Quote (thesnipa @ 6 Dec 2019 21:51)
i think reality is far closer to what im saying than what you're saying.
Kamala Harris rose to the top 4 with literally nothing but empty catch phrases, pandering to blacks, and attacking Trump in such a vague and general sense it came off as vapid.
Then Harris is dunked on by Tulsi, who was dunked on by HRC in a completely Trumpian move to baselessly call her a russian plant. then half the democratic machine picks up the ball and runs with it with no proof. to a fucking veteran of 2 wars. just like Trump did to McCain.
Mayor Pete and Warren's exchanges were polite-ish, same with all of the warren-biden-bernie faux threeway bickering.
people tried early to get bumps by insulting Yang. and any criticisms were either "you're too extreme" or "you're too down the line".
democrats use "thats a putin talking point" as a stand in for any coherant argument.
the democratic infighting in 2020 is very similar to Trump's path through the GOP in 2016. there's one difference, they're being more polite. and they'll lose because of it.
"how would you beat Trump Mr Thesnipa? since u seem to have a lot to say".
im glad you asked, i would point out his infidelities in marriage, make him talk about women as much as i can, and people of other races, etc. then instead of screaching "racist, monster!" i'd sit back and laugh while he talked himself into holes. then id start in on his weight, challenge him to a foot race, make fun of his diet, give him a mcdonalds nick name. probably even start in on his kids and how shitty his hotels and casinos are.
getting Trump to talk himself into a hole was a good move in 2016. calling all of his supporters people who helped him dig the hole and bad people coming from a candidate like HRC was what made it fail.
Making him talk about women and minorities is surely a good tactic if you can pull it off. I still disagree with the notion that a feisty mindset is the crucial missing piece for Democrats in 2020. This tactic of inciting his self-destructive tendencies is smart, but it imho can only be one puzzle piece in a broader strategy.
I believe that they need a candidate who can offer their base at least one or two signature policy proposals which are popular but not too outlandish, so that they get excited to vote
for him/her instead of just
against Trump. At the same time, the candidate should give moderates, independents and nevertrumpers the impression that he wouldnt rock the boat too much outside of these 1-2 fields. The candidate should fight back against Trump's verbal abuse, but not lower him-/herself to Trump's level. And in particular, the candidate should call Trump out for his policy failures and broken campaign promises.
Labeling Trump as ineffectual (and providing proof for it) imho is much more damaging to his brand than trying to out-bully him."Dont attack their weaknesses, attack their strengths". Trump's strength is his image as a straight-talking and successful businessman and dealmaker, not his image as the biggest bully in politics. One of Trump's campaign ads that I saw on politico a couple of months ago was literally titled "President Trump Delivers". If you can undermine this perception, you can inflict real damage on his campaign.
In a strategic sense, betting on Trump self-destructing didnt work in 2016, and it wont work in 2020. This strategy didnt just fail in 2016 because of Hillary, it mostly failed because it was empty and negative without contrasting it with a positive vision of her own. Despite all his glaring shortcomings, Trump talking about making America great again, about building the wall and rolling back or renegotiating free trade did resonate with his voters, did create enthusiasm for him. Hillary, on the other hand, wasnt able to create any real enthusiasm for her cause.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 6 2019 03:13pm