Democrats who would not receive my vote in the general election.

There's nothing obvious about it unless you're one of those delusional idiots who claim to represent the majority.

Have you ever thought that the candidate most acceptable to you is the one least acceptable to everyone else?

Let me spell this out for you Izzy (although I don't know why you are making waves in a US politics thread when your own country is so fucked up.) But I will spell it out for you.

1. Electoral strategy in the US is simple. Everything you do that gets you more votes is a good thing. Everything you do that gets you fewer votes is a bad thing.

In the US, the side with the most electoral votes wins the election (you win electoral votes by winning state votes... but the details aren't important. To win an election, you need to appeal to a wider number voters than the other side.

2. The Democratic party, and particularly the H. Clinton campaign, alienated a lot of voters in 2016. She lost people, and states that Obama won in the previous two elections. Personally, I deeply disliked Clinton, but I voted for her anyway against Trump. It is stupid for a political party to expect their voters to vote for people they dislike.

3. The angry wing of the Democratic party turns off a large number of American voters. Most Americans roll their eyes at angry White women in pink hats and millennials outraged by Ray Charles Christmas songs. Unfortunately this wing has a outsizee impact on the internal political of the Democratic party.

4. If the Democrats pick an angry divisive candidate who relies on identity politics, they will alienate a large number of American voters. I will not vote for this candidate, and neither will a large number of voters in the middle.

5. The Democrats can pick a solid candidate with a positive message, who doesn't scapegoat parts of the American public, and who promises to work to enact policy to address problems. That candidate will get my vote.

It isn't just me... there are millions of voters who want to vote for a great candidate instead of having to choose between two bad ones.

It would help if the Democrats nominate a good candidate this time.

Bernie Sanders First to Sign Pledge to Rally Behind Democratic Nominee.

https://able2know.org/topic/509256-1

You're sounding way too defensive.

Brexit doesn't stop me from commenting on your weird logic

You're right about one thing, it is about getting as many votes as possible, not just your vote.

And, even though you consider it heresy, it's just possible that the candidate who gets as many votes as possible won't get your vote.

Of course I am sounding defensive. When the Democratic supporters are telling me that I need to vote for "any Democratic candidate no matter how bad they are".... what can I do other than be defensive.

I am voter, with one vote. My vote doesn't belong to the Democrats, it belongs to me. Last election I wasted my vote on someone I felt was a horrible candidate because I disliked the other candidate more (the other candidate won anyway). I don't like to vote this way. If the Democrats want to depend on my vote this time, they should do a better job at selecting a candidate who merits it.

MaPorsche ant RealMusic et al. have already pledged their votes for the Democratic nominee... so the Democratic party should do nothing to win these votes, they can take these votes for granted.

My vote can't be taken for granted... not this time.

It does sound like you're more concerned about your own ego than your country.

You have democracy backwards. Democracy is supposed to be governing by the people for the people. The government works for the people, not the other way around.

The Democrats are a political party. They are telling the voters that they have a duty to vote for the Democrats regardless of whether this political party is representing them or not. It is ridiculous. It is not a good thing hen Political parties call the shot with no accountability to the voters or any need to reach out beyond their own ideological base. This is something other than democracy.

The Democratic party can choose to reach out to voters, or they can continue to push to a narrow ideological base and attempt to beat the rest of us into acceptance based on being the lesser of two evils.

This would be much easier if the Democrats took some responsibility to reach out to voters outside of their narrow ideological base.

I understand democracy very well. Any political party needs to maximise its base by appealing to as many people as possible not just you.

You don't seem to be able to get over your belief that you represent the majority of those opposed to Trump.

It's quite possible that in order to get elected the Democrats need a candidate you wouldn't vote for.

So far all I'm getting from you is me me me.

Why don't you explain why getting your vote, as opposed to everyone else's, is of such paramount importance.

I accept that I am not the only voter. And I accept that the Democrats can win without my vote (although it would be foolish for them to not try to work for every vote). The point is that every vote does count... and that includes me.

In 2016 the Democrats failed. They lost an election to Donald Trump by alienating millions of voters who voted for Obama. This was largely because there was widespread dislike of the Democratic nominee. The Democratic party has the responsibility to fix this (not the voters).

We have already established that my vote is more important that that of MaPorsche or RealMusic... as least as far as how much effort the Democrats need to make to earn it.

Should the democrats priority be to win back the Barack Obama states that Hillary Clinton lost?

https://able2know.org/topic/507812-1

Nothing has been established. Trying to get as many votes as possible means you have to alienate some voters. You can't appeal to everyone.

A long time ago when I was canvassing for John Denham I spoke to some real Christian types who were only concerned about abortion. Trying to get their votes would have been a disaster, I doubt even the Tory candidate would have bothered trying.

As far as the Democrats go any candidate claiming that white, middle aged, middle class men are the real victims isn't going to carry the base, even if he does get your vote.

In 2016 the Democrats with Hillary Clinton lost the election. That has been established.



Obama reached out to white middle-aged men. He told them that he understood their problems with employment and financial insecurity and that their concerns were real. And many white middle-aged men voted for Obama. Of course Obama also reached out to other groups. The message from Obama is that you don't have to attack on group of Americans to support another group of Americans.

Obama's message to voters was "We are all Americans". Hillary's message was "You are all Deplorables."

Middle aged White men are American voters, just like Black single mom's and Latina immigrants.... a strong candidate will support all of these groups. When White middle-aged men are suffering economically (and in some places they are) you don't have to ignore or attack them. Helping White men doesn't hurt Black women.

What is wrong with having a strong message of unity... finding fair, economically sane policies that don't pit one group of Americans against another?

Aren't you from a state that voted for Clinton? Shouldn't the priority be getting those voters from states that voted for Trump?

Clinton did have a point btw; I saw the Trump rallies, those people weren't just deplorable, they were scum.

Many/most were/are.

Clinton's mistake with that comment wasn't the truth of her statement, it was the lack of foresight to know how meme-worthy that type of comment was.

You are describing Trump's reelection strategy and his best chance of winning in 2020.

If Trump can go to white middle aged voters in key states like Pennsylvania and Ohio and say "The Democrats don't care about you, they think you are scum..." That will be the election.

Oh I know, and I know that I have the luxury of not being an American or a politician so I can say what I want.

Clinton had a pretty crap campaign overall, whoever gets the nomination needs to learn from that.

I'm the one who called them scum. I'm not a Democrat.

Inside the Russian effort to target Sanders supporters — and help elect Trump.

https://able2know.org/topic/509577-1

If Putin was on the Dem ticket running against Trump I would vote for Putin. Better to have a dictator running things directly than through a third party.