Election 2020

[ex-khobar Andy]

Susan Rice. Time to stand up and be counted. Yes she will be attacked (I think unfairly) for Benghazi but I think that horse has run its course. As far as the 'unmasking' shenanigans go, I think they too have been put to bed.*



* Sorry about the mixing of several metaphors.

[Big RR]

Of course she does have a way of just pissing people off by talking. Maybe she was just acting as the presidnet's mouthpiece, but I couldn't tell for certain. I'd listen to her and give her a chance.

[Econoline]

Pretty good rebuttal to that David Brooks piece, by Robyn Pennacchia on Wonkette:

• David Brooks Wants To Know Why Dems Can't Just Nominate A Nice Republican

Here's the concluding paragraph:

Let me be absolutely clear. The David Brookses and the Meghan McCains of this world are not going to get it together to go and vote for any Democrat, no matter how much they are sweet talked, no matter how much that Democrat does the "I swear I'm not a scary socialist!" dance. It is not going to happen. They will stay home. This, for them, is not about graciously helping us in our hour of need. They are not our friends. This is exclusively about them not wanting to see the Overton Window pushed to the left. Don't fall for their bullshit.

(Link to the full piece in the headline.)

[Lord Jim]

Pretty good rebuttal to that David Brooks piece,

Well yeah, I guess so, except for being a total load of horseshit...

[Econoline]

• Lord Jim Wants To Know Why Dems Can't Just Nominate A Nice Republican

[Lord Jim]

None of the Democrats that I've identified that I could support for President over Donald Trump (and bear in mind, I already voted for Hillary Clinton) would ever be mistaken for Republicans, "nice" or otherwise...

(Except of course in the fevered imaginations of hardcore leftists, like I assume Ms. Pennacchia must be...)

And this:

The David Brookses and the Meghan McCains of this world are not going to get it together to go and vote for any Democrat, no matter how much they are sweet talked

Reveals Ms. Pennacchia to be either a bald faced liar or completely ignorant of the facts, since people of that sort have already voted for Democrats, and in fact (as Brooks points out in his article) provided the Democrats with the votes that delivered them control of the House...

Having identified two loads of total horseshit just in the headline and one paragraph you quoted, I didn't bother with the rest of the article...

[Lord Jim]

Presumably Pennacchia believes it would be a splendid idea for the Democrats to nominate a candidate who aims their appeal at only 26% of the electorate, (the percentage that identify as "liberal") and who would embrace a position on healthcare (the issue identified as the number one concern by voters consistently, in poll after poll) supported by a whopping 13%...

(That's another example of the asymmetry between Brooks' article and Pennacchia's ; he backs up his assertions with independent third party polling data, while she backs up hers with, well, bugger all...)

I'm sure Trump, his henchmen, henchwomen, and minions all think that would be a splendid idea too...

Say, is it possible that ol' Robyn is a Trump mole?

[Econoline]

In 2016, 92% of Republicans voted for Trump and 98% of conservatives voted for Trump. If the Democratic nominee is going to win in 2020 it makes a lot more sense to forget about the delicate fee-fees of people like David Brooks and go after the Democrats who sat on their were asses in 2016 and didn't vote for Clinton because she wasn't liberal ENOUGH. Voter turnout is key. Nobody is going to vote for Trump in 2020 except for those who voted for him in 2016—and maybe not even all of those. As has been pointed out elsewhere, a 70% voter turnout would mean a landslide defeat for Trump.

BTW...has the Republican Party *EVER* moved to the *LEFT* in an attempt to draw in more Democrats or more liberals???)

[Lord Jim]

go after the Democrats whosat on their were asses in 2016 and didn't vote for Clinton because she wasn't liberal ENOUGH.

Ahh, so you think the path to victory is screw the moderates, (without whose votes in 2018 the GOP would still control the House) you're going to win by getting 90% of the 26% of voters who identify as liberal to turn out...

That's your cunning plan?

"Forget the fact that only 13% of voters support abolishing private insurance. We can win with the slogan, 'If you like your plan, go fuck yourself' if we can just get a high enough percentage of that 13% to show up"...

[Guinevere]

News flash - Democrats are going to nominate a, gasp, Democrat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... bow&wpmm=1

Never-Trump Republicans and independents may be shocked to hear this, but the Democratic Party is likely to nominate a Democrat for president. That means they’re not going to nominate someone who thinks exactly like a Never-Trump Republican.

Break out the smelling salts. I think several refugees from the GOP, pontificating on Twitter and the nation’s leading op-ed pages, just fainted dead away.

I, for one, have pretty much had it with the chorus of center-right voices braying that the Democrats are heading for certain doom — and the nation for four more years of President Trump — if the party picks a nominee who actually embraces the party’s ideals. Elections are choices. These Never Trumpers will have to make one.
Anyone who watched last week’s two-night candidates’ debate should be confident that the eventual Democratic nominee is virtually certain to support universal health care, comprehensive and compassionate immigration reform, reasonable gun control, measures to address climate change and bold steps to address income inequality. No, this is not a Republican agenda. Outcasts from the GOP will have to decide whether to accept it, in the interest of ending our long national nightmare, or reject it and stick with a president who kowtows to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un.

But don’t blame Democrats for supposedly driving moderate voters into the arms of Trump. For one thing, if Never-Trump Republicans were such brilliant political analysts, they’d never have lost control of their party to Trump in the first place.

For another, polls show that the Democratic agenda has broad public support. Yes, Trump is going to yell “socialism.” But Democrats could nominate the ghost of Ronald Reagan and Trump would still try his best to paint the apparition red. That’s his only play, whether the nominee is comfy-slipper Joe Biden, firebrand Bernie Sanders or any of the others in between.
It should surprise no one that the rhetoric in the debate was aimed at the Democratic base because, duh, that’s who decides the outcome of Democratic primaries. Nor should anyone be surprised when the eventual nominee tacks toward the center for the general election. Every winning presidential candidate I can think of has done that — with the exception of Trump.

Which brings me to another reason those demanding a super-cautious, mealy-mouthed Democratic nominee should spend some time in silent reflection. I believe Trump’s improbable election was possible because the nation is undergoing a political realignment in which the traditional left-to-right spectrum is being shifted in ways not yet fully understood. I don’t claim to have accurately charted the new landscape, but I seriously doubt that aiming for the center point of the old, obsolete spectrum will get you anywhere.

It is true that the Democrats who won House seats in Trump-leaning districts last fall emphasized some elements of the party’s program and de-emphasized others. I assume they’ll do the same thing when they seek reelection in 2020. But it is also true that Hillary Clinton would be president today if the Democratic base had turned out in bigger numbers in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And, for the record, she did win the popular tally by nearly 3 million votes.

It should be taken as a given than Trump’s hardcore base will show up to vote for the incumbent who has called himself “your favorite President, me!” The Democratic base had better be at least equally motivated to cast its ballots — especially in blue bastions such as Milwaukee, Detroit and Philadelphia. Which means the party had better give those Democrats something, and someone, to vote for.

I hope the ancien régime Republicans — or, I guess, former Republicans — are serious when they talk about what a danger Trump is, both foreign and domestic, and how urgent it is to get him out of the White House. Do they think it would really be such an awful thing for more people to get health care? For migrant children to be treated like children, not taken from their families and caged in squalor? For universal background checks for gun purchases, supported by something like four-fifths of Americans, to be made law? For the United States to rejoin the Paris climate accord and stop artificially boosting the coal industry? For some effort to be made to address levels of inequality that would make Gilded Age titans blush?

That’s what the Democratic nominee is going to stand for, because that’s what loyal Democratic voters stand for. The party should welcome refugee Never Trumpers with open arms. But they can’t be Never Democrats, too.

[Big RR]

while I agree with the thrust of that piece, and the broad areas laid out as part of a democratic agenda, the one thing I do think has to be emphasized is that the dems need to run a candidate who is seen as being able to work with, not against, Congress and get things done. We can all say which party is to blame, and I think neither party has done much to commend their actions in getting legislation through, but we do need someone who knows how to set broad agendas and then compromise to get some of them through. Face it, we're not going to abolish private insurance any time in the foreseeable future (even though that may be where we ultimately end up), but perhaps a public option could be passed and other tweaks could be made to make Obamacare better and more permanent. We may not solve all the immigration problems, but perhaps we could get some piecemeal reforms like a realistic DACA/Dreamers act, quicker (while observing all due process concerns) adjudication of asylum claims, and so on for other points in the agenda. If the dems put up a person who is seem capable of doing this (and face it, if LBJ could get the civil rights act of 1964 through despite all the dixiecrats in congress, why couldn't someone else do something similar?), I think he or she would win a landslide in the popular vote and the electoral college.

Is any of the persons who were part of the debates that person? It's hard to tell, but that is what I am watching for. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Crackpot]

The Democratic Party extends as it exists today from the center right to the far left. The farther left you pick your candidate from runs the greatest risk of ailiating not only republican never trumpers but also independents. That is the whole of the argument.

Speaking as an independent I am worried at the marginalization of most of the centrist candidates outside of Biden. He is a candidate that is terminally one gaffe away from being rendered unelectable and it is troubling that there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of a back up if he falls.

What Democrats seem to be missing is the suffocating level of anxiety comingfrom centrists, independents, and Never trumpers at having to say once again we told you so.

The downright arrogance of the Democratic Party at the suggestion that the should take the sights of of their own foot insisting “we know what we’re doing!” Despite all their previous history of shooting themselves in the foot is terrifying especially since the opposition is already aiming at our head.

For fuck sake we didn’t get in this position solely due to the malfeasance of one party but there has been an willingness or inability to make independent or moderates feel that they are welcome.

[Guinevere]

Blaming the Democrats for Trump is arrogant, assinine, and guaranteed to backfire in your faces. It's the exact same thing the left did in the last election, which resulted in Trump.

I give up. I'm not going to spend my energy trying (again) to convince the center or the left to be rationale, mature, and do what's best for the country. I'm just going to continue to work my ass off for who *I* think is the best candidate -- and I'm not going to sulk if he or she doesn't get the nomination -- because 4 more years of terror, hate, fear, elitism, and all the rest of the Trumpanzee playbook will destroy this country and I refuse to sit back and let that happen. You're all welcome to join me, but its up to you.

[Big RR]

Crackpot--are you honestly suggesting them dems should run a campaign where the only issue is "We're not Trump"? You really don't think they need to put any positions forward on issues? I agree the center shouldn't be abandoned, but I also think you have to be true to your entire base, not just the small swath of center right never-trumpers. I think the dems can set forth a progressive agenda on the important issues mentioned in the article Guin cited and still hang on to much of the base, but if they cannot, I seriously doubt they would generate much enthusiasm and turn out the vote; people need something to vote for.

Face it, I'm sure a lot of people said Trump could never win with his idiotic agenda either, and look what happened. It is important to energize your base to get out and vote. For a lot of us, Trump is enough of a horrible nightmare that we woill vote for anyone, but as the election of 2004 showed, anyone but W didn't turn out the base and W won. it scares me that history might just repeat itself.

[Crackpot]

No I think the democrats do a great job of ignoring independents. They are crap at explaining their policies outside of their bubble and they can’t take constructive criticism to save their lives. There is no one suggesting they don’t put forth a Democrat. That is the strawman they are erecting in order to avoid listening to the justified concern that the way things are going they could very well end up running another candidate who can’t win against Trump.

[Crackpot]

Guin you do do a great job at explining your positions. (That’s why I value your contributions) That article you posted, however, missed the freaking point. The problem is the party as a whole does a terrible job at what you do.

[Crackpot]

The democrats ran a candidate and a campaign that couldn’t win an election where they couldn’t beat the margin that the previous opposition candidate lost by and you think they deserve no blame?

Let’s get this absolutely clear are the to blame for trumps policies no.

But they do have a healthy share of the blame for running a candidate and a campaign that couldn’t beat Trump especially given that he won with less votes than the previous opponent lost by.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I want to vote for Anastasia Occasional-Cortex. Why's she not in the picture?

[RayThom]

I want to vote for Anastasia Occasional-Cortex. Why's she not in the picture?

Too young to run -- as I'm sure you're aware.

At lest one more general election cycle before she's a go... and probably will.

AOC & Bernie... 2024. Perfect together.

[Big RR]

CP--I agree that the dems are often pretty bad at explaining their positions and selling them to the public; they are also pretty bad at framing the debates/discussions about the issues. We saw this in the last election, where it appeared Trump could frame the debates and drive it away from the issues to the latest dem debates--where everyone just spouted slogans and one liners trying one up each other (granted the format was pretty idiotic as well, and they should avoid these one minute sound bite Q & As. Trump does well at them because he has exactly nothing to say, the dems have to do a much better job framing the debate to spur the discussion of the issues and the proposed resolutions.

And I'll join with Guin in saying we can't afford to sulk if our candidate of choice doesn't get in, because 4 more years of this BS is too dangerous to even think about.