Why are people still talking about winning over Trump supporters?

I agree with your assessment.

Many of the rest of us, however, are talking about winning over moderate republicans who are disgusted with Trump

In that podcast, Michael Moore interviews Rachael Bitecofer a Political Science professor. If you have the time I think you would find it worth your while. She provides lot's of data to suggest you may want to reconsider your position.

The name of the podcast is Rumbel With Michael Moore.

However, since you mentioned podcasts, I would recommend The NPR Hidden Brain episode Passion Isn't Enough: The Rise Of 'Political Hobbyism' in the United States in which Eitan Hersh, Professor of Political Science at Tufts, presents evidence that online political activists who promote ideology over practicality are far less likely to vote.

But I'm not talking about online activists nor is the professor that is interviewed by Michale Moore. The professor is talking about people who actually vote and how they are motivated. And more importantly, she goes into depth on what the Clinton campaign did wrong. Not necessarily Hillary herself, but the people who ran her campaign, the so-called 'experts'. Those same people are still out there--with much influence.

There are actually people on this site who think it would be wise to deny Sanders if he has a plurality of delegates and to allow racist, misogynistic, bribery kingpin Bloomberg to buy the nomination. That's positively insane. Much of this seems to stem from a misunderstanding about the electorate, in particular so-called independents, swing voters and the disenchanted non-voter/3rd party voter. Those trying to suggest that the electorate of today is no different than it was in the early 1970s, late 1980s, 1990s or even 10 years ago are terribly misguided.

Opposition to the status quo is the driving force in the US today. The biggest mistake people make is assuming "independent" and "swing voter" are synonymous with "moderate," and that they have some clearly defined ideology that's a mix of liberal and conservative positions.

Today's so-called independents are more partisan (more likely to always vote for the same party) than the average party-affiliated voter of the 1970s. They're also less likely to actually vote than the party-affiliated, partly due to being disenchanted with the status quo.

And true swing voters aren't as great in number as some claim--more importantly, what they tend to swing against is the status quo or party in power. It's not a well-defined ideology - some mix of conservative and liberal views - or a party platform that dictates how/if they vote. Rather, it's a sense that things ain't right and the boat needs to be rocked.

Conventional wisdom of the past is no longer wise, and we fail to recognize that at our peril. But people like Carville have a really hard time accepting that their formula is outdated. The notion that we should select a candidate or run a campaign based on appealing to some imagined mass of undecided middle-of-the-road voters or winning over the MAGA hat wearers is dangerously misguided. And the Trump voters who have abandoned Trump over the last 3 years aren't going back to Trump no matter who we nominate--okay, maybe there are some who would, but they're greatly outnumbered by those who would be disgusted by Bloomberg, by those who will only vote Dem if Sanders is the nominee, and by those who won't give a shit who the Dem nominee is.

Turn out the base, inspire young people and don't alienate persons of color. That has to be the focus. Get turnout to be closer to 2008 levels than 2016 levels.

Dems should take the following articles to heart:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/9/20750160/liberalism-trump-putin-socialism-reactionary

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944 (the headline is misleading, as that's not what she says, but what she actually does say should be heeded)

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/independents-pew/index.html

Edit: And here's another article for those who apparently think our 2018 success was the result of Trump voters switching sides: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/10/18076872/trump-46-percent-solition. Simply put, a lot of folks really, really misunderstand the electorate.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/

Myths have a way of growing. Many seem to think there's this huge mass of undecided, middle-of-the-road "independents" or swing voters who have some well-defined moderate ideology, and that they'll vote Dem so long as we nominate a moderate. But it's simply not true. As I've written in this thread, a lot of folks severely misunderstand the electorate. They've been conditioned to subscribe to a false belief, which is reinforced by peers or anecdote, and by members of the media. It's basically a feedback loop run amok. And they've become invested in that belief to the point where it's become part of their identity.

This was mostly suburban moderate voters. It is why 40 red districts flipped from GOP to Dems.


It isn't so much winning Trump voters as it is holding on to these suburban moderates that we pulled over to our camp in 2018.


These people are disgusted by Trump and will vote for ANY reasonable Democratic alternative - just like they did in their House districts in 2018.

This is why so many of us are behind a Klobuchar, Biden, or even Buttigieg - because those candidates will likely hold on to these millions of suburban moderates that we brought into our fold two years ago.

It is why a Sanders nomination is a risk, because these suburban moderates will NOT vote for a self-avowed socialist - they have said as much in poll after poll after poll. And they certainly won't want to after the GOP runs ads 24/7 of Bernie praising the likes of Castro, Mao, and the USSR.

A "safe and sane" pick wins easily. Voters aren't in the mood for economic "revolution" this year, they simply want a return to pre-2016 normal.

Then what happened in 2016? Wasn't that why Hillary (really, her expert team) picked the 'safe and sane' moderate Tim Kaine? We know what happened.

1. In 2016, moderates/independents didn't know just how bad Trump would be. Many thought he'd "pivot" to being presidential. Voters now know what kind or President he is - he has a record.

2. The 2018 midterms happened. The massive blue wave was fueled by suburban moderates who became so disgusted with Trump after seeing him in action. These are regretful Trump voters that won't go back - unless we nominate a far left candidate.

3. Hillary Clinton was universally loathed on the right. No current Democratic candidate, save for Bernie, generates that kind of vitriolic hatred on the right.

4. 10 days before the election, Comey swung the tide toward Trump.

5. Trump needed an inside-straight of 77,000 votes spread over 3 states to win. 3 states in which massive complacency had set in among the Democratic party. That won't be an issue this time.

6. Despite all of the above, our side still got 3 million more votes. In the 2018 midterms, it was 10 million more votes nationwide.


Moderates won the midterms. Flipped 40 seats. That's the fuel for victory in 2020 too.

Every single racial and ethnic group in the US saw a historic jump in turnout from one mid-term to the next (in this case, from 2014 to 2018).

The problem in 2016 was millions of people who had voted for Obama simply didn't turn out for Clinton. As you rightly point out, after 25 years of attacks, Clinton was loathed. But the suggestion that the same loathing exists for Sanders is completely baseless.

"Moderates won the midterms" is far too simplistic. There are plenty who lost (in MO, TN, ND, etc.), and there are quite a few very liberal candidates who won. District races are a completely different animal than a national election. A moderate can win a given district while someone more liberal can win the presidency--those aren't mutually exclusive events.

Lastly, "independent" is not synonymous with "moderate." The vast majority of so-called "independents" always vote for the same party no matter what.

Link: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/10/18076872/trump-46-percent-solition.

This is just one more example of people not understanding the electorate. See post #12.

Sure, some Trump voters have abandoned Trump over the last 3 years, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the Democratic Party and who we nominate.

2016 was a match-up of 2 historically unpopular candidates. That, combined with unprecedented voter suppression and foreign interference and a build-up of racial resentment, led to disaster.

More people should pay attention to Bitecofer.

Keep in mind, Elizabeth Warren beat a popular Republican incumbent for her current job. She has the least amount of “dirt”.

But all of our candidates can beat Trump. The combination of states needed for electoral victory will shift, but it will be all about turnout. Messaging will drive down ballot success. I have confidence in Nancy Pelosi delivering the House. Not so much in Schumer for the Senate. But we have a favorable Senate landscape this time, so we should get at least 50.

They're talking about winning over Trump VOTERS.

Too many people here fall into the trap of assuming that anyone who voted for Trump did so because they're sexist/racist/white-nationalist/anti-immigrant. And most of them 35-40% are. But there's a share of 10% or so who voted for Trump simply because they were fed up with politicians of BOTH parties who failed to address their economic problems, and who decided to go with "a businessman
or simply knock all the playing pieces off the board and shake things up. Many of them are unhappy with Trump now and can be won back IF the Democratic alternative doesn't scare them (the "referendum" election vs the "choice election" and IF we don't lose them by branding them as Trump sycophants.

So when you hear that 89% of Republicans support trump that’s about 23% of the electorate.

On the basis that it's more fun to party with the victor than cry with the loser, people on the fence will vote for the one who they think will take the prize.

That's why they don't allow results to be published before the polls close.

...is the status quo or the party that's been in power. And, yeah, I'm sure there's an element of people simply voting for whoever they think will win. These aren't people with a well-defined ideology determining how they vote. The mistake people make is assuming "swing voter" is synonymous with "middle-of-the-road/moderate."

They're lost. But there are a lot of republicans who hate trump but are afraid of voting for too liberal a democrat. A moderate can win.

I am praying that someone has the Pee Tape. That will make a lot of MAGATs stay home.

was 9 points higher at this point in his Presidency.