What Kind of Democrat Can Beat Trump in 2020?
The midterms will answer some questions, but not the biggest one of all.
by Frank Bruni
((It's early, yes, but what's TOO early?))
'Corey Lewandowski managed Donald Trumps presidential campaign for a year, co-wrote a book about it and keeps in close touch with Trump, as we were reminded last month, when The Times reported on a physical altercation between him and John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, just outside the Oval Office. . .
He told me that Mike Bloomberg worried him, because Bloombergs personal wealth would spare him the distraction of fund-raising, and that Joe Biden had the right instinct when he said that if he and Trump had gone to high school together, he would have beat the hell out of him.
He noted that Beto ORourke, the Senate candidate in Texas, had impressively crossed the threshold of celebrity. Andrew Gillum, the candidate for governor in Florida, had caught lightning, too.
The right Democrat would need a talent for attention and an appetite for aggression, Lewandowski said: He or she must be willing to go toe-to-toe with someone who I believe to be the greatest counterpuncher that politics has ever seen.' . .
Trumps eventual adversary confronts a daunting balancing act: He or she must be tougher than usual without being callous, . . .
But for starters, Trumps Democratic opponent must emerge. . .
Standing out will require one nonnegotiable quality: the vividness to loosen Trumps stranglehold on the media. To that end, any serious challenger has to figure out how to tell his or her story in a riveting way.
High emotion was how Naomi Burton described what a candidate should reach for. . .
Theres no exaggerating the hell of jostling for space at the media trough where Trump gorges to the point of bursting. He has shamelessness on his side. . .
So theres pressure on a Democratic challenger not just to communicate memorably but to say memorable things i.e., new ones.
Candidacies need to have a level of originality and ambition, said Pete Buttigieg . . .
As much as possible, Trumps adversary needs to set the terms of the conversation, not react to his incessant provocations. . .
I dont see eye-to-eye with the California billionaire Tom Steyer on the timing and timbre of his Need to Impeach effort, but I found myself nodding hard enough for a neck injury when he recently told me his version of the Michelle Maxim: When they go low, we play our game. When they go high, we play our game. When they bluster, we play our game. It just better be a damned good game. . .
And it better not sneer at Trump and condescend to his supporters. No baskets, please, and no deplorables. Midwesterners who voted for him wont be lured back into the Democratic fold if theyre made to feel ashamed about their decision and told that they were duped. . .
Be direct, blunt and consistent. . .
Convey strength. . .
Plant yourself in the Rust Belt. Ive given this advice to two or three people whove thought about running dont think about anything other than what youre going to say in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, Kerrey told me. Why should people who hunt, fish and go to church trust you? What is your answer to globalism?
Too many Democrats spend too much time trumpeting Clintons popular-vote victory, blaming the Russians or combing the shadows for anything that absolves them of error. They dismiss Trump as an accident, a freak or a fad. Its consoling, sure. Its also an invitation to his next inauguration.'
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/opinion/midterms-democrats-trump-2020.html?
unblock
(52,206 posts)It really will not make much difference at all because the election will almost surely be a referendum on donnie.
KPN
(15,643 posts)We need someone who can be hamfisted with Trump, not a ham sandwich.
unblock
(52,206 posts)Yeah yeah yeah of course we have to gotv always, I'm not dismissing that.
But the need to gotv doesn't mean reasonable analysis is impossible or detrimental to our side.
Besides, 2020 is an eternity away and any confidence a few armchair political analysts may have today has f.a. To do with turnout two years from now.
Oh and btw, electoral theft, espionage, gerrymandering, voter suppression, voting machines, disenfranchisement, voter id laws, foreign financing, foreign help, social media manipulation, and a heavily biased media also had something to do with it.
Besides, I've never seen any study suggesting that overconfidence changed the outcome specifically in the battleground states Donnie won. I think the overconfident democrats were heavily concentrated in solidly blue states.
"never seen a study suggesting that overconfidence changed an outcome"! You need a study to prove that?
If you feel a need to criticize someone for expressing caution, have at it.
unblock
(52,206 posts)overconfidence in california obviously has no impact on the overall race because the problem was losing places like wisconsin and pennsylvania. were we actually overconfident in the battleground states? enough to account for vote and electoral votes we lost by? and enough to offset the enthusiasm that confidence brings (high confidence is not a universal negative, it may make some people think they don't need to bother to vote, but it may also bring out people who wouldn't otherwise vote because people like to vote for a winner)
moreover, the "overconfidence" may in fact be entirely a myth. had hillary won, *no one* would have said we won despite overconfidence. every analyst would have attributed the victory to, among other things, high confidence and enthusiasm. i rather suspect that the "overconfidence" trope may actually be almost entirely backward-looking armchair quarterbacking.
in any event, "overconfidence" *now* has zero to do with voter turnout in 2020. there's plenty of time to express caution as we get closer to november 2020 if that becomes a priority.
in the meanwhile, there's really no call to shoot down analysis or predictions based on possible overconfidence depressing turnout two years from now. alternatively, if you still think that's fair, you have to also think it's fair for me to shoot down your comment as stamping out enthusiasm in the first place.
oh and just to be clear, i wasn't *actually* advocating that we nominate a ham sandwich. of course my analysis assumes we pick the best candidate, run the best campaign, effectively turn out the vote, etc. i'd say that goes without saying, because essentially all political analysis makes those assumptions, but it seems i need to make that clear....
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Fuckin liar to his face...
That's the kind that will beat him
KPN
(15,643 posts)with bravado.
murielm99
(30,736 posts)His own party may primary 45 by then.
Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)Hillary's experience
Avenatti's media savvy and willingness to respond blow for blow with Trump
Obama's charisma
Beto's energy
Bernie's rapport with youth
Kamala Harris's doggedness
Tom Steyer's cash
FloridaBlues
(4,008 posts)Hopefully he will be forced to resign long before 2020
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)elleng
(130,891 posts)Response to elleng (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)they are. Trump was never for the little guy, he supports the status quo big time. When he promised to drain the swamp he meant for the elite to have no governmental barriers to stop them from enriching themselves. Climate change etc, banking regulations. In order to counter that, one needs to have independence from their own donor class.
We will then win big. Who runs doesn't matter so much. That is the key imo. We should not forget what helped him win, being a phony populist was one piece of it.