".

4. Moderate and independent-thinking Republican voters have made a mass exodus off the party roles to "independent" status in the last decade or two. I'm one of them. That's one thing that gives a bit of a false impression of the Republicans moving more rightward, and being incredibly in lockstep with Trump. So when you talk about trying to pull Republican voters over to a Democratic vote, that's near impossible. Oddly, Democratic voters don't seem to have this trend...many Democrats have voted for Republican candidates since Reagan, and not changed their registration.

So, while they talk about appealing to Republicans, I don't think those numbers are enough to matter. What DOES matter though, is holding their OWN Democrats. I mean, Michigan voters identify Democrat over Republican 47-34%...there's no way that a Republican is even competitive there if Democrats aren't voting Republican.

Now, turnout matters too, but you know the anti-Trump dems are turning out this time, so I think that's slightly overrated as a reason to nominate the leftiest candidate.

I definitely think Amy/Pete is the best play available now with Biden flailing. I'm just not sure how you get there. And Frankly, I'm not sure how much it matters given the economy, and 70% saying they're better off than 4 years ago. That's almost unbeatable numbers for an incumbent, but with Trump's likelihood to step on his dick at every opportunity, you still have to prepare to win.
Nobody is truly trying to get republicans here. We know you will vote for Trump just like all the other Rs-- 90% approval rating with registered Rs which you claim to be.

The question is which of the D's will take the fall to avoid Bernie at the top of the ticket. When this same situation occurred with Trump, the R's waited way to long to do anything.

Now, I am not exactly comparing Trump to Sanders outside the fact that the establishment would prefer they not be the nominee and if you combine the moderate vote to one candidate they would likely defeat Bernie, as was the case 4 years ago with Trump.
 
Only problem is if that team won the primary would that cause all the Bernie Bros to vote Green party? Or would they realize that this year is not the year to be voting 3rd party?

In 2016 11% of Sanders supporters went Trump. In 2008 15% of HRC supporters went to McCain.

In 2016 we ran a moderate/moderate ticket against Trump, and we got Trump.

Maybe we shouldn't just pander to the "middle." What do the moderates have left to offer when they just aren't the people running against Trump?
 
I think there is already plenty of evidence it doesnt matter. It is Trump vs Libtards; Repubs vs Commies.

Look no further than the right's view of Bloomberg. if there were anyone on the right that was tired of Trump they should be pleased to see and hear what Bloomberg is saying and even what he has said. He was more of a Repub in his past than Trump EVER was. He is all for big business. He has been a massive success, so far surpassing Trump it is laughable. He however did hold office and while doing so was very pro business. Quietly. he vetoed numerous bills in NY like Local Law 1 that was all about lead paint issues. My point is Bloomie stands for many conservative fiscal and business values. YET- the only thing Trumpies have done is scream about how un-electable he is. He is a racist and he will never even get off the ground.

Face it, there is no bringing in the fringes. It's two tribes and that is it
 
Last edited:
In 2016 11% of Sanders supporters went Trump. In 2008 15% of HRC supporters went to McCain.

In 2016 we ran a moderate/moderate ticket against Trump, and we got Trump.

Maybe we shouldn't just pander to the "middle." What do the moderates have left to offer when they just aren't the people running against Trump?
I respect your passion for Bernie and I respect that he is unwavering in his viewpoints. I also think he is wrong on many of his viewpoints. The two that strike home the most for me are the deficit and healthcare.

We have a deficit which will be crush future generations and Bernie will make this much much worse. With the moderates we have a chance at bipartisan approaches to working on this problem.

He will never get his healthcare plan passed and we have an urgent need to make progress. I believe a successful step forward is better than a failed leap. That’s why I like Pete’s more modest proposal that moves us in the right direction.
 
Nobody is truly trying to get republicans here. We know you will vote for Trump just like all the other Rs-- 90% approval rating with registered Rs which you claim to be.

The question is which of the D's will take the fall to avoid Bernie at the top of the ticket. When this same situation occurred with Trump, the R's waited way to long to do anything.

Now, I am not exactly comparing Trump to Sanders outside the fact that the establishment would prefer they not be the nominee and if you combine the moderate vote to one candidate they would likely defeat Bernie, as was the case 4 years ago with Trump.

Yeah, sorry I was unclear...when I said I was one of them, I meant someone who changed my registration from Republican to independent years ago. And yes, that's one of the ways you get to 90% approval...people like me don't get asked obviously. I've never voted for a Democrat in a national election, but I'm an "independent."

Even those people, the best you can hope is that they stay home (like I will), but they're unlikely to go Democrat. They need to worry about Bernie because of Democrats that are not sufficiently social-justice concerned that will fear Bernie disrupting what has been a good four years for them.

I mean, I think the winning message is "We're going to keep a good thing going, but also help you get health care if you don't have it, and all with the benefit of not having a dangerous lunatic in office."

I mean, they're probably way too far past the point to run like that with Biden being dead meat, but I think a Amy/Pete ticket might be able to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UKGrad93
Absolutely none, unless your nominee is so far to one side (Bernie) that you're fine with someone who really does not conform to either party
 
In 2016 11% of Sanders supporters went Trump. In 2008 15% of HRC supporters went to McCain.

In 2016 we ran a moderate/moderate ticket against Trump, and we got Trump.

Maybe we shouldn't just pander to the "middle." What do the moderates have left to offer when they just aren't the people running against Trump?
Being a moderate didn't hurt Hillary. Being a B**** is what hurt her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
I say cross party appeal is overrated. Democratic voters will overwhelmingly vote Dem. Republican voters will overwhelmingly vote Rep. The real swing voters are the tens of millions who don’t even vote.

It is important to consider that simply winning an election does not ensure advancement of our cause. Sure, Democrats gained control of the house in 2018, but remember that the same week they impeached the President, they rubber stamped much of his trade and spending agenda.

Elections are fun and all, but the real victories happen between the elections. That’s why actual issues and positions are more important than the mythical “electability” factor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral
Cross party appeal isn’t that important. They just need to hate you less than then all of the third party options.

The most important piece is your own party excitement. But no one has had that but Obama since Kennedy. So the next thing is the desperate need for change. The economy is doing well so that’s not much in play. Obama has that for him as well. However, the next important thing is desperate hatred of the other guy. Dems will have that more than ever. After that it’s youth and minority turnout. And finally making sure the Russians or Jeb Bush don’t screw you over.
 
I say cross party appeal is overrated. Democratic voters will overwhelmingly vote Dem. Republican voters will overwhelmingly vote Rep. The real swing voters are the tens of millions who don’t even vote.

It is important to consider that simply winning an election does not ensure advancement of our cause. Sure, Democrats gained control of the house in 2018, but remember that the same week they impeached the President, they rubber stamped much of his trade and spending agenda.

Elections are fun and all, but the real victories happen between the elections. That’s why actual issues and positions are more important than the mythical “electability” factor.

I agree with you to some extent. Actually a large extent, as a great deal of national elections are decided by factors outside policy...charisma, the economy, etc...probably most of it.

But I mean, if you don't win, then what's the point? And eventually, if you just keep moving policy/platform out of the mainstream, you get what you had from 80-88, three straight landslide Republican elections. And then Clinton yanked the Democrats further to the middle than they'd been in a generation.

I mean, it works both ways...Goldwater's absolute drubbing in '64 eviscerated the standing of the doctrinaire ideologically conservative Republican movement in favor of the country club Republican class. That lasted until at LEAST 1980 with Reagan who was accepted by "real conservatives", but arguably not until Gingrich did ideological conservatism get some momentum back.

I don't think you can divorce them...if they nominate Bernie, whether he wins or loses, or in a landslide or a squeaker, will have major repercussions on policy, whether you like it or not. I mean, look at the what the disastrous political results post Carter did to then-mainstream Democratic ideas like a jobs guarantee and the ERA? It's literally been four+ DECADES before those things would even be mentioned in open society again in the last year or two.

I mean, I do think Bernie can win, but if he doesn't and if he loses badly, make no mistake it will affect progressive policy objectives for a LONG time. It matters.
 
I agree with you to some extent. Actually a large extent, as a great deal of national elections are decided by factors outside policy...charisma, the economy, etc...probably most of it.

But I mean, if you don't win, then what's the point? And eventually, if you just keep moving policy/platform out of the mainstream, you get what you had from 80-88, three straight landslide Republican elections. And then Clinton yanked the Democrats further to the middle than they'd been in a generation.

I mean, it works both ways...Goldwater's absolute drubbing in '64 eviscerated the standing of the doctrinaire ideologically conservative Republican movement in favor of the country club Republican class. That lasted until at LEAST 1980 with Reagan who was accepted by "real conservatives", but arguably not until Gingrich did ideological conservatism get some momentum back.

I don't think you can divorce them...if they nominate Bernie, whether he wins or loses, or in a landslide or a squeaker, will have major repercussions on policy, whether you like it or not. I mean, look at the what the disastrous political results post Carter did to then-mainstream Democratic ideas like a jobs guarantee and the ERA? It's literally been four+ DECADES before those things would even be mentioned in open society again in the last year or two.

I mean, I do think Bernie can win, but if he doesn't and if he loses badly, make no mistake it will affect progressive policy objectives for a LONG time. It matters.
I can’t disagree with anything you say, in fact you raise several concerns that I hold.

Being a Iowan, I take my candidate support seriously, and I have come to the conclusion that I should support the candidate whose policies I believe in, absent any completely disqualifying factor such as a pee pee tape, etc. I believe if everyone did the same, the market of ideas would present the most electable candidate.
 
Nobody is truly trying to get republicans here. We know you will vote for Trump just like all the other Rs-- 90% approval rating with registered Rs which you claim to be.

The question is which of the D's will take the fall to avoid Bernie at the top of the ticket. When this same situation occurred with Trump, the R's waited way to long to do anything.

Now, I am not exactly comparing Trump to Sanders outside the fact that the establishment would prefer they not be the nominee and if you combine the moderate vote to one candidate they would likely defeat Bernie, as was the case 4 years ago with Trump.
Right now I think the Democrats have tossed in the towel on the WH. Now their focus has to be to save the house. If Bernie is the ticket, they will be routed and lose the house as well.
 
I can’t disagree with anything you say, in fact you raise several concerns that I hold.

Being a Iowan, I take my candidate support seriously, and I have come to the conclusion that I should support the candidate whose policies I believe in, absent any completely disqualifying factor such as a pee pee tape, etc. I believe if everyone did the same, the market of ideas would present the most electable candidate.

Oh yea, that's perfectly reasonable. I'm pretty well the same way, and have voted for Libertarians many times when I felt they were more in line with my thinking. I don't subscribe to the "throw your vote away" mantra, while I understand it.
 
Being a moderate didn't hurt Hillary. Being a B**** is what hurt her.
This is the only thing I have against Amy, and only if it gets verified more. I do not like people who treat people "beneath" them like crap. Hillary treated people like trash. I don't respect that. If Amy treats the people who work for her like dirt I won't be a fan of hers either.
 
What are the specific policy differences for what is being considered moderate vs liberal in the nominees?
Are there any differences on stances of abortion?
Environment?
Economic regulation?
Health Care?

From what I gather the only significant difference is health care in that ultra liberal wants it in essence all nationalized and moderate wants a mix of private and nationalized. The other things may have different minor detail differences but by in large are more in agreement on those things than not.

Please explain what other differences you would consider making one a moderate vs liberal.
 
This is the only thing I have against Amy, and only if it gets verified more. I do not like people who treat people "beneath" them like crap. Hillary treated people like trash. I don't respect that. If Amy treats the people who work for her like dirt I won't be a fan of hers either.
This is where you get the sexism rants from. Guarantee every male candidate is demanding to work for.
 
This is where you get the sexism rants from. Guarantee every male candidate is demanding to work for.
I know what you're saying but there is a right way to treat people who work for you and a wrong way. Hillary Clinton does it the wrong way. If Amy is throwing staplers at people's heads then that's the wrong way.

Demanding is fine. Treating the people who work for you like dirt is not.
 
I know what you're saying but there is a right way to treat people who work for you and a wrong way. Hillary Clinton does it the wrong way. If Amy is throwing staplers at people's heads then that's the wrong way.

Demanding is fine. Treating the people who work for you like dirt is not.
hmmmm….never heard of this being an issue with male candidates. Interesting. She is running against Joe Biden, yes? For all his faults has anyone ever actually considered this a real problem? Other than this news report about the NYT endorsements I have never heard anyone say anything about Biden, while there are dozens of spinoffs re Klobuchar all pointing back to one story that was published in Jan 2019.

"However, the Times board voiced concerns over reports of how Senator Klobuchar treats her staff because of fears it could hamper her ability to hire talented staffers. Though “to be fair, Bill Clinton and Mr. Trump — not to mention former Vice President Biden — also have reputations for sometimes berating their staffs, and it is rarely mentioned as a political liability,” the Times noted.
 
hmmmm….never heard of this being an issue with male candidates. Interesting. She is running against Joe Biden, yes? For all his faults has anyone ever actually considered this a real problem? Other than this news report about the NYT endorsements I have never heard anyone say anything about Biden, while there are dozens of spinoffs re Klobuchar all pointing back to one story that was published in Jan 2019.

"However, the Times board voiced concerns over reports of how Senator Klobuchar treats her staff because of fears it could hamper her ability to hire talented staffers. Though “to be fair, Bill Clinton and Mr. Trump — not to mention former Vice President Biden — also have reputations for sometimes berating their staffs, and it is rarely mentioned as a political liability,” the Times noted.

The only thing is that Klobuchar got a reputation for it and that reputation came from female staffers as well as male. If the way she treats her staff is in line with what other congress people do, I really doubt that female staffers would simply be ok with that treatment from a male boss but quit their job and tell everyone about their horrible experiences when it's a female boss.

Trying to write it off to sexism is a lazy deflection IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
The only thing is that Klobuchar got a reputation for it and that reputation came from female staffers as well as male. If the way she treats her staff is in line with what other congress people do, I really doubt that female staffers would simply be ok with that treatment from a male boss but quit their job and tell everyone about their horrible experiences when it's a female boss.

Trying to write it off to sexism is a lazy deflection IMO.
One instance of four people anonymously complaining of “mean boss” behavior seems like a flimsy reason to disqualify a candidate.
 
ADVERTISEMENT