Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
I agree that turnout is the key, politically. That is, I think, the core of Trump's election strategy. He feels if he can keep his base committed, he can win because of turnout. I think he's wrong, but that's a political calculation.

At the risk of incurring chunk's derisive wrath, I don't think either party is conservative, in the traditional sense. It is clear, to me, that the Democratic party is more pragmatic, and the Republican more ideological. Yes, there are ideologues in the Democratic party, of course, but the party is distinctly left-leaning but broader in the approach. The apparent radicalization is really just a visceral reaction to 40 years of gross Republican incompetence and mean-spirited rhetoric and policies (and brazen corruption). It is just that so many things have gone horribly wrong during Republican control.

I also agree with Perotista's point about the distinction between traditional conservatism and the current "factions" that claim the mantle - social, religious, fiscal, neo, TEA and political - but don't represent conservative "values". In the same way, though, Democratic socialists may be in the Democratic party, and are certainly of the left, but they don't represent "liberal" values in many respects. In the same way that I decry being static for static's sake, I don't advocate change just for change. It's just that so many things need to change, and fast. [I'd also recommend reading Warren's platform carefully, as she is most definitely a capitalist in the FDR mode, and seeks to save it, and us, from its excesses.]

I've always said Hillary had the personality of a wet mop along with being seen as elitist and aloof. I'm not sure how to describe Warren's personality, but being energetic or being able to enthuse isn't among them. Now she doesn't in my opinion have to motivate, provide enthusiasm or energy to her supporters, Trump has done that. Democrats won't stay home like in 2000 or 2016 with the assumption their candidate is going to win. They will turnout. I think 2018 proved that. Trump providing that additional incentive a less charismatic candidate couldn't.

Obama, the candidate was charismatic, McCain and Romney not, he won. Bill Clinton had charisma, G.H.W. Bush and Dole didn't, Bill won. G.W. Bush really wasn't that charismatic, more down homey against a statue Gore. Then you had the obnoxious oaf vs. the wet mop. I wonder if anyone else always got the impression every time Hillary smiled it was a fake smile?

I don't think you're going to convince any type of conservative regardless of what her platform states that she isn't an leftist extremist. I could be wrong. But I see the more traditional conservatives who really have a distaste for Trump most likely voting third party again if it's a Trump vs. Warren match up.

I could be wrong, I just don't see it. I imagine more would support a Biden, Klobuchar, Hickenlooper etc more than a Warren or Sanders. It is probably a built in bias being from Georgia that I have and perhaps other traditional conservatives have against Northeastern Liberals. Now I have always considered Biden more of a moderate as both a senator and VP.


It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.