Posted: 09 September 2020 at 12:53pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
I agree with Chris about this:
The Democrats had two broad strategies they could have pursued this year: 1. nominate a moderate candidate and attempt to reclaim the swing state Obama voters who switched to Trump in 2016. 2. nominate a progressive candidate and attempt to generate sufficient excitement to attract the votes of progressives who didn't vote in 2016.
The problem is they've tried to do both of these at the same time, and they're failing at both.
Biden is historically a moderate, but he's characterized himself as a transitional candidate, so a lot of people see this as Trump v. Harris. Harris is neither moderate nor charismatic. The prospect of a Harris presidency will not win over swing voters.
On top of that, Biden made a lot of concessions to the Sanders campaign, prompting Sanders to speculate that Biden will be the most progressive president in history. But now Biden is walking those concessions back, and progressives are feeling betrayed again.
With Trump, voters know exactly what they are getting, and even if they don't like his persona, that gives him an advantage. One of the biggest thing that hurt Clinton is the trust factor. Biden is creating that same type of problem for himself.
As far as "rogue electors" go, the Supreme Court only said that states have the authority to force electors to obey state laws regarding how they are supposed to vote. Some states don't have laws that address this. And even if they do, the court's decision doesn't mandate that states enforce the law. So the case is a step in the direction of eliminating rogue electors, but its far from a done deal.
|