Democratic analysts say they need Trump voters to win, I just don't understand their strategy

a reply to: chr0naut

So what do you use to determine Trump's popularity across America?

Well, the Presidential elections are a good start.

You can't use other elections as a gauge since many Trump voters are not really engaged in other political contests, but they are engaged in the Presidential election - make no mistake.

Look at elections that determine policy rather than people for a position. In those contests most have been swinging to the conservative side of things - or at the very least, to the center, when previously they were more left or progressive.

The Dems biggest problem is that they refuse to see the writing on the wall. They think everything is an "aberration". They are becoming the aberration as they are making themselves less and less relevant.

They need to wake up, shut up or just go away as a party/platform - for the time being. That will change in time, but right now - that is where America stands.

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: chr0naut

So what do you use to determine Trump's popularity across America?

Well, the Presidential elections are a good start.

You can't use other elections as a gauge since many Trump voters are not really engaged in other political contests, but they are engaged in the Presidential election - make no mistake.

Look at elections that determine policy rather than people for a position. In those contests most have been swinging to the conservative side of things - or at the very least, to the center, when previously they were more left or progressive.

The Dems biggest problem is that they refuse to see the writing on the wall. They think everything is an "aberration". They are becoming the aberration as they are making themselves less and less relevant.

They need to wake up, shut up or just go away as a party/platform - for the time being. That will change in time, but right now - that is where America stands.

In the presidential elections that Trump has been in, he hasn't yet had the majority of citizen votes. But that's OK, because some citizen votes aren't worth as much as others in the American system.

So, I don't think that historical voting numbers are a good guide to future votes. If you also ignore poll results, then you may as well ask a groundhog.

a reply to: chr0naut

Actually. It’s worth more in the American system. It’s to ensure a few states don’t dictate the presidential election. This system ensures states and their populations like Wyoming are still a factor in the presidential election.

a reply to: chr0naut

One must remember that America is not just a single island state like New ZEALAND for example. We are 50 states united by a constitutional agreement. All states have their own constitutional agreement as well regarding their election in state.

In effect, our electoral college ensures voters from the more populous coastal states do not override the votes in the flyover states. Coastal States would not understand the needs of their States nor vice versus. As each citizen is considered equal, so is each state in America.

Removing the electoral college voting in effect would be terminating State rights and their contract with the United Federal government.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: 1point92AU

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: 1point92AU

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: The2Billies

It is really simple. If you get more votes, (especially EC ones) you win.

It is a bit of a waste of effort to promote yourself to people who will vote for you anyway. So, to get more people to vote for you, you have to appeal to people who didn't vote for you last time, in the hope that they will be convinced and will vote for you.

No shame, guilt or coercion involved.

You seem to be as lost as your party. It's been pretty prevelent in the MSM that democrats are telling the democrats to get their shlt together because they are going to lose CURRENT dem votes.

The dems are so confused and so lost because they spent 4 years in a fabricated NON STOP hate campaign that will result in 2 things.

1. Put doubt into the minds of the previous dem voters that were on the fence. Those votes they have now lost.
2. Thinking they can convert a Trump vote into a dem vote is an absolute joke of a "strategy".

Every one of the dem candidates are polar opposites of the policies Trump has put into place. People who voted for Trump voted for him because of his policies.

So your and your party's supreme logic is to convince people who voted for Trump (because of his policies) that they (the Trump voters) held a belief in to abandon those policies (the ones the Trump voters want) in favor of policies that are the complete opposite of the policies they wanted in the first place?

hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha!

WOW! No wonder you guys are losing on all fronts.

Not my party. I'm not even American.

And the polls seem to be wobbling back and forth at the moment. On Monday, the Dems were polling better, on Tuesday, the Republicans. Despite the repeated assertion of Trump supporters on ATS that Trump is so far ahead.

Polls....LOL. aka...more mocking bird media's weak attempt to influence the public. I remember a poll in 2016 where Hillary Clinton was polling at 95% chance to win the presidency. That worked out well.

The left is cratering.

So what do you use to determine Trump's popularity across America?

Or is just your little group of people in your little corner and the propagandist MSM that informs you?

Actual numbers. In this case:

1) The turn out at Trump rallies, nationwide.
2) The turnout at the Iowa and New Hampshire caucus/primaries for Trump.

In both cases no one has to show up, but the numbers of people who appear show how energized his supporters are.

a reply to: The2Billies

I'm having trouble with their strategy. It appears the strategy is Shame/Guilt/Coerce I'm not sure this is a winning strategy. I was wondering if any of you are seeing a different strategy to gain the votes of people who voted for Trump in 2016.

I agree with the person who said that the Democrats don't really have a purposeful and thought out strategy. The only strategy I'm seeing is the "let's tell the biggest lies we can and try to convince America that Trump is a bigger liar". The only thing they have left is to confuse the masses through the media. Unfortunately, all of the confusion may just leave the Democrats who don't do their own research to stay at home trying to keep their heads from spinning.

a reply to: The2Billies

It's schoolyard politics.

Remember those days when the in-group put down everyone who wasn't in, and everyone who wasn't in wanted to be in? I remember looking around and realizing one day that there were more people who weren't in than were in. That's about the time I stopped worrying about what the in-group thought.

I think it's like the racism accusation used to be. They still think they exercise enough control that it will work to make people stop being a way they don't want them to be. I think what they haven't fully realized is that too many people have gotten wise to it and realize there are just way too many people who fit their new scarlet letter labels for them to really apply.

Everyone is looking around and understanding that we can't all be that way, and looking back at those making the accusations and wondering what's wrong with them.

a reply to: chr0naut

What part of "the United States is a Republic of separate states" don't you understand? New Zealand may be one solid nation, but the US is 50 separate states agreeing to go in together into one entity in its dealings with the world. For internal purposes, we are 50 entities dealing with each other. This is the purpose of both House and Senate and why we have the electoral process to choose our Chief Executive that we do.

a reply to: ketsuko

Please check ✔ your PMs

a reply to: chr0naut

So, I don't think that historical voting numbers are a good guide to future votes. If you also ignore poll results, then you may as well ask a groundhog.

Ha! You just proved my point.

If they had asked a groundhog, they would have had more accurate results than they did in the 2016 election!

And I think that's why so many on the left still can't get over the fact that Trump won and is now *their* President - like it or not. Hillary was "supposed" to win. I mean, it was her turn, right?

a reply to: The2Billies

Of course they do. A solid 25-30 percent of voters are swing voters. ANY candidate running against an incumbent President needs to get some of that swing vote back. Swing voters decide every Presidential election.

Trump earned enough of the swing vote to win in 2016, ergo, the eventual Democratic nominee needs to successfully win over enough of that swing vote to win in November.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: The2Billies
Today I heard a Democratic analyst say on a news show that the Democrats need to win over former Trump voters in order to win the Presidency.

I'm having trouble with their strategy. It appears the strategy is Shame/Guilt/Coerce I'm not sure this is a winning strategy. I was wondering if any of you are seeing a different strategy to gain the votes of people who voted for Trump in

Finally: What strategy do you see the Democratic 2020 candidates using that say to Trump voters/supporters, and people against late-term abortions, you should vote for us? Where am I missing the boat on this one?

Seems more like you are telling us, 'what the strategy is' However you are probably right to say that Democrats need to win over Trump supporters with the caveat of the electoral college's approval of course.

Methinks though that Trump is doing a damn good job of pooing in his own nest, and that the penny is starting to drop for many after recent events, Oh dear! that means a serious amount of pro Trump propaganda is required...and now!

You are correct. I clearly stated what I thought the Democratic strategy is to attempt to win over the people who voted for Trump in 2016. Shame - Guilt - Coerce

I was asking people if I was correct in my observation or if they could see any other strategy the Democrats were using to get the much needed votes from people who voted for Trump in 2016. I guess you didn't get that, probably because you were focused on the first few paragraphs I wrote, which would be quite painful for a Democrat to read and to realize that is how people who did not vote for Hillary in 2016 are seeing things.

Please enlighten me on what you see as the strategy the DNC is using for 2020 to get the votes of people who voted for Trump in 2016. Several Democratic Party strategists have openly opined on TV that the Dems must get these votes in order to win in 2020.

Is the new strategy to tell the people who did not vote for Hillary that Trump is pooing in his own nest and so you should vote for ....(Dem) this time around.

I suppose that is one way to do it,
but you are bucking the best economic news in practically the whole history of the US :
and are bucking the new trade deals that don't let the US get screwed over, like the past trade deals did :
and are bucking the fact that foreign leaders know Trump will do what he says and for the first time since WWII know a US President means business :
and are bucking the fact that terrorists, and countries who have been emboldened in the past to attack US citizens know that now an act like this means a real swift and tough response, and for the first time in decades those who wish to harm the US or it's citizens know that this President won't sit on their ass and say they will do something, then not do it (line in the sand, which was a joke).

Yep you'll need to convince the previous Trump voters to jump over this huge pile of shiny golden successes, which is much larger than the pile of poo.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: chr0naut

Actually. It’s worth more in the American system. It’s to ensure a few states don’t dictate the presidential election. This system ensures states and their populations like Wyoming are still a factor in the presidential election.

That is why Trump was elected. Because you don't have an equitable one person, one vote system, which leads political manipulators to put all their efforts into winning the states/districts that matter and ignoring the states/districts that don't.

Also the numbers that decide states proportions were set in the 1700's. Just some food for thought.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: chr0naut

One must remember that America is not just a single island state like New ZEALAND for example. We are 50 states united by a constitutional agreement. All states have their own constitutional agreement as well regarding their election in state.

In effect, our electoral college ensures voters from the more populous coastal states do not override the votes in the flyover states. Coastal States would not understand the needs of their States nor vice versus. As each citizen is considered equal, so is each state in America.

Removing the electoral college voting in effect would be terminating State rights and their contract with the United Federal government.

I am aware that your presidential selection system ignores actual demographics.

½ a million people in Wyoming have as much voting power as 37.2 million in California.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: chr0naut

Actually. It’s worth more in the American system. It’s to ensure a few states don’t dictate the presidential election. This system ensures states and their populations like Wyoming are still a factor in the presidential election.

That is why Trump was elected. Because you don't have an equitable one person, one vote system, which leads political manipulators to put all their efforts into winning the states/districts that matter and ignoring the states/districts that don't.

Also the numbers that decide states proportions were set in the 1700's. Just some food for thought.

What do you not understand what has been explained repeatedly to you. Our system for our county gives weight to the people that live in what we call flyover states.

CynConcepts summed it up very nicely.
originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: chr0naut

One must remember that America is not just a single island state like New ZEALAND for example. We are 50 states united by a constitutional agreement. All states have their own constitutional agreement as well regarding their election in state.

In effect, our electoral college ensures voters from the more populous coastal states do not override the votes in the flyover states. Coastal States would not understand the needs of their States nor vice versus. As each citizen is considered equal, so is each state in America.

Removing the electoral college voting in effect would be terminating State rights and their contract with the United Federal government.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: chr0naut

One must remember that America is not just a single island state like New ZEALAND for example. We are 50 states united by a constitutional agreement. All states have their own constitutional agreement as well regarding their election in state.

In effect, our electoral college ensures voters from the more populous coastal states do not override the votes in the flyover states. Coastal States would not understand the needs of their States nor vice versus. As each citizen is considered equal, so is each state in America.

Removing the electoral college voting in effect would be terminating State rights and their contract with the United Federal government.

I am aware that your presidential selection system ignores actual demographics.

½ a million people in Wyoming have as much voting power as 37.2 million in California.

Because we want California to dictate political power in the USA more than it already does? Why? Yet, California still gets the same federal protection as all the other states. And maintains a certain sovereignty over itself.

a reply to: chr0naut

You do understand other than federal law. California has its own legislative bodies and state sovereignty that is independent of other states.

Does every individual in the European Union get to vote and elect the president of the European Union by popular vote. No. Am I wrong. So why are you not complaining about the president of the European Union?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: The2Billies

I think Democrats just to need to stay on point with healthcare and wealth inequality and it will all work out find. If the Democrats try to be Republican Lite they will lose.
...
The billionaires and CEOs have gone too far. We have way too many monopolies and cartels. We have no free-markets. We need STRONG government again like we had in FDR to address of the injustices going on. Time to stop the corporation and billionaire socialism. Time to bring back Clinton era tax rates of 39% so we have a budget surplus again.

Yep according to what you have said: millionaires and corporate billionaires are really one of the major problems in the US, and this is also said by every single 2020 Democratic candidate and the DNC itself.

You said that you, and I think you are implying, Democrats think it is time to stop corporate billionaires and all multi-billionaires.

LIKE George Soros (fund manager) who has given the Dems $21+ million in the past 4 years

LIKE James Simons (Technology) who has given the Dems $26+ million in the past 4 years

and other Billionaires: docs.google.com...=0

LIKE Bloomberg (owner of mega media empire)
who has given 9+ million to the Democrats last year alone
plus he is a 2020 candidate who is funding his own campaign single-handedly

It is very important to point out 2 things about Bloomberg, since the Democrats feel the uber rich create massive problems through influence buying.

1. Bloomberg told the nearly 3000 journalists who work for him
they will be fired if they report anything negative on any Democrat or the DNC
or investigate any Democrat.

2. On the home page of The Bloomberg empire(group) says in big bold lettering:

...award-winning storytelling power our ability to build the right narrative – and provide the assets to tell the story anywhere, anytime, in any way. On our platforms and beyond. From content studio to collaborative campaign.

which brags that Bloomberg's massive media empire can change the narrative of any issue/problem a politician
or company or individual has and remake it into a net positive (storytelling)
which will be spread throughout his massive media empire.


Yes, Republicans have multi-millionare and multi-billionaire contributors and a billionaire 2020 candidate.
However, the Republicans don't trash the uber wealthy saying they are evil because they don't give their "fair share" to the government.


NOTE: Anyone can give any amount to the government at any time, freely and not to pay taxes but to give their "fair share".

The billionaires who support the Democrats don't freely give money to the government to help "the people", they think the government must force them to pay more before they actually will give money to help the "people" through the government
Not one of the 2020 Democratic candidates has given the US treasury even $1 more than they were forced to through taxation.
Whilst Trump has voluntarily returned his entire salary as President to the US treasury above and beyond paying his required taxes:


To make a point about the 2020 US Presidential Candidates
Net worth of all candidates:www.forbes.com...

Republican
Donald Trump (real estate magnate)
3.1 billion

Democrats:

Michael Bloomberg (owner of a massive media cartel)
61.8 billion

Tom Steyer (hedge fund manager)
1.6 billion

Elizabeth Warren (never held a job that paid more than $250K, most wealth came after she was elected to the Senate)
12 million conservativedailypost.com...

Joe Biden (the vast majority was made while holding a federally elected position in the US government, and through real estate)
9 million thenetworthportal.com...

Kamala Harris (the majority of her wealth is due to her husbands job as a lawyer)
6 million

Bernie Sanders
(wrote a best selling book "Our Revolution:A Future to Believe In" where he writes about his failed run in 2016 and the Revolution he wants to change and fundamentally transform the US away from what it is today and was in the past into a more socialist vision he has for the US)
2.5 million

Amy Klobuchar (wealth from being a lawyer and politician)
2 million

Pete Buttigieg
100 thousand


It is clear from their support and who is still in the running for 2020, the Democrats want an uber rich corporate multi-millionare/billionaire to be President.

As "stay on point" for this strategy to win 2020, do you think this will work with all the money the Dems are happily taking from the uber rich corporate donors, and the fact that most of the candidates fall in the very category of persons the Democrats keep harping on as the major problem in the US?

a reply to: chr0naut

½ a million people in Wyoming have as much voting power as 37.2 million in California.

easily the stupidest easiest debunked lie here today
california has 55 electoral votes
wyoming has 3 electoral votes

next!