2020: The Two Year Long Election

[HerNameIsBuffy]

13 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Also, do not underestimate the way Trump inspires voters to go and vote him out of office. I believe there are many more in that camp than there are people who slavishly follow him

I hope you’re right this time around, but the hatred for him isn’t nearly universal enough.

i do not understand why, but it isn’t.

Edited May 3, 2019 by HerNameIsBuffy
Riffles

[milkteeth]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Obama was once the electable candidate.

Im curious as to why you think HRC was considered more electable?  That was never my impression. 

And imo we have to consider electability because we need to be pragmatic enough to know getting Trump out is for the greater good rather than voting someone who doesn’t have a shot at the  independents and undecided and handing him another 4 more years.

i do think he’ll likely steal another 4 years, but I don’t want it to be a legit victory.

If this were about voting for someone who I truly believed in then most elections that would rule out both major parties as I think the corruption is completely embedded.

As it is I’m forced to vote for the self-serving jackass who I think will do the least harm to the most people.  

Long gone are the days where I could cast s protest vote for an independent because I believed in more of their policies and wanted to show support even knowing they’d never win.  The idea of enough people being in favor of whatever giving it a larger platform is fine when one party isn’t quickly marching us toward fascism.

Trump has taken my pragmatism and turned me into a Democrat.  Because that’s the only other electable party.  

I can’t give too great of a reply as I’m at work right now trying to post on my phone but I’ll do my best ?.

I volunteered for Obama’s campaign in 2008 and I heard from lots of Democrats at the time how much they personally liked Obama, but they worried about his electability. They gave lots of different reasons on why they had these worries. I was told that America was still too racist to elect a black president. That Obama was too far left, and while he might win in California (where I was volunteering) he would never win over moderates in swing states. That he didn’t have enough experience in government to clean up the mess that W left us. That we couldn’t trust polls that said voters supported Obama, because of course they would say they supported him to a poll taker because they didn’t want to seem racist. 

These debates about electability always center on winning over Republicans or right leaning moderates. They never consider that the candidate who doesn’t appeal to these voters might be the candidate who encourages the base and non-voters to show up like Obama did.

Trump is extremely popular among Republican voters. Hillary spent her entire 2016 campaign trying to win over centrists and right leaning independents and it wasn’t enough to win.  Now we are going to try to do a repeat of 2016 with Joe “gaffe a minute” Biden thinking we will get a different result.

[Cartmann99]

4 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I like him quite a bit. My first choice is still Elizabeth Warren. In fact, my dream ticket would be Elizabeth Warren as President with either Kamala or Pete as VP.  Sadly, I don't think Liz can beat Dumpy in the general election.

I really do like Pete as a person, but I don't actually have a favorite candidate at the moment. I was previously pleased to see Beto enter the race, but the spark he had during the Texas Senate race seems to be missing.

The Democratic primary here in Texas will be held on March 3rd, so I've still got some  time before I need to start doing deep dives into platforms and whatnot.

4 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I like him quite a bit. My first choice is still Elizabeth Warren. In fact, my dream ticket would be Elizabeth Warren as President with either Kamala or Pete as VP.  Sadly, I don't think Liz can beat Dumpy in the general election.

I really do like Pete as a person, but I don't actually have a favorite candidate at the moment. I was previously pleased to see Beto enter the race, but the spark he had during the Texas Senate race seems to be missing.

The Democratic primary here in Texas will be held on March 3rd, so I've still got some  time before I need to start doing deep dives into platforms and whatnot.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

I really do like Pete as a person, but I don't actually have a favorite candidate at the moment. I was previously pleased to see Beto enter the race, but the spark he had during the Texas Senate race seems to be missing.

The Democratic primary here in Texas will be held on March 3rd, so I've still got some  time before I need to start doing deep dives into platforms and whatnot.

I really do like Pete as a person, but I don't actually have a favorite candidate at the moment. I was previously pleased to see Beto enter the race, but the spark he had during the Texas Senate race seems to be missing.

The Democratic primary here in Texas will be held on March 3rd, so I've still got some  time before I need to start doing deep dives into platforms and whatnot.

This is where I am.  I have a certain visceral reaction to some candidates which means nothing ...when the field is narrowed I'll dig into their platforms and vote for the one I find least disappointing.

[SilverBeach]

7 hours ago, milkteeth said:

Hillary spent her entire 2016 campaign trying to win over centrists and right leaning independents and it wasn’t enough to win.

But she did win. The vote was manipulated to let Trump win make or break electoral college states. I hate the electoral college, it is such bullshit.

Edited May 3, 2019 by SilverBeach

[HerNameIsBuffy]

On 5/3/2019 at 10:57 AM, milkteeth said:

These debates about electability always center on winning over Republicans or right leaning moderates. They never consider that the candidate who doesn’t appeal to these voters might be the candidate who encourages the base and non-voters to show up like Obama did.

Personally I think if stopping Trump isn't enough to fire up the base to show up then nothing will.

To the bolded (mine) above I think the days where Republicans were swayable by a centrist candidate are long gone.  The modern GOP is unrecognizable to old school Republicans.

IMO we need to write off republican votes as being 100% Trumps column come 2020.

But there are many left leaning moderates that need to be won over.  Despite where the new energy is in the party per sound bytes and coverage much of that blue wave were more centrist Democrats.  There is a wide gap between factions of Democrats both amongst the elected and the electorate.  The common ground is we want many of the same things considered progressive but have different ideas of how to get there at this point.

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Democrats and the ‘electability’ trap. Can anyone define what it means?"

Spoiler

“Electability” is the watchword among many Democrats this spring as they begin to evaluate the ever-growing field of candidates for their party’s presidential nomination. The question of who can beat President Trump weighs heavily in voters’ assessments. But is that the real measure that produces presidents?

Electability is an elusive concept. It is not one of those that fits into the category of, “I know it when I see it.” It is born of individual biases and the conventions of history, often the search for something that seems to replicate something that was successful before. But a look back at presidential campaigns of the past suggests something else has been more powerful in determining who wins the White House.

Four years ago at this moment, almost no one, except perhaps the man himself, believed that Donald Trump was electable. He wasn’t even a formal candidate, after all. Although he had been on the edge of the political stage, conventional wisdom afforded him little chance of becoming the 45th president. On the electability scale, he was in the low range.

Twelve years ago at this time, Hillary Clinton was judged to be the most-electable Democrat seeking the nomination. A New York senator, former first lady and part of the then-best brand in Democratic politics, she had the attributes that added up to being most electable.

Barack Obama, then a relatively new U.S. senator, was considered much more a long shot. As he said later, he believed he had about a 25 percent chance of winning the nomination — good enough to make the race but certainly no iron lock for someone whose race alone made him a long shot in the eyes of the conventional wisdom committee.

Four decades ago at this moment, Jimmy Carter was a little-known, one-term governor of Georgia, just starting to make his way around the country, carrying his own bag and sleeping in the homes of friendly Democrats. Who thought he was electable in a field of more than a dozen candidates that included several prominent senators with vastly more experience and recognition within their party?

Who thought, at this point in the 1980 campaign, that then-Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), he of the dynastic family of Democratic politics, would crater in his effort to deny Carter the Democratic nomination? He might have looked electable, but events and his own deficiencies as a candidate did him in.

How many in those early days of the 1980 campaign truly thought Ronald Reagan could win the general election that year? The former governor of California had run for president twice before and lost both times. His views were seen as too conservative to win a general election. But he led a movement that brought him the nomination. In November, he won an electoral landslide and was reelected four years later by a bigger margin.

What these successful candidates had was something other than the aura of electability. They had something that connected with voters more directly, more personally and more deeply. They stirred passions and in some cases anger. They excited. They inspired. They built followings. Obama’s “Hope and Change” and Trump’s “Make America Great Again” were not based on the theme of electability. Quite the opposite. Obama’s pre-campaign book was entitled “The Audacity of Hope” for a reason.

The best candidates tell a story, paint pictures, turn personal biography into something that connects them to the wider electorate. Experience can matter, but it is not enough just to argue personal readiness to serve as president.

Successful candidates match a moment in the history of the country. For Carter, running two years after the resignation of Richard M. Nixon, it was the promise of something fresh, untainted by Washington, a message of integrity, rectitude, even righteousness, after the poison of the Watergate scandal.

Bill Clinton won in 1992 in part because other more prominent Democrats decided not to challenge George H.W. Bush, who was at about 90 percent in the polls in the spring of 1991. Early in the cycle, Clinton was hardly an obvious or likely winner. It was his New Democrat message, combined with the promise of generational change, that overcame his personal vulnerabilities and eventually won over an electorate that was ready to move on after 12 years of Republican presidents.

The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll looked at two sides of the question of what Democrats and Democratic-leaning Americans are looking for in a nominee to challenge Trump in 2020. Do they want someone who agrees with them on issues or do they want someone who can beat Trump? What is their priority?

Liberal Democrats narrowly prefer someone who can defeat Trump. Moderate and conservative Democrats want someone close to them on issues. Young voters want a candidate who agrees with them on issues. Older Democrats want someone who can beat Trump. White Democrats without college degrees want someone close to them on issues. White Democrats with college degrees prefer someone they think can win by a margin of 11 points.

That is one way to evaluate the mood of Democrats. Another question looked at how Democrats think about the best way to mobilize enough voters to win the general election. Specifically, the question asked whether it is more important to find a candidate who can energize the party’s base or win over independent voters. Overall, Democrats and those who lean Democratic were not far apart, though with a slight preference for someone who energizes the base.

However, nonwhite Democrats and leaners were significantly more likely than whites to say they prefer a candidate who energizes the base. That was also the case of women versus men. In the other direction, whites with college degrees tilted more heavily toward a candidate who can win over independent voters.

The attitudes of nonwhite Democrats and Democratic women could reflect the fact that they want a candidate who pays attention to them and feel the nominating process already is unfairly skewing away from them.

Already there are expressions of discontent that the attention being given to a few white, male Democratic candidates is out of proportion, given the qualities that the female candidates and candidates of color bring to the race.

Defeating Trump looms large in the minds of Democratic voters but past elections show that electability is not by any means the quality that elevates a candidate. Voters want something more — and they know it when they see it.

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

33 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Democrats and the ‘electability’ trap. Can anyone define what it means?"

  Hide contents

“Electability” is the watchword among many Democrats this spring as they begin to evaluate the ever-growing field of candidates for their party’s presidential nomination. The question of who can beat President Trump weighs heavily in voters’ assessments. But is that the real measure that produces presidents?

Electability is an elusive concept. It is not one of those that fits into the category of, “I know it when I see it.” It is born of individual biases and the conventions of history, often the search for something that seems to replicate something that was successful before. But a look back at presidential campaigns of the past suggests something else has been more powerful in determining who wins the White House.

Four years ago at this moment, almost no one, except perhaps the man himself, believed that Donald Trump was electable. He wasn’t even a formal candidate, after all. Although he had been on the edge of the political stage, conventional wisdom afforded him little chance of becoming the 45th president. On the electability scale, he was in the low range.

Twelve years ago at this time, Hillary Clinton was judged to be the most-electable Democrat seeking the nomination. A New York senator, former first lady and part of the then-best brand in Democratic politics, she had the attributes that added up to being most electable.

Barack Obama, then a relatively new U.S. senator, was considered much more a long shot. As he said later, he believed he had about a 25 percent chance of winning the nomination — good enough to make the race but certainly no iron lock for someone whose race alone made him a long shot in the eyes of the conventional wisdom committee.

Four decades ago at this moment, Jimmy Carter was a little-known, one-term governor of Georgia, just starting to make his way around the country, carrying his own bag and sleeping in the homes of friendly Democrats. Who thought he was electable in a field of more than a dozen candidates that included several prominent senators with vastly more experience and recognition within their party?

Who thought, at this point in the 1980 campaign, that then-Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), he of the dynastic family of Democratic politics, would crater in his effort to deny Carter the Democratic nomination? He might have looked electable, but events and his own deficiencies as a candidate did him in.

How many in those early days of the 1980 campaign truly thought Ronald Reagan could win the general election that year? The former governor of California had run for president twice before and lost both times. His views were seen as too conservative to win a general election. But he led a movement that brought him the nomination. In November, he won an electoral landslide and was reelected four years later by a bigger margin.

What these successful candidates had was something other than the aura of electability. They had something that connected with voters more directly, more personally and more deeply. They stirred passions and in some cases anger. They excited. They inspired. They built followings. Obama’s “Hope and Change” and Trump’s “Make America Great Again” were not based on the theme of electability. Quite the opposite. Obama’s pre-campaign book was entitled “The Audacity of Hope” for a reason.

The best candidates tell a story, paint pictures, turn personal biography into something that connects them to the wider electorate. Experience can matter, but it is not enough just to argue personal readiness to serve as president.

Successful candidates match a moment in the history of the country. For Carter, running two years after the resignation of Richard M. Nixon, it was the promise of something fresh, untainted by Washington, a message of integrity, rectitude, even righteousness, after the poison of the Watergate scandal.

Bill Clinton won in 1992 in part because other more prominent Democrats decided not to challenge George H.W. Bush, who was at about 90 percent in the polls in the spring of 1991. Early in the cycle, Clinton was hardly an obvious or likely winner. It was his New Democrat message, combined with the promise of generational change, that overcame his personal vulnerabilities and eventually won over an electorate that was ready to move on after 12 years of Republican presidents.

The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll looked at two sides of the question of what Democrats and Democratic-leaning Americans are looking for in a nominee to challenge Trump in 2020. Do they want someone who agrees with them on issues or do they want someone who can beat Trump? What is their priority?

Liberal Democrats narrowly prefer someone who can defeat Trump. Moderate and conservative Democrats want someone close to them on issues. Young voters want a candidate who agrees with them on issues. Older Democrats want someone who can beat Trump. White Democrats without college degrees want someone close to them on issues. White Democrats with college degrees prefer someone they think can win by a margin of 11 points.

That is one way to evaluate the mood of Democrats. Another question looked at how Democrats think about the best way to mobilize enough voters to win the general election. Specifically, the question asked whether it is more important to find a candidate who can energize the party’s base or win over independent voters. Overall, Democrats and those who lean Democratic were not far apart, though with a slight preference for someone who energizes the base.

However, nonwhite Democrats and leaners were significantly more likely than whites to say they prefer a candidate who energizes the base. That was also the case of women versus men. In the other direction, whites with college degrees tilted more heavily toward a candidate who can win over independent voters.

The attitudes of nonwhite Democrats and Democratic women could reflect the fact that they want a candidate who pays attention to them and feel the nominating process already is unfairly skewing away from them.

Already there are expressions of discontent that the attention being given to a few white, male Democratic candidates is out of proportion, given the qualities that the female candidates and candidates of color bring to the race.

Defeating Trump looms large in the minds of Democratic voters but past elections show that electability is not by any means the quality that elevates a candidate. Voters want something more — and they know it when they see it.

 

That was a great article - a lot of food for thought.  

[AmericanRose]

I have a few thoughts about the 2020 election.

1. First one being that it's waaaaaaaaaaay too early. Also, if I was running for President, I wouldn't announce until the year of the election. Why give them more time to discredit me/dig up dirt? Not to mention, I've never heard of election fatigue, but I think it could be a real thing.

2. Given the nothing being done about Russia, I sincerely doubt it will be a fair election.

3. Democrats need to stop trying to figure out how to 'win' Republicans. Figure out what your party stands for and then stand up. Present well thought out policies. That should make everyone except the diehard Trumplicans happy, and given my knowledge of Trumpers… nothing would make them vote for a "Demonrat". They would take a bullet first (and claim martyrdom).

4. Be open, engaging, and honest. Trump won 'battleground' states because he said things no other politicians would dare to. Yeah, he's a horrifying misogynistic racist asshole who lies (I don't think it's all dementia) and has the vocabulary of a pre-schooler, but he seemed 'human'. Politicians are usually amazingly calm and collected. People were excited by this 'different'. I'm not advocating for yelling and blaming others for problems, of course, but stating real opinions / showing passion wouldn't hurt.

If I had my way, candidates couldn't start campaigning until January 1 of the election year, they would all get equal print/screen time, they would all get a standard website to lay out their vision/plans, and they would all be thoroughly vetted to make sure they, oh I don't know, weren't indebted to another country?
And voting would be compulsory, as in Australia. I'm getting tired of this 'whatevs' attitude. Of course, it is hard to care too much with the electoral college dictating the final result... so that would have to go as well. I never really bought the "but otherwise no one would care about Wyoming!" reasoning. Though I do like Elizabeth Warren's plan to visit all the states. 

[KeshetParparNesicha]

On 5/3/2019 at 10:07 AM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Trump has taken my pragmatism and turned me into a Democrat.  Because that’s the only other electable party.  

Same, as an ex-Republican.

[fraurosena]

15 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

The common ground is we want many of the same things [considered progressive] but have different ideas of how to get there at this point.

This used to be the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Now being an R equals being on the alt-right political spectrum, and then there is everybody else. And the 'everybody else' part of the public will be hard to unify. But even though it will be hard, it is not impossible.

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Buttigieg, husband attend Jimmy Carter’s Sunday school class"

Spoiler

PLAINS, Ga. — Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg and his husband, Chasten, joined the large crowd at former President Jimmy Carter’s Sunday school class in rural South Georgia.

At Carter’s invitation Buttigieg stood and read from the Bible as part of the lesson at Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains.

“You know him?” Carter had said earlier in reference to Buttigieg, drawing a laugh from the crowd.

Carter told the audience that two other Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, had previously attended his classes.

The South Bend, Indiana, mayor later tweeted: “I was humbled to meet with President Carter in Plains, Georgia today. He is a true public servant and America is blessed for his continuing leadership.” The Buttigieg campaign said in a statement that he had lunch with Carter and his wife, Rosalyn, and “enjoyed a conversation about topics ranging from faith to the rigors of the campaign trail.”

Scores of people arrived before dawn for a chance to hear Carter, 94, speak.

Entering when most people already were seated, Buttigieg’s unannounced visit elicited a murmur from the crowd.

“Who’s that?” asked a man seated in the back of the room.

“Mayor Pete, the guy running for president,” a woman answered.

Carter said he knew Buttigieg from working on a Habitat for Humanity project in Indiana where the mayor volunteered.

Many in the class greeted Buttigieg and took photos with him before Carter arrived in the sanctuary and took a seat in the front to teach.

 

[fraurosena]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

A bit scary, but food for thought: "The next Democratic president could face a legitimacy crisis"

Spoiler

Some Democrats have begun to worry that if President Trump loses reelection next year, he might refuse to give up power. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned in an interview published over the weekend that the Democrat will need a landslide victory to keep Trump from refusing to leave office.

Given that Trump himself is feeding this idea — he’s now saying that he had the first two years of his presidency “stolen” from him by the Russia investigation — this is not an unreasonable worry.

But in a sense, Democrats are actually worried about the wrong threat. The real threat is a related one, but it concerns the whole Republican Party, and not just Trump.

It’s that the next Democratic president could face an opposition party that acts as though the president has no legitimacy whatsoever. And I fear that Democrats, with their focus on Trump, are not taking this threat seriously enough.

You see this blind spot among many of the 2020 candidates. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) doesn’t see any need to get rid of the legislative filibuster if he becomes president, in the apparent belief that some Republicans will support his agenda.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden believes that Trump is but a strange historical anomaly we just need to get past, and then the GOP will return to sanity. “This is not the Republican Party,” he told a crowd in Iowa, testifying to the good will of “my Republican friends in the House and Senate.”

Someone might remind Biden that in 2009, when he was vice president, Republicans decided to oppose President Barack Obama on anything and everything he wanted to do. Someone might also remind Biden of that time when Mitch McConnell simply refused to have the Senate even consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, by making up a new “rule” that presidents don’t get to nominate justices in the last year of their terms.

Most importantly, just about every Republican senator supported McConnell’s unprecedented move. They argued that the court could operate just fine with eight judges, so we should just wait for the next election to fill the seat.

If Republicans retain the Senate in 2020, what’s to stop them from saying that they won’t consider any more nominees for the Supreme Court until there’s another Republican in the White House, because the court can do fine with eight or seven or six justices?

If your answer to that question is that Republicans would never go that far, you haven’t been living on this planet for the past decade or two. That’s who they were before Trump was elected.

Trump has merely taken this to new heights, and in so doing, is pushing the overall GOP further along in this direction. For the entirety of his term, he has encouraged the Republican base to hold every institution of American democracy — the press, the courts, the Constitution — in utter and complete contempt. The message over and over again is that the only question is whether institutions are doing what you agree with, and if they aren’t, then they have no legitimate role to play in our system.

Most recently, the White House is acting as though the constitutional powers granted to Congress are meaningless. The law says Congress can demand anyone’s tax returns? Sorry, we refuse. Congressional subpoenas? No, we don’t think we’ll comply. Testimony from administration officials? Go to hell.

But even if Trump does lose reelection, the GOP is likely to continue with this — and make it a lot worse.

Imagine it’s 2021. A Democrat has won the White House, but Republicans control the Senate. The Democrat doesn’t just get no Supreme Court judges, she gets no judges at all; those seats can just stay vacant. Cabinet confirmations? Sorry, we’re not going to let a bunch of socialists govern. As Eric Levitz recently wrote, “do you really think Senate Republicans are going to help President Elizabeth Warren install her preferred leaders atop the Treasury or SEC?”

They will surmise, and not without reason, that there is virtually no limit to the amount of sand they can throw in the gears of government without worrying about political blowback. They don’t care whether government works, so what does it matter to them if anyone is in place to run it? Their attention will immediately focus on getting their own voters out for the 2022 election.

Meanwhile, the defeated Trump will be on Fox News and Twitter every day saying that the election was stolen from him and that the Democrat is not really the president. And the GOP base, having learned well in recent years that no Democrat can ever be legitimate, will stand behind the GOP’s obstruction.

I wish I had a clear and simple plan I could recommend to Democrats to forestall that possibility. But there is really only one way to do it: Win. Deprive Republicans of all levers of power. Because if the GOP has any ability to make governing impossible for the next Democratic president, it will. Count on it.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

I fall a little more in love with her every day.

[VixenToast]

I’m starting to really consider Bernie. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those rabid Bernie or No One! people. 

I think his main obstacle is the fact that news channels that I’ve been relying on for these 2 years seem to dislike him. They always throw him questions to put him on the defensive. But tbh, Bernie won the primaries in ‘16 in Nebraska, I imagine he could again. I’ve met many Trump voters that would have voted for Bernie or at least strongly consider it.

All that has changed with Trump’s rhetoric, I imagine. As well as the flack CNN has thrown him.

idk. But whatever happens, I’ll vote for the democrat. I need to switch back to Dem. I’ve been registered Repub (barf) since the last primaries. Normally I’m registered non-partisan because dammit, I don’t like all the political mail both sides send out. Hahahaha.

[AuntK]

7 hours ago, VixenToast said:

I’m starting to really consider Bernie. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those rabid Bernie or No One! people. 

Bernie has a lot of baggage, including some questionable finances. He didn't release all of his tax returns either and I've read that his wife was involved in some really shaky financial stuff with Bennington College that closed under her watch.  He presents too big a target for the Repugs.

I don't think I can survive another 4 years of Trump. I check the news daily, hoping his lifestyle has caught up with him.

[milkteeth]

On 5/4/2019 at 12:58 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Personally I think if stopping Trump isn't enough to fire up the base to show up then nothing will.

To the bolded (mine) above I think the days where Republicans were swayable by a centrist candidate are long gone.  The modern GOP is unrecognizable to old school Republicans.

IMO we need to write off republican votes as being 100% Trumps column come 2020.

But there are many left leaning moderates that need to be won over.  Despite where the new energy is in the party per sound bytes and coverage much of that blue wave were more centrist Democrats.  There is a wide gap between factions of Democrats both amongst the elected and the electorate.  The common ground is we want many of the same things considered progressive but have different ideas of how to get there at this point.

  

 

I personally wish this was the case as well, but unfortunately we have learned both in 2004 and in 2016 that we can't depend on hatred of the opposition being what gets people to the polls. We make it extremely difficult to vote in this country, unless you are a wealthy white retiree in which case the red carpet is rolled out. Most people don't pay a lot of attention to politics. They're too busy trying to keep their heads above water as the rich get richer, and life gets harder for everyone else.

Just saying "Vote for me - I'm not that guy!" and expecting that to motivate the base (and non-voters as well) isn't going to work. We need to give people something to vote for. We need to show people why they should care and pay attention to what is happening, and fight for their voice to be heard. 

 

 

 

[VixenToast]

19 hours ago, AuntK said:

Bernie has a lot of baggage, including some questionable finances. He didn't release all of his tax returns either and I've read that his wife was involved in some really shaky financial stuff with Bennington College that closed under her watch.  He presents too big a target for the Repugs.

I don't think I can survive another 4 years of Trump. I check the news daily, hoping his lifestyle has caught up with him.

I’ll certainly look more into him. I love his talking points, but I see them as that, talking points.

I’ve gone to see Beto speak. He seems pretty awesome too. Not perfect. None of them are perfect. I like Pete too. I really haven’t looked much into warren, but she has my everlasting love and respect for being the She in Nevertheless, She Persisted. 

2020 is too far away and yet still too close for comfort. Yikes. 

ABSOLUTELY RANDOM “FACT”

Should He-Who-Should-Not-Be-Orange be elected again, perhaps Rufus would grace us with another one getting knocked off by The Curse Of Tippecanoe (Or The Curse of Tecumseh) What is this nonsense, Vixey? I shall explain. Apparently since Benjamin Harrison (who was supposedly cursed by a Native American chief) all presidents who are elected in years ending in 0 die during their tenure. Harrison elected in 1840. Lincoln in 1860. Garfield in 1880. McKinley in 1900. Harding in 1920. FDR, reelected during 1940. Kennedy in 1960. Reagan, elected in 1980, survived an assassination attempt. Dubya Bush, elected in 2000, also was subject to an assassination attempt overseas. The grenade was a dud.  Also, Zachary Taylor was not elected in a year ending in 0, but he did die in office in 1850. 

I don’t think this “curse” is real, but it sure was entertaining.

anyway, here’s to hoping NO ONE dies by assassination (I don’t wish that on anyone), and may the best running mate win!  

Also does anyone know if just Bill Weld has announced running against Trump during the primaries? Imagine the Orange One’s impotent rage at being a lame duck. Hehehehehehe

[GreyhoundFan]

A good op-ed: "Only one 2020 Democrat fully grasps the threat Trump poses"

Spoiler

Is President Trump an aberration whose defeat in 2020 would allow the nation to begin rebounding toward normalcy? Or does his ascendance reflect long-running national pathologies and deeply ingrained structural economic and political problems that will intractably endure long after he’s gone?

The answer to this question — which has been thrust to the forefront by the Democratic presidential primaries — is, in a sense, both. Trump represents both a continuation of and a dramatic exacerbation of those long running pathologies and problems.

As of now, Elizabeth Warren appears to be the Democratic candidate who most fully grasps the need to take both of those aspects of the Trump threat seriously. The Massachusetts senator is, I think, offering what amounts to the most fully rounded and multidimensional response to that threat.

In recent days, Warren has addressed the deeper issues raised by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report — and the reaction to it from Trump and Republicans — in by far the most comprehensive way.

Warren takes on the GOP

In an important moment on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Warren took strong issue with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s profoundly cynical effort to treat this all as a closed matter. “Case closed,” McConnell said, speaking not just about Mueller’s extensive findings of likely criminal obstruction of justice by Trump but also about Trump’s eagerness to reap gain from Russia’s sabotage of our elections, which McConnell blamed on Barack Obama.

In response, Warren again called for an impeachment inquiry, but she did more than that: She indicted the Republican Party as a whole for shrugging off Trump’s epic misconduct and wrongdoing.

Warren has also pointed out more forcefully than any rival has that Trump tried to derail an investigation not just into his own campaign’s conduct, but also into the Russian attack on our democracy — which Trump has refused to acknowledge happened at all, hamstringing preparations for the next attack.

As McConnell’s speech showed, the GOP is all in with that as well. And the GOP appears all in with Trump’s escalating efforts to treat House oversight of the administration as fundamentally illegitimate.

We are now learning that the Justice Department asked Trump to exert executive privilege to keep Mueller’s full findings concealed.

Meanwhile, Trump may try to block former White House counsel Donald McGahn, who witnessed multiple Trump efforts to obstruct justice, and possibly even Mueller from testifying to Congress. The administration won’t release Trump’s tax returns, violating the law. And Trump has vowed to resist “all” subpoenas.

Legal experts tell Adam Liptak at the New York Times that such wholesale resistance to oversight threatens the constitutional order, placing Trump, as one puts it, “above the law.” Few, if any, Republicans are raising an eyebrow about any of this.

Thus, Warren’s call for an impeachment inquiry is linked to a big argument — one broader than that of any other candidate — about how the GOP has actively enabled Trump’s authoritarianism, lawlessness, shredding of governing norms and embrace of the corruption of our political system on his behalf.

Warren is comprehensively treating Trump both as a severe threat to the rule of law in his own right, and as inextricably linked to a deeper pathology — the GOP’s drift into comfort with authoritarianism.

Trump’s authoritarianism and his corruption are two sides of the same coin. Trump’s tax returns, which he rebuffed a House request for — and which his government participated in, with dubious legality — may conceal untold levels of corruption, from possible emoluments-clause violations to financial conflicts to compromising foreign financial entanglements.

Warren has responded to all this — and the GOP’s near-total comfort with it — by rolling out a sweeping anti-corruption measure that requires presidential candidates to release tax returns and requires divestment to avoid such corrupting situations in the future.

Thus, Warren is treating this two-sided coin of authoritarianism and corruption as a systemic problem in need of reform, one linked to the broader imperative of actually “draining the swamp,” as Trump vowed, only to plunge into full-scale corruption himself.

Which brings us to the plutocracy.

Plutocracy and populism

It’s strange that pundits take it on faith that Joe Biden would best win back blue-collar whites who overwhelmingly backed Trump in 2016. We’re constantly told Trump won them by campaigning against an economy “rigged” by plutocrats, getting left of Hillary Clinton, who hailed from the corporate wing of the Democratic Party and thus was vulnerable against Trump’s (fraudulent) populist attacks.

But Biden hails from the same precincts. Indeed, as Jamelle Bouie points out, Biden is implicated in many great elite failures that supposedly fueled Trump’s rise, including bipartisan neoliberal laxity toward Wall Street and the Iraq War.

By contrast, Warren has offered the most detailed populist prescriptions in response to the “rigged” economy of any candidate, including policies to tax extreme wealth and reconfigure corporate power.

If Warren proves unable to appeal to blue-collar whites, we’ll perhaps have to revise our story of 2016. But here again, Warren is the one with the biggest actual argument.

Trump exploited populist discontent and then embarked on a near-total betrayal via an embrace of GOP plutocracy, in the form of a massive corporate tax giveaway and a deregulation spree that further enabled elite corruption. These things, too, show Trump as both continuation and exacerbation — and Warren has offered the most systematic and comprehensive response to all of that, as well.

None of this is to say the other candidates don’t have great policies and virtues. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has in some ways offered a bigger response to inequality. Biden has said good things on Trump’s racism and on impeachment. Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) has taken on Trump’s lawlessness.

But only Warren has done all of these things, and only Warren has woven them all into a big story — one that treats Trump as both a unique threat and a symptom of so much of what’s gone so horribly wrong.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

She’s growing on me more and more with everything I read about her.