time to read this.. Thank You!

She said don't worry about winning the moderates, you need to inspire massive turn out from the base. (Which is the exact opposite theory/strategy of the Dem party establishment, who take the base for granted). I believe it was her interview for Salon where she said it would be a mistake to think that turn out will be increased by a nominee who has "personality", rather than inspirational policies that the electorate believes will help them.

A "safe" Status Quo Establishment candidate will not inspire massive turnout.

about the base.


Editing to add that she does think a more centrist candidate like Biden, if the nominee -- as she seems to think likely -- needs to be balanced with a running mate who will help energize progressives and young voters and black voters. She's said Clinton made a mistake choosing Tim Kaine as a running mate.

I won't argue with her there.

But she definitely is not saying the presidential nominee has to be a progressive. In fact, her prediction for 2020 seemed to be warning a bit against that.

That implies the base is composed of those to the left of the moderates.

If you read her Salon interview, she emphatically states that her data shows the blue wave was due to highly motivated anti-Trump/GOP voters, especially independents (not Trump voting independents, a different group altogether). The Blue Wave was not due to an increased turnout of moderates.

democratic and it's more based on race, religion, and other similar groupings than on ideology .

for example black people are the base and this includes moderates, liberals etc. the same with jewish voters, gay voters etc.

That's why they're the base.

In spite of the reality that some groups, such as the AA monolith, contain a lot of people naturally oriented to be conservative, though, the Democratic Party is strongly dominated by liberals and most members are overall quite similar in ideology and goals. Liberal indies as well.

Stop playing for Repuke votes—we won’t get them and it depresses Democratic and independent voter turnout.

See my reply in the other thread about her:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287246088#post26


She said that moderates can be appealed to, but Democrats don't do it well. (The remark about it all being about the base followed that.) She's clearly differentiating there between moderates as she''s using that term, and Democrats, which means she's talking about centrist independents.

independent, and those tend to be flaky and unreliable voters (my words!). Studies show that almost all people, though each is typically a goulash of opinions, average out either liberal or conservative.

Centrists are those on both sides who generally play well with others because democracy requires cooperation and it comes naturally to them; but individually, centrists are usually going to be either moderate conservatives or moderate liberals.

Researchers say there is no personality or political type of "moderate." It'd be like saying you filled a glass with cool or a cup with tepid. Tepid what?

She is simply superb.

at a dinner a year ago and all of us liked the idea (3 generations of Dems).

"1. Tap into the anti-Trump sentiment
2. Run as a Democrat & make a + case for liberalism NOT as an embarrassed Democrat bc voters hate weakness & bc you will not be wooing opposition voters to vote for you due to polarization but you WILL be depressing your own turnout. "

Example: Biden today came out for $15 min. Wage, not a pragmatic incremental "safe for business" lip service position from campaigns in the not too distant past.

Positions don't have to be "extreme" (which is quite subjective, since $15 min wage was considered extreme just 4 years ago), but they must be clear, firm, and bold. If voters truly believe in a candidate's positions (as opposed to being dazzled by personality) and don't perceive them as just more political malarkey, they will turn out in record numbers, and WE WILL WIN.

On the other hand, if we have a nominee who doesn't run as an "anti-Trump" candidate, but simply "not Trump", and equivocates with unclear policies that don't seem helpful, turn out could be depressed, especially among young voters.

so it's all about getting turnout in the end. and to prevent republicans from fraud .

...well that's good, I don't...

...I think a Sanders/Warren ticket would do a much better job cleaning trump's clock and winning the election...

...the pundits we're all wrong last time, can we believe them now?

...if the pukes got that slime-ball trump elected, we should easily be able to elect Bernie and Elizabeth...

...and when we do, we'll have something grand working for us in the White House...we'll then be able to address problems and grievances that we haven't been able to address for generations...

...why settle for a Chevy when you can have a Cadillac?

...

Nicely done, highplainsdem. Biden/Harris is my dream ticket to kick Republican ass from here to hell. So . . .Bitecofer's lips to God's ear. And take Joe Biden's tweet to the bank:

We're going to make Trump a one-term president!!!

AGO4JOE&KAMALA2020

divide the progressive bloc until it's too late for Warren as well as Sanders.

But I do see her continuing to struggle to get the African American vote. Joe already has it and if he taps Harris for VP, he'll have a solid ticket, that I agree with.

they are, at the moment.

Between the two of them they have a block of progressive support roughly equal to Biden's support, but Warren started out with only a third or so as much support as Sanders and has gradually increased that to about the same level of support or a bit more, depending on which polls you look at.

I don't think this will happen.

I agree that if the nominee is Biden, and he picks "another white man", there is a risk of a Thump second term.

We NEED turnout to counter the closet Repug turnout.

this is the best ticket. So much needs to be repaired here and abroad. I really want some concentration on the Justice. Dept by someone who can oversee such a task knowledgeably.