There is no lack of cowardice in Washington, DC; there's plenty to go around, Democrats and Republicans.
The worst people in the world.
Recall what the Senate of Rome did to a man who thought he should be king.
I assumed that black enthusiasm for Biden was because of his relationship with Obama, yet I still cannot see what Obama did, in particular, for black people. Obama was always just about Obama and still is. He gave away the store to Wall Street and now spends his time cavorting with billionaires - and that's what we want to return to?
2
Mr Blow's last two paragraphs summarize Joe Biden precisely.
2
Blow is scolding voters. That we shouldn't 'eschew' ---what a high falutin word-- our talented Dem field out of spinelessness?
Who is eschewing them? Who is he calling spineless?
So what are your ideas, Charles? Which ones do you admire and why? Give us a clue. Don't eschew.
We don't need condescending lectures from columnists, who themselves don't grapple with our crucial issues, and the candidates' policies likely to help resolve them.
Which candidates reflect your ideas, Charles?
We know polls change. Why do you say you take polls "with a grain of salt"..... BUT then say -- " It’s not that I don’t believe the polls. To the contrary, I very much do."
Very much? Which is it?
But what if the "field full of amazing talent, visionary ideas, and refreshing talent" is ALSO "spineless" in rejecting the undeniable antisemitism of the Democratic Left?
2
As far as I can tell, not one of the Democrat contenders has spoke out for the protesters in Hong Kong .
Although Biden did say "They [the Chinese Communists] are not bad folks,"
1
Mr. Blow, you are an amazing talent. I wish you had this same feeling when Bernie Sanders was getting abused by the DNC 3 years ago...maybe we could have avoided the mess we are in now.
2
Some salient reminders here. Thank you Charles Blow!
For me, the choice to support and vote for Elizabeth Warren is one of the easiest in a lifetime of never missing a state or federal election (and very few local elections).
I like, respect and admire Warren as a person, professional, teacher, researcher, analyst and moral leader. I trust Elizabeth Warren's integrity, knowledge, intelligence, judgment and basic decency far more than my own or almost any other currently active politician of any party, foreign or domestic.*
Although closest to me in age and generational experiences, Biden and Sanders are anachronisms, long past their use by dates. Neither excites nor invigorates me and neither will appeal to younger voters or most women.
While practicing law I met many prosecutors but only one I respected and fully trusted as a person and a professional. So, I have a lifetime of professional experience warning me not to trust either Harris or Klobuchar.
Buttigieg is a cypher who has drawn more triangles than detailed policies; O'Rourke is a contrail disappearing over the horizon.
There are too many more mediocre candidates to review in detail.
I am for Warren and hope that enough other voters share my values and perceptions.
----------
* Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand may be Warren's equal and perhaps even a touch savvier. Camila Vallejo Dowling remains a star in Chile but she is a committed Communist, so the C.I.A. probably will assassinate her if she ever gets near government power.)
3
I believe this is Charles’s artful way of saying “no” to Joe. I can see why. Joe can invoke Obama’s name all he wants but he’s not Obama. He’s like the handyman at your condo who’s unplugged a toilet or two, but the Dems need somebody who can walk on water.
1
Let's face it: it is easier to have an R next to your name in this country than it is to have a D. Unfortunately, that R now means Russia
"Democrats have a field full of amazing talent, visionary ideas, and refreshing new characters. "
No, the Democratic field is not full of talent or visionaries.
The field is full of lame political hacks who have zero relevant skills. And as many VCs have said, Ideas are cheap, execution is everything.
What are any individual candidates talented at? Law, legal analysis? Fundraising? Social media skills? Are these the relevant skills to running one of the if not the most complex organizations in the world?
Corporate shareholders do not approve top CEOs pay packages because of their Instagram followers or because they enjoy handing out free money.
The ability to lead and manage a massive bureaucracy while simultaneously keeping world order under control is completely unrelated to the skill sets major Democrats and most(all) recent presidents have had.
This is to a large degree why the country is in such poor condition. The political system does not promote relevant leadership talent.
Not a single 2020 candidate would ever be considered to run a large multinational corporation, which is probably the most similar job to the presidency.
This charade we have built around the importance of "enthusiasm", and "talking point ideas" is ridiculous. Most politicized problems have straight forward solutions that would be taken if the government was run like apolitically.
Please stop drinking the political team cool aid or our democracy really will be on its last legs.
2
As I think this through in my sleep and waking state, it becomes more apparent that only a progressive transcendental candidate can trounce Trump. And old-timers like Biden would fail to dethrone him. I hope Joe stands aside graciously in the end and doesn't become a spoiler like Bernie was.
Look at Times Pick "FunkyIrishman", a fellow mick. This guy has the proper view. The progressives will easily carry the day if we can get someone out front who moves them
Still and all, as it shapes up we are probably looking at Warren, Buttigeg, or Harris; all up against Joe who I am sorry to say looks older, weaker, and clearly more uncertain than Trump who is certain about everything.
The key will be in how the defeated candidates accept their loses and express support for the nominee. In the interim a code of candidate conduct should include no punches below the belt, back-biting, slander or jabbing in the eye. Clean breaks and good sportsmanship all around will not go unnoticed.
The focus must be a concerted effort to Save America and the world from facsism and entropy with the overarching goal of adjusting to climate change under the foregone conclusion that nothing we can do will change what has already begun and is out of control.
Speaking of "baggage" Sanders is overloaded and young Buttigieg has a footlocker that won't pass our cultural prejudice gate, I'm sorry to say. I hope he runs again after we have healed more and given up our hate Post-Trump.
May the winner win.
Charles - Take a deep breath, Then follow these three steps. First, Define the goal: 1) Take back the White House and as many seats in House and Senate as is possible. Next, maximize the odds of achieving the goal: 2) Picking the candidates most likely to win. (These are called "safe.") Third, Improve the position: 3) by supporting your "favorite" candidates AFTER having moved into a position to ensure voting rights, the rule of law, election security, basic sane economic policies, etc.
We need a long hot shower to remove the poisonous stench of Trump/McConnell/McCarthy and their ilk.
For that, right now, we need safe.
Those 20 something candidates will all destroy each other before it is over which will just give trump the fodder he needs. He won't even need to be his nasty self, although he will.
THE most important thing is to select someone who can beat trump and that looks to me like Biden.
Women, no way, country isn't ready for a woman.
African American again the people that voted in the last election voted against Obama and his policies
And a youthful person with no experience, no way. Even though trump had no political experience he had show biz experience and that was all it took for the right wing.
"Who dares, wins." Just ask DJT.
The real problem over the past 10 years has been that Democrats have become more conservative than the Republicans. Nancy Pelosi is a prime example....
I'm "spineless" because my first priority is getting a madman (Trump) out of the Presidency?
Thanks for the compliment. That attitude will change a lot of Democratic voters into Trump supporters.
Dear Charles and Progressives - Democrats do NOT elect Presidents anymore than Republicans do. 30% of voters are Democrats and 25% are Republicans. While the two parties control the process, they do not speak for the 45% independents. Regardless of what abominations around laws, money, party machines, and gerrymandering you parties faithful have imposed on the independent thinking Americans, our vote will not only count but will make the decision on who the next President is. Party faithful may elect nominees, they dont elect Presidents.
2
Republican politics and politicians do not pass the American smell test.
With 2020 vision Democrats will be fully capable of
awakening The Great American Reformation.
1
Why does disagreement with CB equate to spinelessness? I don't recall Charles going to the barricades.
Too many pundits are telling me how I should think.
"Who dares, wins." Just ask DJT.
The real problem over the past 10 years has been that Democrats have become more conservative than the Republicans. Nancy Pelosi is a prime example....
I agree with Charles Blow that Democrats shouldn't necessarily pick the candidate who has the biggest lead in this or that national poll now, 17 months before election day in November 2020. We should use the drawn out process of watching the candidates campaign to decide who's policies and characters would be the best fit for the country's president in the next four years. After all, we will need a candidate with strong personal appeal and inspiring policies to draw out the largest possible percentage of the Democratic base to vote.
I have a personal word for Charles Blow. I saw you on "Real Time with Bill Maher" on Friday June 7. I thought the short hair and beard were a very good look for you. You should consider updating the picture published with your column.
When you brought up Ben Carson, I couldn’t help but think of Rick Santorum who won Iowa in 2012 only to be immediately and completely forgotten about.
1
First, if the NYT puts up a collage of 24 politicians, there needs to be a name with the picture.
Joking aside, Charles has proffered a serious ethical question.
"It is all about being the right candidate for right now. What you have or have not done is less important than how your sensibilities align with the cycle."
Do I vote for Mr. Right or Mr. Right Now? This might be an example of Jed(?) Bush's claim, "We win by losing." Suppose the most idealistic candidate is the "first loser" and Joe is the nominee. Joe runs and loses. That is not hard to envision. He might do as well as Hillary, but...
Mr. Right, might just be 6 years away . Be patient, Grasshopper.
1
If my house has a rat infestation, I don’t ask for the name of the exterminator. Just do the job and clean house!
I see too much talk about winning back Trump voters. While some may be winnable, having voted for the Orange One in a fit of pique and now suffering from buyer's remorse, many are caught up in a cult of Trump worship and believe a lot of counter-factual notions: that Trump has raised America's prestige in the world, that Trump will bring back the coal industry, that Trump is God's choice for America, that white male Christians (by which they mean only Evangelicals) are a persecuted minority, that immigrants bring only crime and disease, and that illegal immigrants come here to live high on the hog on "welfare" (or that anyone on welfare is living high on the hog).
No, the real prize is the non-voters, who are 50% of the eligible population. The conventional wisdom is that non-voters are just stupid, but if you actually talk to them, you find that they are disillusioned. They have experienced no improvements and even a steady deterioration in their circumstances over the years, no matter which party is in charge.
The Democrats need to dispense with the vague platitudes ("better together") and come up with a series of specific, practical proposals that all candidates at all levels, from president to city council, tout at every opportunity. They need to get out of the way of new candidates who challenge stodgy old Republican Lite types and stop acting as if their main interest is in preserving the power of the old guard, not in serving the nation.
1
Warren for Prez. Mayor Pete for Veep. Go team!
2
Apparently Mr. Blow went Rip Van Winkle for the 2016 election. Donald Trump was given constant media attention. Most of it negative but always front and center. Clinton was showered in praise wherever possible. Not always possible. Sanders was largely ignored. The biggest insult the media can offer.
This column doesn't align with how candidates are actually treated and presented. Admittedly, the abuse and manipulation was so overwhelming last election companies are mostly playing things cautious now. However, I don't believe for a second the editors at the New York Times are truly impartial. They are simply trying harder to appear impartial. At the very least, more equitable.
That's a good faith effort but it doesn't change how the race is characterized. Establishment Democrats are pushing Joe Biden really, really hard. The news media is in many ways forced to parrot the narrative. That's the opposite of responding to the electorate. That's another "My Turn" moment.
What should have happened in the wake of the 2016 disaster was a proper overhaul of the Democratic primary process. We could start with universal election day party registration or end closed primaries entirely. We should then talk about super delegates and primary scheduling. Move on from there.
The truly insurgent candidate has to win despite the electorate's mood. The rules of the game favor some more than others. Generally meaning a small group of influence who thinks they know better than everyone else.
1
Being of draft age during Vietnam (the last draft call was just before I was eligible) you had better be politically active, back then your life literally depended on it. I watched Biden over the years and the man has always disgusted me for good reason. I’d vote for him if he was the nominee but please, not joe.
I’m also not a fan of Obama, who wasted his first two years when he could have done something. The only thing we got from Obama was a black man in office and a huge racist backlash.
It’s My Turn Hillary would have been another republican lite and honestly, she blew it. Hillary blew it big time.
We need new blood in the Democratic Party, not someone that gave us Clarence Thomas.
1
Democrats Must Be Daring
Heh-heh.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Ms. Pelosi showed herself for the dithering, fraidy-cat politician she is. Then she rigged the primaries to keep out new blood exhibiting dangerous signs of boldness.
We're pretty much lost.
2
Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are spineless wimps. Our democratic republic is in its deaththroes and there are no doctors in the Congress. Trump is a clear and present danger to our national security and our system of government. If impeachment proceedings are not started now, it won't matter one whit who Democrats put forth against Trump. We will see Mueller Report 2.O and Trump will refuse to leave office if he wins.
We need a new party of the people. Both of these parties care only about their own power and jobs.
It is appalling.
1
Again democrats playing defense, rather than offense! Aggressive, aggressive offense. That's howTrump won the Republican primary. He's boldly offensive. That's how he narrowly won the presidency. It's why the russian's banked on him. He's offensive, he doesn't play by the rules. He's vicious and comes out, selfishly surviving and on top. What Democrat has learned from that? We need early Kennedy vitality. Conviction with ruthless charge.
2
Mr Blow holds out excessive demands of a President, which explains the near-delirium of holding "what we believe" as dependent on one's election. It's all reminiscent of intolerant demands for impeachment, denying its discretion in favor of a compulsion to waste it in failure. Electing a President depends, rather, on what an electoral college majority can believe will be respected, if not slavishly served as some burnt offering to a single appetite. If you want to elect Donald Trump again, let ecstasy be your standard.
Do I need to have a choice yet? When your country is more interested in teevee voting than real voting for their leaders...does it even matter?
". . . an impeached Trump will be acquitted in the Senate. And acquitted on the eve of the 2020 Election, handing him another bogus badge of 'exoneration.' Or how about this for a nightmare scenario: Mitch McConnell will so successfully gum up and otherwise manipulate an impeachment trial in the Senate that it will still be going on, sucking up oxygen from the Democratic ticket (and Democratic congressional candidates) and churning up Trump’s base, when Americans go to the polls. I am still with Pelosi on this: Let all the Trump investigations roll forward, including those in non-congressional venues like the Southern District of New York. Keep digging for new evidence. Know that there are non-impeachment remedies under the law, including those that might satisfy Pelosi’s wish of seeing Trump ''in prison,' that will come into play the moment Trump no longer enjoys the Oval Office immunity that Mueller invoked in punting on the obstruction charges in his report." - Thank you, Frank Rich
Have ANY of the Democrat contenders provided a policy position on the Hong Kong protests?
2
I like you, Charles, but my how far you have come.
You, who were one of Hillary's strongest and most vociferous supporters in 2016, and who savaged Bernie supporters over and over again during that fateful year.
If there ever was a more boring, center-right 'thank you! may I have another!' establishment candidate, whose entire campaign came down to "I'm with Her" [Instead of maybe, 'She's for us'?]. Why For her? Because she is not that awful awful man. The children are listening! Remember that ad? She meant Trump.
Perhaps Charles has learned his lesson. Once again we are being asked to vote for an even more center-right Dem JUST BECAUSE he can beat that awful, awful man.
Charles has maybe woken up to the fact that there are many of us Dems who would not vote for Biden if he was running against the Benito Mussolini-Francisco Franco ticket.
I predicted that Trump would win when I heard all my Pennsylvania life long Dem and Union member family switched parties so they could vote for Trump in the primary in 2016.
Here's another prediction. Biden is not the 'most viable candidate' against Trump. He's the LEAST viable.
People voted for Trump because they were sick and tired of 'Center Right' Demo-Republicanism.
People want change. Big change. Trump promised that. Yes, it was all lies in his case. But that didn't alter the underlying dynamic. On the contrary, under Trump, people's situations have gotten even more dire.
Wake up, Democrats! Say No to yesterday!
1
I would love to be a one issue voter like the Republican's. However if I choose climate change over rRump then working for the Earth will never happen with them in charge, so yes this time I will go with moderation....still don't like it, but Planet Earth deserves a fair shot after all this is our home.
Chiefly, everyone must vote!
Whomever you choose, vote!
Staying on the sidelines because your favorite didn't make it to the ballot is absolutely irresponsible and could cause this country to completely implode!
I pray that the majority of voters and the controversial Electoral College will speak volumes in 2020 and, most of all, I fervently hope we can overcome the outside, rogue forces that got us the most corrupt administration in the history of the western world!
You write, Mr. Blow, that "It is all about being the right candidate for right now." What really seems to get an impressive block of voters to the polls is the non-stop FOX media juggernaut: radio, TV, streaming. As long as a talking head and name has an "R" next to it, it will receive voter-motivating 24/7 PR from this propaganda source. Meanwhile, I have seen it time and again that the one with a "D" next to the name is scrutinized and parsed and we Democrat voters will succeed in throwing out the good in search of the perfect candidate. I listen to radio and keep hearing the word "shrill" used to describe: guess who?
Democratic voters aren't choosing a "safe" candidate. There are no safe Democratic candidates. And there is no such thing as "pre-Trump normality." Donald Trump should have run for president in 2000. He would have beaten George W. Bush for the Republican nomination and then trounced Al Gore to become president. The Florida recount "hanging chad" thing never would have happened. It's possible 9/11 might not have happened. If it did, the Iraq War wouldn't have. ISIS wouldn't exist. North Korea probably wouldn't have nukes. The Great Recession wouldn't have happened. We wouldn't have the immigration crisis we have. Obama was a terrible president. 8 years and there's hardly anything to show for it. He went to Five Guys for a cheeseburger. He had Earth, Wind and Fire at the White House. He went to see Star Wars. And he gave Robert De Nero and Ellen DeGeneres medals for being popular. He turned the presidency into a joke. Trump is going to win very easily next year, because he's far better than any of the Democrats who are running against him.
1
Columnists Freidman and Krugman have had excellent columns on issues that Trump is vulnerable on. On climate change to health care to plain old fashioned human decency. Not to mention Trump's increasing aggressive posturing against Iran. Its funny the GOP wins the electoral college while losing the popular vote in 2000 and 2016 and the country reaps the whirlwind.
so easy to agree with Blow's premise, and yet - President Trump is so manifestly awful that just getting rid of him as top priority overwhelms all other considerations this early on. in this sense, Biden is right to call Trump an existential threat to America. but none of us has an accurate crystal ball and much could change before election day, including the several ways in which Trump might not be in the running: death, incapacity, impeachment and conviction, Articles 25 removal, further revelations leading to withdrawl, even a failed suicide attempt.
"I say that Democrats have to ask themselves who they really are and what they truly believe. Do they truly believe in diversity, body autonomy, equity and egalitarianism? Do they truly want to reshape American society — its economy, its political system, its racial and wealth caste systems, its approach to world issues like trade and climate change?"
The answer to these questions is, absolutely yes.
The problem is that there is no unity in the party behind these issues as a whole. Each is it's own individual issue --- diversity, body autonomy, equity, egalitarianism, the economy, race and caste, trade, climate change --- and each issue has its own constituency and its own hero. The "Bernie or nobody" syndrome that infected the 2016 election is still present in the Democratic body politic, and that is a far greater threat than the inability to vote with courage. In fact, the call out for people to vote their convictions and not be "spineless" is to encourage that very fracturing that handed Trump the presidency.
Nothing is more important than defeating Trump. And in this effort nothing is more important than unity in the Democratic party. The "right" candidate and the "right" way to vote is in support of the one who brings this unity. That candidate has yet to emerge, but when he/she does, we absolutely must line up behind him/her. Or prepare for another 4 years of Trump.
Massive voter turnout in the right places will be required to defeat voter suppression shenanigans. Only a candidate who stirs enthusiasm among key constituencies like African American women, young people , and suburban educated voters will be able to generate this kind of turnout. Follow your heart.
1
I agree that if Biden is the nominee, Democrats may lose again. He will not excite anyone and turnout among the young and minorities may be low. Democrats should not be timid.
2
For decades caution has killed the Dems efforts.
Let's just look at '92 forward.
Clinton was the insurgent not the in-house Dem; Win/win.
Gore was the Dem house candidate; lose.
Kerry was the electable in-house Dem; lose.
Obama was the insurgent revolutionary; Win/win
Hillary was the 'She can beat Trump' pick; She didn't.
The Democrats are in many cases fatally attracted to the conventional group wisdom when it comes to elections and who runs.
Let's hope this mistake is avoided this time around.
It's obvious that caution will not stop or defeat Trump.
2
As has been said before 'discretion is the better part of valor.' What Mr. Blow calls daring, some may call foolhardy. And the last thing the Democrats should do is to take advice from a media opinion writer. Secretary Clinton did just that by tossing and twirling in response to everyone she thought was influential. They did have influence over her and not over the voters. It's good that VP Biden refuses to apologize or play cute. Not that he's the ideal nominee, but he sets the approach that the ideal Democratic candidate should take. Simply state what they'd think is their best idea of a president and focus on the overall well-being of the American people.
1
Voters want change. Obama and Trump offered something new and they won against McCain and Clinton who could be considered establishment candidates.
Democrats who are trying to go safe are making the same mistake they made in 2016 by lining up early behind Clinton. Mr. Obama even had a shared interview with Ms. Clinton when she left the administration in 2013, which was an indirect endorsement of Ms. Clinton soon to be candidacy.
The Republicans elite tried the same technique by throwing their support behind candidates like Rubio, Jebb Bush, who all ended up losing against Trump.
If voters are willing to vote for someone like Trump just because he promised something different, it says a lot about what voters want.
Biden might win against Trump since trump is so despised that most people just want him gone.
But is Biden the right person for the job? NO Hr is not.
Biden has been in Washington before I was born. He is part of the political class that brought us where we are today. Yet he thinks he can solve issues that he couldn't solve during his almost 50 years in Washington.
Democrats, at least those who control the party, still live in the past, a time when the news was dominated by television and newspapers. A time when connections to a network of wealthy donors and opinion makers were all it took to run for high office.
1
"Democrats" will not be daring, but Democratic PROGRESSIVES will be daring. You can bank on that, IF you voters sweep out the government, from the bottom up. That will be the only way to return our government to the people. (To repeat: A progressive will NOT take money from big donors or corporations. They will serve only their constituents.)
The correct choice for a candidate is a two part question.
First, can he or she win; and
Second, do they have the longest coat tails in contested seats throughout the country.
1
The content of their characters remains the undisputed signpost for our candidates.
Biden’s character shows in his legacy.
Sanders’s character shows in his activism.
Warren’s character shows in her policy proposals.
Mayor Pete’s character shows in his service and his focused integrity.
More will be revealed about each of them and the others as they grow into the candidate role, but I think it’s safe to say that Trump will not want to fight on the battlefield of character.
I think it’s also safe to say that HRC kind of forgot this truism at the end of her campaign in 2016 and lost a lot of voters in important “values” states.
1
My heart is with Warren. She is smart, tough, savvy and a great campaigner. Why does nobody comment on how good she looks? If Clinton had been as physically vibrant as Warren, not even a badly run campaign in the Midwest could have beat her. I like Sanders too and between them, policy wise, they have it all. Neither is afraid of the current President, not a small thing. Let them negotiate and run for both the top jobs, as a team, with a list of positions the American public can’t say no to. Extreme times and so on....
Mayor Pete doesn’t do much for me. That’s all I can say.
Democrats running to be the presidential nominee to take Trump on are daring. Most of the 2 dozen candidates have zero chance and have no traction so far but are still daring against all odds. We should salute them no matter what. My favorite candidate is a young dynamic woman who is the only democratic candidate out of this ambitious bunch who seen costly useless regime change wars first hand because she served in the uniform. This candidate Tulsi Gabbard, congresswoman from Hawaii who is a profile in courage had the guts to resign as the vice chairperson of the democratic national committee (DNC) when she sensed that Bernie Sanders was being knifed by her own party as was thankully revealed by wikileaks. Tulsi is as physically fit as a fiddle and she will never ever take the USA into a useless regime change war. Tulsi will always put the nation above party and self. I am registered independent and in my state that prevents me from participating in the Democratic primary and so I can only hope that the registered Democrats see the light and the experience of war that she will bring to the presidency. It pains me that Tulsi is lost in the crowd that includes a couple of heavy hitters, a candidate favored by the establishment DNC just as in 2016 and has not got any traction so far. Thanks to Fox news some of the Democratic presidential candidates including Tulsi have got attention and a chance to shine and express their views. Contrary to the untrue myth about Fox news.
1
I don't see how a candidate can be successful without being inspirational. It is obvious to everyone that the Repubs represent the wealthy, and the Dems the people, but somehow the Repubs win their share of elections. Of course, in the elections for lower level offices, the voters know almost nothing about the candidates, but in presidential elections the words of the candidates are placed before us, like our breakfast, every day. Some inspire us, while most win eye rolls. Demagogues or not, guess who tend to win elections.
Thank you, Charles. You always articulate my thoughts. The last person the Democrats need is Joe Biden and I am truly sorry that he jumped into the race.
But the chances are good that he will be the nominee because the answer to your question about who the Democrats are, what they want, and what they believe is sadly similar to who the Republicans are, what they want and what they believe: greedy, self-aggrandizing, corporate-bought politicians who are concerned primarily with re-election and enriching themselves at our expense.
If the Democrats do not make a huge leap to the left, it's four more years of increasing authoritarianism and a 2024 election--if there is one at all--that is even more of a sham than 2016 was and that 2020 is shaping up to be.
1
"Do they (Democrats) truly want to reshape American society — its economy, its political system, its racial and wealth caste systems, its approach to world issues like trade and climate change?"
If you're talking about rank and file voters who tend to vote Democrat, the answer is yes. However, as 2016 demonstrated, if you're talking about the party hierarchy, I'm afraid the answer is probably no, because they too are beneficiaries of the status quo. And that is the central problem confronting Democratic voters. Hopefully the lessons of 2016 will have taken root, and the nominee will represent real change. Hopefully the nominee will be Elizabeth Warren.
2
If Trump loses the elections it will not be because of his abhorrent character. His base didn't care then and won't care now. He will lose because his actions and policies have hurt the ordinary American, and his base hard.
The Democrats don't need to choose someone safe. Americans don't need Mr. Biden to explain the world was better before Trump. While he is a formidable candidate and definitely up for the job he also represents stagnation.
Ms Warren is by far the strongest candidate when it comes to ideas and plans. She's smart, is determined to help the 99% instead of the 1% and she has the experience to pull it off.
People who feel the swing states won't elect a woman, or claim she is too progressive. That's just fear talking.
I'd like to see her take on Trump. He won't get past the Pocahontas insults, while she will explain to the American people how Trump's actions have hurt them. And how that can be fixed with good plans. He will never see it coming.
4
Passion is important but we're way past the point where passion should dictate who wins the next election. The problems we face make anything from the past seem pretty manageable.
We have a president who is doing everything he can to insure that we're unprepared for the global disasters that climate change will bring to our children. He's also tolerated the proven attempts of our most dangerous adversary to undermine our security. And, if this wasn't enough, he's created an executive branch that seems determined to whittle away at the strongest tool we have for protecting us, our own government.
So what's keeping the Democrats from taking this situation on full throttle? Maybe it's the fact that it's decades in the making and something they must share some fault for. They do this at their own peril for the people who brought us Trump certainly realize this and they're going to be less satisfied with the political mumbo jumbo of yesteryear than they are of a tyrant who at least promises some kind of change.
What Democrats seem to forget is that a Black man from nowhere became president largely because he promised change. If the Democrats could only speak clearly about what kind of change they would like to implement and how critical it is, maybe the electorate would listen. And then maybe we'd have passion in the election.
Until then, their words are just so much noise that I've heard before.
3
Democrats need a long primary with no clear winner. That way, the GOP will not have time to come up with a Big Lie (such as Gore is a liar) because they will be too busy trying to shoot down the candidates they fear most (Biden) and prop up the candidates they fear least (everyone else). Biden should be viewed as a valuable member of the Democratic Primary. Russia and Trump will focus all their energy on him allowing the other candidates a chance to define themselves.
Run, Biden, run!
1
In politics, the safe choice is rarely the correct choice.
I'm voting for Pete Buttigieg.
1
@Dave T. But afterwards? When he drops out of the primaries?
Agree! ... but you need more grains of salt than one. Shall I send you some? ;-)
Personally, I'm delighted that I really am excited by, or greatly respect, so many of the candidates.
Yesterday, I heard an interview with Andrew Yang, also impressive and inspiring.
There's another persistent myth in national election besides people assuming they know who the most electable candidate happens to be and that is that the presidential election can be accurately polled by national polls. There may be some truth to that but it ignores the fact that the presidential election is actually 50 winner take all state elections. There are only about 16 states where the outcome is really in doubt. The rest are so reliably Democratic or Republican (by 10 percentage points or more) that the outcome in those states is pretty much a foregone conclusion, except in rare landslide elections.
So, it ends up that those voters in the 16 or so swing states are really the determiners of the next president. We know that how many votes the Republican candidate in California gets is of no importance, the Democratic candidate will win that state, same as the Republican candidate will win in Alabama.
In effect, the voters in the persistently Democratic or Republican states who vote contrary to the assumed winner simply don't have any real impact on choosing the winner.
As such, it shows that only a national popular vote really allows each voter in each state to affect the outcome of the election.
Until then, the polls in the swing states are a much more reliable indicator of who will win the election. The voters in the other states are reduced to resign themselves to a foregone result simply because their state consistently votes for one party.
1
Biden has name recognition, but so did Clinton. Like her, he seems tired and his time has passed. We need someone, anyone, who's younger and more dynamic, someone who can energize voters across the spectrum. The debates will likely showcase that person, and it won't be Biden.
6
I notice this choice being set up by numerous columns- either the safe electable Biden or the more ambitious progressive candidate.
This is a false choice. Biden enjoys his popularity due to his association with the Obama administration and just his name recognition. People have seen him around a lot.
But that doesn't mean he is the most electable against Trump. It may well turn out that as the primaries unfold the most fervent advocate for a new beginning, a fresh start, an ambitious agenda that reflects progressive goals turns out to be much more in tune with the times and the voters.
The biggest factor for the Democratic nominee will be Democratic voter enthusiasm, an essential ingredient missing in the last election that surely made the difference. That was also an "electable candidate close to the middle." It's no guarantee these days.
So let's discard the equation that the most electable has to automatically has to be from the moderate middle. It may well not be true at all.
There's a long way to the final selection of the nominee and lots of twists and turns on the way. It's some comfort to see that nearly every prominent Democratic candidate beats Trump in current polls.
4
This is sheer romanticism, to believe that some phantom plurality is going to transform the US's "racial and wealth caste systems" in any appreciable manner by electing a person President. That was the folly many warned against in that other romantic period, the 60's. It began with McGovern's huge loss and It ended up with Reagan and the upwelling of the marginalized right wing who, along with the middle=class, saw the idea of "reshaping American society" as very threatening. The singular idea that moves the people is very simple: "what gives me the security and stability to live a good life is what I will vote for." Over turning the "racial and wealth caste systems" implies that all the people who benefit from the society are wrong and need to be overcome. It implies disorder. Personally, I don't think that gets the votes. Overturning the "racial and wealth caste systems" is appealing to some students who can afford to live in these fantasies. Once they enter the real world and have to struggle for survival, struggle to establish families, secure careers and so on their idealism is put behind them unless, of course, a political party is convincing them to stay perpetual "students." I give the Democrats credit for trying but their silly romantic notions of class, gender, race and the "structure of things" is going to do them in. They're hypnotized by it. A real creative, imaginative idea would upend all these assumptions that have ossified in the last forty years.
2
In order to effect real change in the country we will probably have to change to a parliamentary system. What we've got has been dead in the water for years.
Cut it out, Mr. Blow. The bottom line is we want to WIN. We've realized that the Utopian ideals we'd LIKE to see take place in this country are not going to happen after one Democratic election victory. I mean to say that too many in this country voted for and still support the charlatan in the White House so rather than reach for the stars, let's start with the Moon and see if we can try to break through the gridlock by jettisoning those on the fringes and establishing a decent "center" that will move, perhaps more slowly that I'd like, but move FORWARD towards a more progressive and decent future that the vast majority of Americans support. In other words, I don't care about McConnell OR AOC because I think they both represent the fringes of this country and we've seen that being in a constant battle doesn't produce anything good for this country. So while I would PREFER Buttigieg or Harris, I'll settle for Biden if he's the nominee and guess what? I'll like it too, because so long as Trump and his mindless minions are defeated, I'll be happy and I'm willing to jettison AOC in the process if that's what I need to do to throw the Republicans out and get a Democratic majority that can actually AFFECT positive changes in this country and appoint some decent people to the federal courts.
3
Biden will not inspire people to get off their couches.
Unless Democrats can take the Senate as well as the White House, it really doesn't matter who the Democratic nominee is. It seems highly likely that Republicans will indeed retain control of the Senate. Enough voters in key electoral college states were highly enthusiastic about Trump's vision of a white police state America surrounded by a big wall to keep brown people out & enough of those people believed his campaign lies about a coal mining jobs renaissance or that wall Mexico would pay for, among so many cons. Candidate Trump spoke specifically to white people while Mrs. Clinton was accused of speaking to too many minority groups disenfranchised by Trump. "Enthusiasm" apparently means different things to different people. I will never forget actress Susan Sarandon's very public enthusiasm for Bernie and refusal to vote for Hillary in both the primary and general elections. Sarandon's logic deficit enthusiasm, shared by many Bernie or Bust Bros was that a Trump presidency win was better than a Clinton one. Two far right SCOTUS picks and hundreds of newly appointed highly conservative Federal judges under Trump will be felt for generations, among so many other dreadful Draconian Trump policies. I'm feeling much less enthusiastic about the future, including the 2020 election or any of the individual candidates. I will vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is but Congressional Republican opposition to anything Democratic is not magically going away.
2
This is only true if we have an uninspiring nominee. If people VOTE, Democrats can take the Senate.
1
It all comes down to Vote Blue, No Matter Who.
Nothing matters except winning that war.
The standard bearer is yet to be decided, and there are many reasons to pick many of the candidates, and many reasons to reject specific candidates; not a one of them is perfect.
But we can't let the prefect be the enemy of the good. We can't sit this election out, or vote a feel-good third, fourth, or fifth party protest candidate.
Which is also why energy and resources have to be put in now to register as many new voters as possible, and to make sure those phone trees, carpools, text chains, and push notifications are ready to go--and to make sure the lawyers, the white hat hackers, and the video recorders are ready, also, because you know there is going to be a massive effort to suppress voting in progressively leaning areas, to spread disinformation, and to hack the vote counts.
There needs to be an effort analogous to that of D-Day, or the quest to put people on the moon, aimed for November 2020, and to borrow a phrase from the latter effort, failure is not an option.
2
@Glenn Ribotsky Thank you, Glenn! I'm gonna get a bumper sticker made for my car that says exactly that: Vote Blue, No Matter Who! Love it! Peace!
I completely agree. Democrats need to proudly own the ideology and ideas that inspire them (me). Stop muzzling your own voice, and state clearly, the policies that we embrace (egalitarianism, humanism, democracy?). Trump in his alternate universe, is the embodiment of the other side of the equation. It should not be that hard to articulate and embrace that vision.
3
While in matters a Democratic candidate relatively void of negatives stands a great chance of defeating Trump. Clinton lost in part because she was the most deeply flawed Democrat in years. Trump lucked out by having her as the opponent.
Trump the man without the ability or wisdom to pivot runs on I am the victim, immigration rules and socialists should lose is no mystery. A man lacking principles or policies a populist best suited for tent revivals among the Trumpeteers. Adding to his base not in the cards.
Ethics, morals, decency and policy do matter. Most Democratic candidates get that.
2
The 2020 election is the Democrat's to lose. Trump is unpopular with 65% of Americans and that is unlikely going to change since his policy become increasingly destructive to the Republic and the environment.
Joe and Bernie are just too old. Joe has more baggage than Hillary did and Bernie's ideas have become part and parcel of the younger candidate's platforms.
Bold would be running Mayor Pete whose credentials are impeccable and whose ideas are forward thinking. He's my first choice right now.
2
"Politics is a war of ideas."
Politics is many things but neither a war of ideas, nor an incubator for ideas. Politics is the path of least resistance to getting elected.
You want politicians with ideas, think Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy. They had ideas. Voters were bored or too lazy to make the effort to understand.
There is a reason Paul Krugman, you and David Brooks on the other side write op-eds with ideas and are not in politics.
Politics is a war of charisma which comes in many forms.
4
There is so much wrong in this column. First, why wouldn't Joe Biden be the best candidate to return America to a pre-Trump normality? Second, if the Democrats lose, it won't matter what the opinions of the candidate were. Third, maybe someone who is middle of the road is what America really needs right now.
Moderate does not equal spineless.
A warning from down under to the Democrats following our recent election here. Do not assume that the unpopularity of an incumbent is a green light from the electorate for far-reaching changes. Our opposition party lost the "unloseable" election in May by doing exactly that. Fear of change is a usually a stronger motivator than dislike of an individual.
7
When you have nothing to offer in terms of fixing real issues you might as well be bold and go where no one has gone before.
2
Spinelessness is the new standard for national politicians of all stripes, Republican and Democrat alike. They all want to keep their perks and power and won't risk anything that might threaten that.
2
One thing we can be sure of is if Democrats go full throttle Socialist, they lose. Right now it it seems that many candidates in the running are trying to out-Bernie, Bernie Sanders. If this is correct count on having another four years of a Republican candidate, with good fortune let's hope it is not Trump.
I like what Elizabeth Warren is advocating. I dislike what she is not talking about. As Tom Cruise heard in the movie Jerry Maguire "show me the money". No one in the Democratic field is talking about how they plan on paying for everything they advocate. Here is the answer. Controlled Captitalism.. . https://lstrn.us/2CORkXF
1
I didn’t know the entire population of Luxembourg was eligible to run for the highest of our fair land.
2
Look, Joe Biden is not just a safe candidate. He can be a charismatic and stimulating one, too. He hasn't campaigned in a long time and clearly is rusty. But, I suspect that once he gets going, he is going to be very attractive to Democrats. For one thing, he is progressive and no less so than many of the others who are running (e.g., Warren, Harris, Buttigieg). See:
https://observer.com/2019/05/joe-biden-moderate-progressive-voting-record/
For another, he has a down-to-earth way of speaking and can relate to the average voter in a way more intellectual candidates cannot.
Finally, he knows how to put Trump in his place, something that few can do (Pelosi is an exception). His experience and toughness give him that ability.
I think Democrats will relate well to Biden. He is a jewel of a candidate who 'has been hiding in plain sight for a long time'.
1
"Democrats Must Be Daring"
Two more diametrically opposed identities ( Democrat & daring) are hard to imagine. I want to believe there is a "daring" Democrat out there, but, sadly, I don't.
1
Democrats played it safe in 2016, how well that do.
I like Joe Biden but he is too safe. My money is on a Warren Buttigieg ticket.
4
Dems must be 'daring', but the the highest polling candidate can be safe? Biden's leading because he's had a prominent seat at the table for far too long. If he hadn't been Obama's VP, he'd never get so much attention.
See his policies as "Mr. MBNA" as he was known, favoring cc company profits over people struggling with credid card debt--much of it medical bills from uninsured illness---before ACA. Hit people while they're down?
At an April 2019 donor dinner launching his run, Biden accepted campaign donations from a big Comcast exec, who also gives to GOP.
Biden smiles a lot. People love it.
2
Shame on the Democrat candidates who say they have a chance- when they already know they don't!
Self promotion will only re-elect Trump in 2020!
2
I have favorites, but I am very much open to whomever will galvanize the party with words slamming the reckless Republicans and revealing their dubious mandate to serve the few at the expense of the many. Kamala and her spirited strike at the heart of the hypocritical Republican "pro life" bluster, conveying they have a funny way of showing how much they care for the unborn when they are born by seeking to undermine Planned Parenthood at every turn, is a great start. There's far too much fodder to not pick it up and throw it in Republicans faces while also providing Elizabeth Warren-like solutions for the many problems from which we ailing.
2
I'm 66, in excellent health, have a family history where the majority of the members live well into their 90s, and I teach high school English in a Title 1 school with a large immigrant population. The 10-12 hour days exhaust me. I can't imagine anyone older than me having the energy and stamina to be president (Trump does it because he watches TV/naps whenever he's not meeting foreign dignitaries and politicians or berating the press.), so that eliminates Sanders, Biden, and Warren. So far, the candidates who seem to know how to campaign and build momentum are Warren and Buttigieg. I've eliminated Warren, so for the time being, I'm backing Mayor Pete. Come next February and the Nevada Caucuses, I'll be there to support my guy, or maybe Kamala Harris if she proves she's a contender. In November 2020, I'll vote for the Democrat opposing Trump, even if it is Sanders, Biden, or Warren. It won't be the first time I've compromised, because I've never had the opportunity to vote for a candidate that I've supported 100%.
1
@JTBence
Everyone ages differently. Intelligence is what is most important, not running a marathon. I'm sure Trump was just as ignorant at forty as he is now.
If "We" are in the Constitutional crisis everyone is screaming about- Then why have +22 candidates run for office? We already know who the front runners are- why do the lower tier candidates even bother to hang around?
If we [Democrats] are serious about beating Trump, we shouldn't be killing ourselves with pro-longed debates and wasted time "culling the herd"
In the end it's split votes ...
The U.S. is in crisis because of Trump and the Republicans in the Senate (and on the federal judiciary). The Democrats need to pick the presidential candidate who has the best chance of beating Trump. Period. The peril we face is too dire to risk putting our hopes on our heart's desire if there's even a whisker of a chance that that candidate might not be able to weather Trump's attacks and the inevitable manipulations and abuses of the integrity of our democracy wrought by the right-wing truth-destruction and lying machine. Right now, safe is not only good, safe is imperative. And you in the media need to get on board!
3
Voters need to stop deciding who to vote for on the same basis as electing a prom king or queen. We are hiring people to do the job of directing our government. A pleasing personality is a plus, but politicians really need to be able to formulate policies that benefit the majority of people in this country as well as our economy, understand the budgeting process and how it affects policy, how to read and write legislation to enact that policy, and recognize that the success of the middle and working class is the success of this country.
Fun and witty does automatically not translate to smart and capable. Let's elect smart and capable.
3
"Politics is a war of ideas. If you don’t believe in the strength of your weapon, you are destined to lose."
I think a lack of 'ideas' doomed the Hillary campaign. She was otherwise a qualified candidate. I remember thinking at the time that the slogan of her campaign could be, 'Now, don't expect too much once I take office'.
Why dredge this up now? Because there is an important lesson to be learned. Democrats lost to the most improbable candidate imaginable. He didn't win, the Democrats lost. I am concerned that they never realized that and they might do it again.
5
"As for Democratic voters themselves, they in particular have a conundrum ..."
Not if they're paying attention. Here in the heartland, farmers are telling me they've never seen anything like the weather this year. Add the unplanted acres across the Great Plains all the way to Ohio to the possible reduced yields due to too much rain in some areas and predicted dry weather in the Northern Plains, and we might see a spike in prices after harvest that ripples through the economy, e.g. ethanol plants operate on narrow margins and some may not survive the price increases for corn. That's just a warmup for what's to come.
I'm with Greta Thunberg. Time has run out. #1 Inslee. #2 Warren. ... Biden only as a last resort.
5
"Do you dare to dream?" I do, and I believe I can (and will) get the kind of president I am dreaming of: an honest president who can be trusted to do the job without getting in the headlines every day. Someone that we will not have to watch all the time for fear that he/she will get us into a mess. A president who cannot be bought; a president who will know what is the right thing, and will do it.
And if Mitch McConnell (and few others) would only get a bad case of the flu and disappear for a while, so much the better (but I am probably asking too much).
2
Dreams died after November 2016.
Abortion is going to be banned by several states and further restricted in others. Why? Democratic constituencies were not smart enough to realize the Supreme Court was at risk. You can march, protest and shout. But the women’s right to choose is going to go away for a lot of women who need it.
Climate change denial is now national policy.
Our allies are Saudi Arabia, Russia and warming relations with North Korea
Muslims are banned from coming to the country and refugees have been shut out.
2020 is about basic survival. Not dreams.
Save the big transformative ideas for 2024.
That 2016 election was a huge setback.
2
The presumptive nominee of the Democratic party is Biden,
especially because his lead over Trump is huge at this point.
I can't get excited about yet another old white guy running for President, but I won't miss the chance to vote for him in the general election if he secures the Democratic nomination against Trump or any member of the GOP..
If nominated, Biden could do much to capture the enthusiasm and votes of progressives by pledging to choose his running mate from among his Democratic rivals, and naming the rest of them to his Cabinet if they agree to serve. Yes, they aren't all progressives, but at least Biden knows how to listen, unlike what we're stuck with now.
2
I couldn't agree more. I remember when I was a kid, President Kennedy came to our local shopping center to speak. My parents were for Adlai Stevenson, but I was for Kennedy because he was young and passionate. I hope one of the Democratic hopefuls can bring that kind of spirit, and sweep clear the corroded politics of now.
2
The very root of “news” is “new.”
Which is why every Trump rally or speech gets sliced and diced into sound bites on every TV punditry show -- because there is always something new there. Really. Exactly what did Trump say in his D-Day speech that other presidents have not said on previous visits to Normandy for the same purpose? Why was it broadcast and dissected?
Decide what they really believe? Maybe all they all really believe is that Trump is derailing the USA, and they'd like the slow-motion (not so slow, actually) crash not to occur. Do those who do have a bigger vision beyond a return to some degree of previously acceptable normality actually have the numbers? It's all well and good for 29 million enthusiastic McGovern supporters to vote their convictions, absolutely sure that the majority of the country agrees with them, until you also count up the Nixon votes, all 47 million of those, proving they were wrong. The core of the Democratic Party needs an inspiring candidate, in order to motivate millions not only to vote, but to contribute and get others to vote, but not a divisive one, unless they are absolutely sure that there are indeed lots more people solidly on their side than on Trump's. Trump was hardly a Republican-to-the-core candidate, and he won. Amazing how he won with only 45% of the primary/caucus vote and 46% of the popular vote in the general election. Dems need a candidate who can hold him under 45% next November if they want a convincing EC win.
1
Mr. Blow, not all of us are born historians. Perhaps some kindly commentators may clear the path for further clarification. When Napoleon came out of exile, some of his troops joined his call to defeat Britain, not because they felt duty bound, but out of loyalty. Many of these were foot soldiers, and perhaps remembered the crippling retreat in the snows of Russia.
The Duke of Wellington's army was outnumbered, but British of all rank pitched in, and the casualties on both sides were tremendous.
Trump is not our Waterloo. Half the country can mollify and pacify our temperamental president, while those of us who have a vision for the future of a better and stronger America will carry the burden for those remaining behind.
We not longer believe in bayonets, which come in handy to open tinned cans; let us put on our wellingtons, and with belief in the patriotism of Joe Biden, invite one of these passionate Democrats to join him as his right-hand in the field of the forthcoming presidential elections.
“The establishment candidate is subjected to a withering scrutiny from which the insurgent is often spared. I believe that this is one of the reasons Donald Trump is president today.”
Spot on, especially if your last name is Clinton and you’re a woman. Democrats take note.
3
Exactly wrong. This election will be a referendum on Donald Trump and will not be about the Democratic candidate. A safe candidate who can scoop up disaffected Trump voters in Penn., Mich. and Wisc. will be the most likely Democrat to win (Joe Biden, anyone?)
1
@Richard Katz: I do (reluctantly) agree with your point about Biden, but anyone who has not made a decision about Trump by now has been living under a rock for 2+ years and should not be pandered to.
It is a dangerous fantasy to believe that Trump's disaffected voters are our salvation, because they aren't listening. They will believe anything their god tells them.
5
If someone wants to see reform of some kind of policy or law that is producing an injustice or is not accomplishing what was intended, it's important to evaluate the popular opinions about it before running on it. If there is popular support, then go with it. If there is not, devote energy to selling it to the public, first. Never assume that because you see how important that what you want to do is, that everyone must agree.
Free higher education in public institutions lost support in the 1970's with the tax revolt. Running on it now, really is not smart. It's a good idea, in my opinion, but it runs against popular views on who should pay for a university education. But without preparing the audiences, it will not capture a lot of votes.
Medicare for all, has a bunch of issues associated with Medicare as it is. Many providers just do not think that the compensation rates are adequate, so they avoid Medicare patients. Drugs are not covered as well as in group policies for employed workers with medical coverage benefits. It might seem great to the candidates but it's got to be sold to the public before anyone can run on it.
Ideas are great but what a candidate promises must be what people already want, or it's no good.
Trump is a terrible President but he gives a large minority the policies and practices which they think that they want. Just running against him, is not enough, a successful challenger must offer better policies and practices which voters already want.
3
How do you advertise the debates with this group?
You have to get the attention of the under 30 crowd. These are the ones that survived eating Tide pods, last year. Their attention span is measured in gnat-o-meters. (really small parts of a meter). You could go with something modern, you know, hip. "23 and me, too." Beto could offer them a ring pop.
The suburban vote (30-40 y/o) might respond well to a commercial that has every group in the identity-politics portrait. Everyone is smiling, with lots of kids around. All of the candidates can be CGI'd into the shot. Now that's inclusion.
If you want to get the 50 - 60 year old voters, use the mom from the Geico commercial and the dad in the Progressive commercial. "I'll tell you how to save money, stop buying those expensive coffees."
Then there are those, in my strata. We are the ones that move really slowly in the grocery aisle and talk loud on the phone, because others can't hear so good. We are the human cholesterol that slow you down. For us, "They're like Old Milwaukee, they don't get any better than this."
There are two ways to interpret that line.
4
Thank you for writing well about the Democratic candidates and the complexity of political choices.
"Democrats have a field full of amazing talent, visionary ideas and refreshing new characters. It would truly be a shame to eschew that out of spinelessness." Besides there's no beating the Republicans in a spinelessness contest–just ask Mitch McConnell.
2
The fact that black voters overwhelmingly supported Hillary seems like an understatement and the NYT video from the 2016 Democratic debates titled "Clinton on Sanders's Criticism of Obama" may be a good place to start to understand why. He said that Obama failed the presidential leadership test, he called him weak and he wrote that voters should have buyers' remorse when it comes to Obama's legacy
On multiple occasions he called for a primary opponent for President Obama in 2012 and he minimized the achievement of Obamacare (when he wasn't taking credit for the one tiny detail he apparently contributed). Do you think that might have caused any resentment among black voters?
Yes, "he fought to a near draw with young voters of color," to quote YouGov. Maybe that's because he's been a cause célèbre on college campuses since he's never stopped running for president.
Things may change by the primaries, but based on the booing he received at She The People, I tend to doubt it.
3
I'd ask people to consider a terribly unpleasant paradox: that despite the known good of humanitarian aims, it may be easier and more natural, in the part of the brain below political correctness, to feel good about Conservative mantras of 'wealth, strength and independence, us first' than it is to feel good about liberal principles of 'common humanity, egalitarianism, free stuff for everybody.' I submit that it takes effort beyond the psyche's natural selfishness to be dedicated to broad-scale prosocial agendas. If this is so (and I think the psychology says it is), then the winning Democrat candidate will have to have very especial allure or charisma to change the atmosphere that even a reprobate like Trump can't completely poison.
1
If Biden gets the nomination, I’m staying home on the Election Day; have no enthusiasm for him. I fear dems did not learn their lesson after 2016
13
@John John -- Please vote for the cauliflower, the day-old oatmeal. Isn't it better than the rat poison?
9
@John
And what lesson should they have learned by people refusing to vote for Clinton and allowing Trump to become President? People who made that decision really did believe that Clinton and Trump were no different. Do you think that Trump and Biden are no different?
5
Perhaps the lesson they learned is that when you refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, the Democratic party will no longer force bad candidates on us under the assumption that people will automatically choose the lesser of two evils.
5
My heart and my brain say Warren/Mayor Pete is the ticket.
What a delight 2020 can be...
4
The author Rebecca Solnit made a great point about this. Only 11% of Democratic voters are white men -- the same amount as black and Latina women. Using white male definitions of relatability, when they are not really the backbone of the party or the most enthusiastic voters, makes the Democrats give up on great candidates too early. Voters turn out based on enthusiasm, and the "safe choice" rarely generates that.
Biden is a fighter, but Harris is a more inspiring, younger fighter who has gone toe-to-toe with the Trump administration. And she doesn't have Biden's weakness on women's issues like abortion and sexual harrassment.
Buttigieg has a military record, but so does Tulsi Gabbard.
Inslee is the most inspiring on climate change. Booker is the most inspiring on criminal justice reform. Castro is the most inspiring on immigration.
Elizabeth Warren is witty, smart and wonky, and has good policies for all of the above -- and she doesn't have the baggage that came with Hillary Clinton's hawkish, pro-corporate background.
Let's really dig into the candidates and see who's exciting. For me, Warren is the best package.
18
No Mr. Blow, the democrats don't have to be daring.
They have to nominate a moderate progressive that America wants.
Right now its Biden but it could be anybody white, black, young, old, male, female.
Who not to nominate? Somebody like Hillary, ie elect me because I am not Trump and I am a woman who is identity obsessed, social engineering obsessed, my time to be anointed, east coast liberal, never met a war, trade agreement or Wall Street banker I did not like.
America is sick of Trump and Hillary types.
4
Mr. Blow's commendable zeal for risk-taking notwithstanding, it's unlikely that either Howard Dean or Ron Paul would have defeated the incumbent presidents in the general elections of 2004 and 2012.
4
This isn't 2004 or 2012, and none of these candidates is Howard Dean or Ron Paul. Stop fighting the last war.
2
Politics may well be a "war of ideas" but, sadly, the ideas that capture the most attention are often those which can be expressed on a bumper sticker and which appeal to our worst instincts.
Great piece! Love that Charles didn't get into critiquing individual candidates. His references to Biden made sense given his front runner status. And those references were also fair and objective.
I'm "one who sees resistance to Trump as the perfect springboard to remaking the country." Change + sunny optimism + "it's the economy stupid' is a very powerful combination. Yes, the economy is doing great if you're looking at just the stock market and GDP. But, it isn't working for ordinary Americans. And with technology accelerating so fast, more and more people will be left behind. The only candidates who capture that combination and get it are Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg. Andrew especially. Don't laugh. Get to know him. He's a whip-smart, forward-thinking policy wonk. 21st century ideas for 21st century problems.
Finally, Yang and Buttigieg are perfect foils to Trump. Calm, intelligent, articulate, and plain-spoken, genuine, nice.
2016 taught us anything can happen.
1
Agreed. Be bold. Another status quo corporate Democrat, while vastly better than Trump, will bring no change to people's actual lives. Thus in four years we will be ripe for another demagogue. And anyone who thinks that Biden will ignite passion among the young, a much needed voting bloc, is dreaming.
20
There are many candidates that I'm excited by and some other Democrats like Stacy Abrams who I would be overjoyed to see as candidates because I believe they will be faithful to a Democrat (and democratic) vision arrived at through the nomination process. I expect Pete or Joe or Kamala or Corey or Elizabeth to be the person we need to vote for because any of them will support the platform necessary to move this country in the right direction. They are all safe candidates in that regard.
3
"...It would truly be a shame to eschew that out of spinelessness."
Yep. Democrats, you really want to win in 2020? Then start channeling Martin Luther King Jr and Mahatma Ghandi. Be a compelling leader. Demonstrate personal sacrifice and commitment to a moral compass that points towards doing the right thing for the country, its citizenry and its residents. Lose the lobbyists, the plutocrats and the wealthy donors. Be noble, be modest, be open-minded, be informed and be decisive. Walk the streets. The hard streets. An ironic consequence of our current President is that now you only win if you do so for the right reasons.
8
The last time that Democrats decided to stick with their most idealistic and inclusive ideals against a lot of cold and calculating politicos was in 1972. The party regulars elected people across the South who did not support civil rights and would not oppose the Vietnam War, to hold the party together for the general election. A lot of primary victors opposed the regular party positions and those persons were denied participation in the Convention until the Convention. These people won voting participation and the regular party participants who replaced were not allowed to participate. The result was a liberal anti-war candidate who lost the general election, winning just one state that day.
Sometimes trying for the perfect destroys the ability to achieve the good.
4
@Casual Observer I am tired of the McGovern comparisons. McGovern was a cool, somewhat reserved, intellectual candidate who appealed to wonky progressives. You know who else was like that? Obama -- but he had a little more fire and better public speaking skills. So saying that cool, intellectual candidates who appeal to progressives "can't win" ignores the times that they have. The difference lies in the level of charisma and the ability to connect with oridinary folks. Several progressive candidates this time have that in spades.
2
@RVC
I voted for McGovern. I liked his positions. I thought he would be better than Nixon. He lost every state but Massachusetts. Nixon was re-elected and became even more arrogant and intolerant of criticism. So vote for who you think Americans should elect, but don't think that enough people agree with you to actually elect that person. Take the time to find out what is most likely to happen.
I'd vote for a toaster, if it was blue.
Sound advice -- "the right candidate for right now".
They'll all make toast.
8
These are the choices ? Says who?
1
First of all we did NOT lose the 2016 election, we chose well and correctly. The GOP cheated- THAT IS #1.
OK, on to #2- Clinton played the saxophone on MTV. He wore boxers instead of briefs. He was engaging, interesting, and relaxed. Confidence is catching, and he won re-election, too.
Obama was also confident and engaging. He had Obama Girl to help him out as well (with her uh, lovely figure). McCain was stiff, with a clueless running mate. Saturday Night Live kept us entertained on the road to victory.
So who is on Entertainment Tonight lately? Could it be SATAN?! No, it's Donald, with his endless, tireless mouth, and Twitter imparting his "wisdom" at us. His unhappiness is catching much like the flu, or a migraine. You can't ignore him as hard as you try.
Giving him unbridled power is much like a pitbull without obedience training. He rules over his territory with no leash and an owner (his loyal followers) who's never home. In the private sector we could tolerate his barking (barely), but now he's one-third of the federal government and he not only barks- he bites. His supporters think he's "cute", but over 60% of us are afraid of him. His supporters don't want any government at all, until (of course) they get hit with a storm, a drought, etc. So that's what we have- no rules, no discipline, and no progress. But the Dem's need to somehow learn to entertain the masses, and make it good. It's just another show, so leave them laughing when you go.
1
Flyinointment,
It is what it is. That’s the system that Democrats have to win in now. The electoral college is what it is. So is Russian interference and voter suppression. It is what it is.
It does no use complaining about the unfair structure democrats are up against. No use lamenting about the need to have to curry favor with moderates and center right voters. It is what it is.
Get power back and then make changes. Not before.
2
Presidential politics is not a "war of ideas". It's a war of personalities. If the Democrats want to beat President Bone Spurs, they need to present a hero who is as exciting and dynamic as President Bone Spurs. I agree that the safe choice won't do it--we need a strong personality who can fight and defeat President Bone Spurs and his disgusting, moronic Republican followers and sycophants.
7
It would...unfortunately they’re more spineless than a jellyfish.
1
I didn’t “ struggle” with Hillary Clinton. She was a superb candidate. We all know why she lost: read the Mueller Report. I’m sorry but I think Mr. Blow might have some hidden agenda here— not sure what it is. My no -so -hidden agenda is: I want a Democrat who will appeal to liberals, progressives and moderates.
6
For want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the man was lost.
1
You will notice that Joe Biden took a pass on the San Francisco Democrat gathering where some got booed when they denounced Socialism,Booooooo. Joe didn't want to go there. I didn't notice any of the media talking about how there were only 85 people at his rally in Iowa just a few days ago. Joe just needs to keep talking about his "Friendship Bracelet" that he and Barack both share.
1
But Mr. Blow—
You didn't say "Democrats must be daring" during the 2016 primaries.
Why not?
7
Sounds like the polite way of saying you hope Biden doesn't win the primaries.
I don't disagree, but will fervently support him if he does get the nomination. Just like, I don't think Dems should impeach (pure political calculous) but will loudly support it if they do.
I think most people are of the mindset that we need Trump out. I don't think egos or lack of effort will be a problem.
And just an aside, I wish we could break down the black vote. It seems likely the black vote will be a major decider in the primaries, it would be good if it was understood a little deeper than as a monolithic unit.
2
Pete excites me in a way no other candidate ever has.
2
I'm sorry but when Blow implies it is "spineless" to back Joe Biden, he can go take a flying leap. I would be equally delighted to back Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris or Cory Booker if I thought they had a chance to beat Trump. At the moment, I don't think that. In any case, it is up to THEM to prove to me that they can. No, there is no prize for coming in second in this race because you had the most radical set of "plans" that everyone knows don't stand a chance of passage, or because you're supposedly courageous enough to call your plans "socialism." No, prize for second place which brings upon the country the scourge of four more years of a dangerous reactionary lunatic in the White House.
7
John,
People just are not grasping what you said. These candidates gotta prove that their platforms and personalities will win in the real world. Not simply build leads in safe states.
If there is this huge base of voters to turnout in Pennsylvania or North Carolina, start proving it. What are the numbers?
Beating Trump is a greater priority than free college tuition for all. With Trump in there, many won’t have to worry about tuition after he tears down the Department of Education.
1
I wonder if when Blow describes having a candidate who represents all the Democratic Party constituencies he is thinking that all those people's preferences can result in an inclusive group instead of an exclusive group of people. The only set of political principles which have held together diverse groups have been small sets of issues, generally disregarding all others. The candidates who try to satisfy all could find themselves with a portion of all groups rather than all of those in all of the groups.
Democrats were powerful from FDR to Johnson but lost a huge proportion over civil rights and anti-war disagreements after that. The previous coalition of groups included groups who were not sympathetic to some important desires of the others. Johnson won in a landslide over Goldwater. McGovern was crushed by Nixon in 1972.
2
Charles, I couldn't agree with you more. To me, Elizabeth Warren is clearly the candidate with the best ideas for fixing everything that is wrong with our country in 2019. She is the most articulate in expressing those ideas, and with her background in government and most recently in the Senate, she seems ideally suited to the challenging job of leading the country in putting the inestimably awful Trump years behind us. Yet I have friends who are agonizing about whom to support, based on whom they feel Americans will be most likely to back. Of course I will support anyone who wins the Democratic nomination and becomes by definition the anti-Trump, but I'd certainly prefer to have the strongest person out there -- the one not only most likely to win, but to repair the terrible, terrible damage that is being done to our country right now with every passing day.
4
"Democrats have a field full of amazing talent, visionary ideas and refreshing new characters. It would truly be a shame to eschew that out of spinelessness."
I agree, incredible talent with visionary ideas. In the end it will come down to who (including voters) has the courage to put the country and all citizens before their own desires and fears.
This election is about more than the presidency, this election is about the future of the country. So much damage has already been done, some irrecoverable. Another four years and it will be decades if not longer to recover a small part of the positive left.
Look at Poland for starters.
2
Charles,
To me the goal is finding the best candidate that can beat Trump in the country we have today. Not necessarily is it our goal to find the candidate who would make the best President. For those that don’t grasp what I’ve said are putting our Democracy and rule of law at risk.
It’s not fair. But reality is the battleground states are rightly or wrongly filled with people that are centrist to center right but have voted for democrats like Barack Obama.
I am doubtful Grand Rapids, Michigan or Lehigh Valley, PA is voting socialist. Can Mayor Pete flip Texas? North Carolina? Arizona?
Again, it’s not right, but it’s the world we live in.
Gambling that a candidate is going to pull huge turnout from the base defies fact. No “progressive” President has been elected in 75 years. Maybe FDR? Obama got historic turnout because he inspired African Americans and a lot of whites. I don’t see anyone here yet that could duplicate that. Maybe they could. Maybe Harris? Who knows.
Voter suppression and Russia will be back. Should we fight it? Yes. But you can’t assume that impact won’t hurt us again in 2020.
All I ask is that editorialists and pundits challenge the Democratic voter about the electorate we have today. The same one that 3.5 years ago put in a Donald Trump despite Access Hollywood, his comments about the Indiana judge, his refusal to refute white supremacists and on and on.
Beating Trump legally all that matters right now. Not righteousness or principle
1
This column helps highlight the brick wall a focus on identity politics will run into. If you make the candidate's identity a central feature, you are going to have several groups who are going to feel left out. There's simply no way around this.
Many will say that Trump and the GOP are also engaging in identity politics. Well, is this a good thing? Are you glad they are doing this? If politics are going to be about people fighting for "their" group, shouldn't white people (many of whom aren't doing well) want white leaders who will stick up for them? If their own leaders won't stand up for them, who will?
More importantly, if elections are just going to be people of different ethic groups battling for money and power, why bother having an election? Why not just fight a violent war and get things over with? Everyone knows that's what will end up happening anyway.
No candidate has enough supporters to even be sure of the unanimous support from all Democrats if that candidate wins the nomination. To gain that support really means achieving compromises among groups who feel that compromises are betrayals. Then in the general, the concerns of each of these groups is probably not going to achieve popular support among independents and Republicans who reject Trump. People would be wise to listen to all of the candidates and to rate the issues which they feel are deal breakers from those which are preferences, and then to consider whether the deal breakers are worth allowing Trump four more years if they cannot make those deals.
I am looking for the Democrat who, in all categories, is the polar opposite of Trump. For instance, I have absolutely zero respect for Donald Trump, and I have total respect for the intellect and service record of Pete Buttigieg. With this example I want to point to the mood of the electorate and our desire for a president who inspires respect.
Amazing talent? Thanks, I needed a good chuckle. The only talent these people have is taking money from productive people and giving it to non productive people. Comrade Bill is the prime example.
2
Trump is a what you see is what you get candidate. He only governs to satisfy his base and he only campaigns to satisfy his base. One could call him a one trick pony and not be far from the truth. He knows a lot about audiences and ratings, but his understanding of most things is pretty much nill. He is not a curious person, he is not somebody who wants to know about things which don't please him.
His source of insights are the opinions he hears in the mass media. He takes what the right wing media projects that is popular to guide his messages to his base, and it's been tried and tested already by Fox and Breitbart et al on that audience. This enables him to express himself so that they feel he is like them. This was good enough to get him elected, and he will do the same in 2020.
Remember, Trump's victory was thin and across states that went for Obama, twice. The only real strength he has is his Republican base, the rest of the country is cool or adverse to him. He won because of people who did not vote.
Blow is basically wrong, here. For some reason he thinks that because Trump won with a minority, if Democrats can win with a majority, problem solved. Well that is not how liberal democracies work, it's how illiberal ones work. But that aside, the most important constituencies of the Democrats right now are narrow minded people with narrow concerns and to satisfy them all means not even gaining the support of all Democrats let alone independents, the majority.
1
As a retired, 65 year old, white male, liberal, living in a conservative city, I hear many my age declare we need younger leadership. Old, white haired men need to realize their time is over. They got us where we are. We need new blood. New ideas. A new direction.
26
@Mike Westfall Very well stated and so true.
2
@Mike Westfall I think it depends on the old white haired man. If still living in the 50s mentality, by all means out with them, their sell by date is way past.
But for me, it's not about age, color or gender it's about vision, dedication, platform, care for the country and the well-being of all citizens enough to put it before their own self-gratification and need for attention.
6
@me Wow, I've never been called so many-isms.
I knew someone would be upset by my comments. My point being merely that it is time to move forward with new ideas.
I was born in 1954, the same year Brown v. Board of Education made separate, but equal illegal. . The Supreme Court acted in 1954 and have things changed much in my lifetime? Not much, in my opinion.
Isn't it time to tell those in charge they are in the past? Who has led the country to where we are? Let's do some demographic analysis. What sex is predominant in Congress? What race?
I'm sorry I was so crass, but reality is hard to ignore.
4
Charles, I don't want this to come off as fulsome but how did you become so wise? You're looking at this election more closely than most, yet your admonitions to panicked Dems are always so sensible. And despite that sensibility, you never lapse into the pitfalls of centrism for its own sake. I appreciate your writing deeply.
2
"If you don’t believe in the strength of your weapon, you are destined to lose. If you limp into battle cowering and afraid, you are destined to lose. If your leading warrior isn’t one who inspires the troops but is the one default general simply because he came of age in the arena, you are bound to lose."
Is this how Trump won? Americans who believed in the strength of their weapon, who didn't limp into battle cowering and afraid, whose leading warrior (Trump) inspired the troops?
And what did that get America?
Republicans had one candidate who was "full of amazing talent and visionary ideas, a refreshing new character" and and they didn't eschew him, did they?
This is sheer nonsense, Mr. Blow. No, Democrats need to think carefully and avoid the daring. America has had enough of "daring."
What's the evidence that favors the safest candidate? I'm betting that the incumbent will self-destruct, and hopeful that bias and foreign interference will be minimized by intelligence and integrity at the federal and state levels, as well as within individual voters.
My criteria at this early stage are character, experience, enthusiasm, and credibility. JFK defied anti-Catholic odds, Barack Obama overcame racial animosity. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee in November 2020. Before then, I'll campaign for a woman, a lawyer and proven vote-getter from a diverse, populous and wealthy state.
My thinking is, "don't just hope for the best, make it happen."
3
I have one question for Democratic voters. Did you vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary primarily because you thought she, but not Bernie Sanders, could beat Donald Trump? It is absolutely crazy for primary voters to try to predict which of 24 candidates could beat him. Besides, democracy shouldn't work that way. Votes are our voices, maybe the only voice the workaday individual really has. After the election, we have little or no influence over those who were elected. Don't throw your vote away gambling on the winner in the general election.
2
West Virginia counties unanimously voted for Sanders in the primary, albeit (most) under the assumption he was the weaker democratic candidate. The delegates chose Clinton, anyway. It's difficult to have faith that getting behind the candidate you actually support matters when that can happen.
Hillary suffered an 'enthusiasm gap' because Comey and Putin convinced voters she like Trump equally suffered ethics issues.
Not because she represented the white working class.
It is true that the Putin and Trump forces will spread distortions against any candidate. But the Comey astonishing intervention is unlikely to happen together. But, Mr. Blow, it is also a distortion to simplify beyond recognition how and why Clinton was taken down.
It is also true that part of the enthusiasm gap for Clinton came from Berniecrats who as erroneously as the Putin charges, dismissed Clinton as a tool of Right Wing Capitalism. People who have followed her know when she was in the White House, she with Harold Ickes, Jr. led the charge against the way Dick Morris pushed Pres. Bill Clinton to the Right. These reports of her battles with Morris circulated constantly in Bill's second term.
Democratic hopefuls should go after every vote, and all the Dems are progressives that would appoint better judges and support better policies than what we have now.
But whoever leads must be on their guard against the sort of hate campaigns endured by Obama and Hillary, but also against the casual misstatements and distortions of supposedly enlightened journalists who fail to observe what really happened in 2016.
Those words can kill, too.
1
Vote for policy not for personality!
Don't ever vote for appearances and identity!!
Character is important in that whether keeping promises after elected can be measured by this feature.
Hate not people but political engineers who do not produce any value different from real engineers.
I deeply suspect that this author is one of the prominent political engineers whom this propaganda company has lots of.
2
Well has anyone been "daring"? Biden had to recant on his anti-abortion stance and is too old. Beto seems lost somewhere in the Iowa cornfields. Bernie is not a "real" Democrat whose preachy "Medicare for All" is unrealistic (as in politically infeasible) socialist extremism and also is too old. Elizabeth has way too many "plans for everything" and everyone. Kamala lacks experience and has a horrific record as prosecutor of African-Americans (and she's Jamaican raised by a mother from India). Mayor Pete is brilliant, but needs more policy polish and focus and is probably too young except as a potential VP (wouldn't you pay to see him debate Pence). All we say say about Amy, Kirsten, Jay, Joaquin and the others who I cannot even name is "Where are you? What are you? and perhaps Why are you even running?" Certainly, not a drop of daring amongst the lot of them. How about someone stepping forward with a Lincolnesque new Emancipation Proclamation freeing all women from the sexual slavery in the radical legislation from the states of the Old Confederacy seeking to nullify Roe v. Wade? As a former President opined, "It's the vision thing." We are in a new Civil War led by Jefferson Davis Trump who's trampling all over the Constitution aided and abetted by Senate Majority Leader, Kentucky Col. Mitch McConnell and his "willing accomplices" in the Senate. It's time to defend to Constitution and save the Union. But someone must step forward with the vision and "daring."
4
@me Got me! I'm turning 79 tomorrow and according to The Times that's the average life expectancy. So, like Bernie and Biden we have about eight years left--not even enough to complete two full terms!
How does 36% of the Democratic Party, the progressive wing, believe they can win the next presidential election? What percentage is that of the total voting population? Can you win the inauguration with less than half the votes?
Warren might be the only person that could get on the both the Democratic and the Green parties ticket. But the Green's are too pompous and self righteous to do something smart. A Biden / Warren ticket won't get them on board. They have Ajamu Baraka. Too bad it could get us Florida.
1
I know you desperately want a black president (again), but a candidate who accurately "reflects the diversity of the Democratic Party" would be white - as 70% of Democrats are white.
11
In 2016 I voted for Hilary Clinton (as the anti-Trump or the non-Trump) I was afraid of what would happen if Trump became president. Trump has been worse than my worst nightmares! I am being totally pragmatic about this upcoming election ANY of the democrats would be better than Trump. But it has to be someone who will get elected!!
2
I can't wait for Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg to do battle during the debates. Harvard v. Oxford, and the winner (sorry Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders, I don't think it will be either of you) will face off against . . . . Mr. Covfefe? Mr. Hamberder?
2
Charles: If Democrats take your advice and get daring instead of safe in selecting their 2020 Presidential nominee, they will figuratively and literally Blow it big time.
3
@Jay Orchard Just as they blew it with Hillary?
Amazing talent, visionary ideas, refreshing characters? Definitely some of the 20+, but certainly not all. Perhaps the most telling question to be asked of each candidate would be "why you over all these others?" Do we need visionary or is it enough to have a compelling vision for our country? Is socialism visionary, or recidivism? I want a Democratic candidate who offers as compelling a positive vision of where we should be heading as Trump's dystopia, in a world fraught with the populist fever running rampant worldwide. Refreshing compared to whom? And what's refreshing? Does the candidate need to capture media coverage ? Is it enough to covey intelligence, empathy, humility and a sense of humor? Or are we looking for just another form of bombast, populism from the left? How about a leader of the party, who can whittle away at Republican control of the Senate, if not completely in 2020, then at least steadily through 2022? I'd like to see at least half of these talented candidates make the hard decision to direct their energies elsewhere, toward recapturing the Senate and more state houses. Because, right now, it's hard to tell the best candidates from the ones who get the best coverage. In the meantime, let's not do what Democrats seems to do best - beat ourselves before the other side does.
1
Why can't you believe in diversity and support Biden? Winning the office helps implement Democratic values. It is not about a singular person, but rather someone that can win and facilitate implementing our beliefs into action.
I know Republicans who would have voted for the Devil himself rather than vote for Hillary Clinton. Some evangelicals, too.
Trump is doing all that he can to create another "Hillary" in 2020 -- someone whom his supporters and independents will see as so horrible that Donald is their only choice.
As Democrats make their choice, we know Trump will try to escape his own liabilities by defining others as immoral or incompetent or treasonous.
The challenge will be to remind voters that Trump indicts himself with those words. His charges that others are sleepy or crooked simply reflect his own weak self-image -- and the proof is found now in his record.
Trump's a bully who spends his day tweeting and watching cable news. People need to be reminded -- again and again -- that he's unfit to be president. He had his chance to prove otherwise.
2
NM,
My cousin in Texas looks like a hippie and wears his hair to his shoulders. People think he is a left wing liberal but he is anything but. When they find out how conservative he is, they are quite surprised. He is even more to the right than me and that is saying a lot.
3
Reminds me of my 66 yr old pot smoking, bongo playing, long haired friend who was one of the biggest believers (and spreaders) of the Russian propaganda machine in 2016. It isn't that he is conservative, he is anti-government and to him, so is Trump. He knows Trump doesn't care about abortion, gun rights, religion, dodged the draft and is a cheating liar. I understand him supporting Trump, it's the actual conservatives that support him I can't figure out.
The 2020 election will be like none other: there are approx. 500 reasons why Trump must be evicted from the White House, the most important of which is the composition of the Supreme Court. One more right-wing justice means curtains for America (and that's assuming that our current chief justice proves himself an empathetic human being with respect to next year's Roe-related decisions). I'm for Biden but would easily vote for any one of these nominees in a match-up with The Donald. I hope and pray and trust (!) that other Democrats will do so regardless of whom their first choice for the nomination happens to be.
comment submitted 6/13 at 2:56 PM
3
“Do they take the safest route to unseating Trump and back a candidate like Joe Biden, even if they aren’t extremely enthusiastic about him as a candidate, or do they choose a candidate who wants to return the country to a pre-Trump normality...” ?!
Care to rephrase, dropping the “or”?! 😎
You've just described Biden perfectly and that's the problem with him. He still thinks it's the 1950s or 1970s.
By the way, your string of questions does a disservice to your argument. It disrupts the flow of argument; indeed, given the column's title and your history, that space could have been better used to discus the candidates or develop your argument more fully!
Agree, however, 100% that the Dems need to nominate someone who will energize their base — and appeal to independents — and that's not Biden.
3
There is no group of voters we can afford to dismiss. This isn't a question of focusing on one group or another.
The purpose of the primaries is for people to choose who they like best--whatever that means.
Maybe it means who they think has the best chance of being elected. Or who represents a new leadership demographic. The most progressive. The most aligned in the most issues. Whatever.
And for a specific voter, maybe that's Harris or Warren. Or maybe it's Biden. Or Sanders. Or any other the other candidates.
Nobody has to choose now, before the debates or the primaries. Let people vote based on what's important to them, and let's see where we end up.
1
If a "core constituency" of the Democratic Party can't be motivated enough to vote against the dreadful Trump, then you should just give up, Democrats.
Please stop your whining about "a revolution" and being "taken for granted" and do the job required for step one of political transformation of the country: win the presidency to get Trump out of office by supporting the candidate most likely to defeat him. The best candidate will likely be the one who can appeal to (or at least not frighten) centrist voters -- like it or not, that's the mathematical reality.
Then we can think about the next steps.
2
Somewhere in this mix is the candidate who embodies progressive ideals and can express them in a a realistic way that is accessible to the folks in the middle who need to return to the side of America (vs. the side of the trumpists). This candidate also needs personal charisma, not necessarily to be the loudest voice but the most attractive. They need energy, wisdom, the ability to think on their feet, authenticity and devotion to "truth, justice and the American way," the latter being something we know when we see it (it is certainly invisible in trumpism). They can't have committed "unforgiveable sins" (like Gillibrand and, to a lesser extent, Harris did by prematurely disposing of Sen. Franken), and they need plans for both the present and the future.
I know such a person (or moe than one) exists in the current field, and I hope that the honest press, including broadcast and cable news, truly help us find them and reveal their values, and not get hung up chasing petty scandals or the next "bright shiny object." I also hope that those candidates who realize they no longer have a chance gracefully end their quest and put their support behind another candidate (or several at this stage) who embody their concerns and represent them well.
This race isn't hopeless, and it's too early to pick a winner, but the honest process must begin and be effective starting now.
I have my
1
@CP
I apologize: the last stub of a line was an artifact of an earlier revision. That said, I of course have my preferences at the moment, but any of the two dozen contenders would be better than what we're stuck with right now.
1
The present predicament is no longer simply a "safest" or a "favorite-ist" question. That question is for conventional circumstances and conventional candidates. This predicament is bigger than that, by a country mile. Yes, elections are always unpredictable at this stage. Yes, the heart vs. head issues still apply. Those, however, are not the elephant in the room. The nation is in uncharted waters. A textbook demagogue and his textbook fascist party are in power. They have already done vast damage to our democracy and our faith and trust in our democratic institutions. They have told us they might not go when we vote them out. Nobody knows what the outcome of present actions, e.g., impeachment, would be. Each and every one of us must take a look in the mirror and decide what matters, just as those brave principled folks in Hong Kong are doing, who have decided that without certain vital inalienable principles Hong Kong as we know it is finished forever: a free press, the freedom to associate, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary personal vow to protect and defend democracy, free press, the rule of law.
3
@Robert
Please, Reader, ignore this comment, in which the final sentences are jumbled, and read the comment below in which they are as intended.
The present predicament is no longer simply a "safest" or a "favorite-ist" question. That question is for conventional circumstances and conventional candidates. This predicament is bigger than that, by a country mile. Yes, elections are always unpredictable at this stage. Yes, the heart vs. head issues still apply. Those, however, are not the elephant in the room. The nation is in uncharted waters. A textbook demagogue and his textbook fascist party are in power. They have already done vast damage to our democracy and our faith and trust in our democratic institutions. They have told us they might not go when we vote them out. Nobody knows what the outcome of present actions, e.g., impeachment, would be. Each and every one of us must take a look in the mirror and decide what matters, just as those brave principled folks in Hong Kong are doing, who have decided that without certain vital inalienable principles Hong Kong as we know it is finished forever: a free press, the freedom to associate, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary. We must make a personal vow to protect and defend the things that matter, whether or not a Democrat is elected, no matter which Democratic candidate is elected, no matter how well or poorly that particular elected executive fares.
1
NM,
I assume everyone in New York is a liberal Democrat. When I find out otherwise, I am surprised.
1
If there is an "enthusiasm" deficit, indeed, and it puts Trump back for a second term, there will be no need to debate the consequences because the country will be in ruins by 2024.
ANYBODY BUT TRUMP
1
"But being a person who follows polling, I know that everything the polls capture now is subject to extreme alterations as the race progresses."
Or who the NYT says is leading, right Charles?
"The journalist is always asking, what’s new, what’s changed, what’s surprising, what’s unexpected, what’s shocking, what’s refreshing?"
What do the polls say, you mean.
"The establishment candidate is subjected to a withering scrutiny...."
Ha ha ha ha. Like Biden, you mean?
"Do they choose a candidate who appeals to — and reflects — the diversity of the Democratic Party itself?
Ha ha ha ha. Charles -- STOP!!
"Democrats have a field full of amazing talent, visionary ideas and refreshing new characters."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
There is smoke coming from my laptop!!!
Apple strudel anyone???
4
As always - excellent column but I’ll give it a twist: Democrats must be courageous. In the primaries vote for the candidate of your heart but go and vote in the elections with your brain for whoever wins. Don’t stay home, AGAIN, because Sanders didn’t win.
The Democratic presidential candidates must out liberal the other as the party has swung very far to the left. This may play well in New York and California but will not go over well in the rural and mid America parts of the country. Maybe as the campaign moves along they will become more moderate but by then they have lost the moderate base. Who would believe them at this point.
2
@KMW
The Democratic politicians have swung left and it's mostly for the wrong reasons.
The Democratic voter has not and vote's Republican.
Democrats ,independents and republicans with morals need to unite on the task of saving our democracy from a Trum/Barr/McCONNELL dictatorship. All hands on deck is required vote as if your democracy depends on it as it does.
3
@REBCO. Do explain how democracy is at risk. I get so tired of liberals saying that.
2
In Charles' world daring = crazy. The Democrats have lost any chance of winning the presidential election in 2020. However the smart money is on the candidate who has the best chance of winning - not the most daring, not the craziest and not the most Anti-American. Not people who claim to be part Native American to get into politics, not the near communist but barely socialist candidates, not the Down with law enforcement and so on ..... candidates.
2
In the 2000 election, 97,000 liberals followed their hearts and voted for Ralph Nader over Al Gore. How did that work out?
13
@Michael Lueke
Did you forget to count all the Florida Democrats who voted for Bush?
1
I wondered why Trump calls Joe Biden "sleepy Joe"? So the other day I watched a clip on Youtube with Joe Biden giving a speech at a rally in Iowa. I turned away and just listened to his voice. I was mortified! He does sound sleepy. He is showing his age. He's just a few years away from totally slurring his speech.
I am a lifelong Democrat. I will vote for whomever is the Democratic nominee. Biden can take me for granted. My vote is in the bag. But I worry about all the Independents and young people who will be turned off by his candidacy. Excitement cannot be discounted or taken for granted. We need someone to get excited about.
I have been watching AOC a lot since she came to congress. I would take ten bullets for her. She brings a lot of passion and excitement to the table. And I happen to believe in a lot of the policies she advocates. I am 63 years old and I want to work on the campaign for someone like her.
5
@El Guapo.
Then work for Senator Sanders. He inspired AOC and many others...
2
The whole idea of voting on the basis of electability is a defeatist's game. It is an endless game of second guessing.
You know.
They know that you know.
You know that they know that you know.
They know that you know that they know that you know.
You know that they know that you know that they know that you know.
And so it goes, ad nauseum.
So much better to act on your principles, and to hell with what 'they' think.
4
"Politics is a war of ideas." Dear, dear Charles, that assumes that people think, and I do not make that assumption anymore.
This is a really good piece, and I like and agree with most of what you write; this column is particularly dispassionate in presenting your point of view. Sadly, that's not what we are and I'll be the first to admit that's not me. I am passionately opposed to Trump. Whatever good has come out of this administration was pure chance or leftovers from the previous administration.
We have to follow our passion. Vote for the candidate in the primary that ignites that passion. And then, whoever wins the Democratic nomination, support that person passionately. Our country depends on it.
208
@SUW
The key to winning is to follow your passion no matter what. So what if you lose? You just get up and do it again, and again. Takes courage.
That's how you win at everything. You do the straight-up right thing and let the chips fall as they may. You do your part, then let the universe do its part.
What cowardly moderates don't realize (because they've lived a pedestrian life) is that the universe loves courage.
The universe will make the apparently improbable happen every time.
14
@SUW
That's how McGovern lost.
9
@SUW
"And then, whoever wins the Democratic nomination, support that person passionately."
Sorry, I won't do that. I know whom I want to vote for, and whom I may vote for. But I also know that some of the candidates will never get my vote.
Lack of discipline? You may call it that; or you just may understand that a voter is not a sheep.
2
I wish WE Americans weren't so easily duped, but we are.
Can't anyone see the game being played?
All of the candidates except 3 or 4 know they have no chance of being elected- they are readily aware of this inevitable fact. So they play the, "I'm running for President game," for PR .. but more so.. To land a favorable Cabinet or other government position when the bow out of the race and support the eventual nominee.
2
@Aaron
I've been trying to keep up with this election and thought I was doing a pretty good job, but looking at these mug shots, I realized I can only name 16 of them.
2
First, Democrats of all stripes need to recognize President Trump for what he is - an existential threat to American democracy, to the rule of law, and ultimately to the personal freedom and well being of all Americans. The time for arguing over which of the 23 shades of blue is best is after Trump has been removed from office and the continued existence of what we recognize as America has been assured. If we fail to come together an act in 2020, then I fear our institutions will crumble under the weight of a 2nd Trump term, and that we will be less than a decade out from a Trump/GOP secret police rounding up political opponents with impunity.
Second, Democrats need to vote. We can't wait for a politician to inspire us to the voting both. That's not the way it works. If the GOP has shown us anything its that you make your voice heard in the voting both and THEN politicians are inspired to deliver. Why do you think the religious right has gotten so much of what it wants from a political party whose primary overriding interest is to cutting taxes on owners of capital? It isn't because a politician said the right things about abortion and drew religious voters to the voting booth. It was because those reliable votes inspired GOP politicians to care about abortion.
Vote blue, no matter who. Once the executive & legislative branches are safely out of the hands of authoritarians, then we can talk about which Democrat has the best policy ideas.
5
The bottom line is that Trump is the enemy of freedom and the greatest threat to democracy that our country has ever faced. I'll vote for any candidate who opposes him.
65
At the core of the issue is a dilemma the Democrats have to confront in one way or another: Are they elastic enough to remain a single, viable party, or is this the time for a truly Progressive party to free itself and stand for its own values and ideas? If we look at the constituency and paraphrase Republican Abraham Lincoln, "You can please all the people in your Party some of the time and some of the people in the Party all the time, but you cannot please all the people in the Party all the time." Not when it's laboring under these pulls at the envelope in many directions.
2
Yesterday, I got a nice surprise about how wrong my assumptions about people’s political support can be.
I was in a grocery store with a man, seemingly in his thirties, dressed pretty ‘macho’ - cap with camouflage, scrappy tee shirt, cargo pants. When I saw him getting into an enormous black pick up truck, I sized him up as a likely Trump backer. Well, lo and behold, across the truck’s rear windshield was a large sticker that said: “Buttigieg 2020.”
Come what may with Mayor Pete, or any other given candidate, it is good to know that voters can defy stereotypes.
383
Says more about you than about him. Didn't you learn about books and their covers. But, fret not, you are not alone; we all do it to some extent. These comment sections abound with mythological stereotypes of candidates, parties, states, sections of the country, religion, races, gender...you name it. The challenge seems to be to work Trump's name into everything, even recipe reviews ;)
15
@Concerned Citizen
You may have missed this, but in my first sentence, I wrote how wrong my assumptions were. No need to scold someone who acknowledged being wrong to presume things about others.
79
@Concerned Citizen
Come on. Everyone has presumptions about people based on a lot of things. We are often proved wrong, which is often a very nice (or not) surprise.
17
"Do they choose a candidate who appeals to — and reflects — the diversity of the Democratic Party itself,..."
Based on the mug shots, the Democrat party should overwhelmingly win the "old, White" vote.
1
I held my nose and voted for the anointed one in 2016, I’m not going to do it again. I will not vote for the charlatan either. I’ll just skip that line and vote the rest of the ballot.
Biden is too old. So is Sanders. I’ve donated to two candidates so far and will to two others. Ideas and policies must win, not who a bunch of white septuagenarians tilt the playing field towards.
5
@Luke
Sanders is way healthier and has more energy than people half his age. Wake up, kiddo.
1
The Trump Effect has hit the Democratic Party full on, where the attitude prevails that just about anybody can be a functional president...NOT true. All but about three of the people pictured are lacking either the intellectual, ideological, or moral qualifications to be POTUS...or might be just too damn old. When are people going to realize this is hardest job in the world and 99.9% are not up to it.
2
Hopefully the Democratic candidate for President can bring the best of all the diverse ideas and views of the 20 something contenders to the voters in Nov. 2020. Offered a choice between fundamental changes in protecting the environment, expanding health care, reforming tax structure and creating a more equitable society for all versus the GOP's continued decisions to ignore the climate change crisis and protect the status quo, I believe the American public will overwhelmingly go Democratic in 2020.
1
If Democratic voters had always played it safe, we wouldn't have unemployment benefits, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, disability support, civil rights for blacks, equal rights for women, clean water and air, safer cars and airplanes, federal bank deposit insurance, the veterans "bill of rights," and labor unions, to name just a few. Our voters need to find their spines and stand up for what they need and deserve their like forefathers and mothers did. Stop cowering and meekly accepting the crumbs that may or may not "trickle down" from the banquet tables of the economic lords. Just laugh when a Republican and some Democrats call us "socialists" as they always have when ordinary working people demand something as fundamental to life as medical care. In a democracy, we can get the fair deal we deserve but only if we fight for it.
4
A chicken in every pot; a car in every garage. That sentiment is still a valid Democratic concern, and it appeals to every demographic, but it must be re-phrased. Maybe a diploma on every wall; a retirement for every worker.
3
Very inspiring Charles but one can only afford to be daring when there is nothing to lose. The risk that Trump ends up getting re-elected if the Democrats put up a daring nominee is too great to take. The most important thing is for all Democrats to put aside their contretemps with each other and focus entirely on picking the nominee who has the best chance of successfully being contratrump.
3
I rarely disagree with your columns but in this case I must. True, polls change and the most popular candidate today may be the least as we approach the election. But the party MUST select the safest candidate rather than the favorite candidate. There has never been a time in the history of America where it was more important to unseat a sitting maniacal President. Moreover, the general philosophy of every Democratic candidate on critical national issues (race, sex, freedom of religion, LGBTQ rights, the environment, guns, taxation, voting rights and foreign affairs), while not identical, is uniformly contrary to that of Trump and the Republican Party. We must nominate the candidate who has the best opportunity to defeat Trump, not the best candidate.
3
The one question I want to hear at all debates--be they among the candidates or among people-- is "Will you unequivocally support the nominee, should you (or your choice) not be the one?"
We aren't going to get perfect, and Trump is starting with 40-45% of the vote. Purity in the name of conscience takes a back seat to a decent, if impure, reality.
2
None of these presidential candidates stand out. They are all progressive with liberal agendas. None of them impress me but then I am a Republican. I will be voting for President Trump as what you see is what you get. And I like what I have seen so far. He has made America great again.
1
@KMW Oh really? "Great"? Exactly what has he done other than making the US the laughing stock of the world?
@KMW Wow, call me shocked that you don't like a field of candidates that want to improve the country for all people, as opposed to a tiny select few. And no, he really hasn't. I'm curious as to how you would've responded had President Obama openly stated that he would welcome interference from Russia. I'm guessing in the typical hypocritical fashion that has come to define the increasingly treasonous republican party.
2
I know what I truly believe but don't know what at least 13 of the candidates stand for so far. They need media coverage and I need to dig for the facts too. So it's too early for me to commit.
I would love to see Stacey Abrams. Why not make it 24? That will be up to her. In the meantime lots to consider which is a good thing. What I will look for is freedom for women, all women, to have the full healthcare they need and want with help for costs if necessary. The right for all eligible to vote and have their vote counted and separation of church and state.
2
Joe Biden is similar to Hilary Clinton in many ways -- a well-know, highly experienced centrist candidate who carries a lot of baggage. I think it's imperative to defeat the incumbent but I have serious doubts Biden won't end up like Clinton, generating tepid support and getting hammered on issues that should be used effectively against the incumbent but instead won't be because of Biden's own weakness on them (in his case issues such as reproductive rights, respect for women, criminal justice, etc.). I truly hope a younger, charismatic, vibrant, and progressive candidate rises up out of primary process. As much as I admire President Obama, who had charisma and youth on his side in 2008, I hope now is the time for a candidate more daring and left of center on policy. Biden unfortunately is to the right of Obama on many issues and lacks Obama's other redeeming characteristics.
20
Right now I am leaning toward Joe Biden for President -- a person who can calm down world leaders and actively work to restore the USA's leadership of the free world and Elizabeth Warren for Vice President -- an activist, actively involved Vice President, working both sides of the aisle to implement many of her plans and policies.
We shall see where the primaries, caucuses, and Democratic Convention take us.
As I have said many times before in the New York Times and the Washington Post, I will vote for the Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidates nominated by the Democratic Convention.
Further, I will vote for Democrats from the top of the ballot to the bottom.
I am done with Republicans and the Republican Party that brings us the likes of Gaetz and Jordan; Mitch McConnell; Pence; Kavanaugh; trump; Jared and Ivanka; and the rest of the corrupt Republican "all-stars."
36
@SJHS
And clueless people like you will make sure Trump gets another term. Elizabeth Warren for Biden's Vice President? Are you kidding me? Look up their past history; they don't even like each other. EW took Biden to task for helping Republicans pass a bankruptcy bill which was punitive to regular people but kind to credit card companies. Do some research before you decide for whom to vote. Joe Biden, BTW, will never be the nominee, much less the President. Take that to the bank.
6
@SJHS
If Warren is the one with all the good ideas (and she is), then she should be at the top of the ticket.
9
@M.A.....Warren has the good ideas to put her at the top of the ticket?
But some people don't like the idea of a woman on top. Likely Biden wouldn't either.
Couldn't resist that one.
“ Do you follow your head, or your heart ? “. Neither, Sir. I shall follow my DNA. I will do what is BEST for my Daughter, and my two Granddaughters. That is my legacy, and that is my Hope. Nothing else matters.
Period.
1
@Phyliss Dalmatian: Ditto. I'm backing a woman, any woman, that can "finally" get us equality across the board. Elizabeth Warren is smart, savvy about politics and really does support "the little guy". She should pick Mayor Pete as her running mate. Those two cover all my bases. For women and the population that continues to be marginalized by white, homophobic, racist, sexist men!
1
@Cecilia
Me Too. Liz and Pete, in that order. I’m beyond tired of waiting our turn and having patience. Just look where THAT got us.
For myself i would see a ticket of Gabbard and Buttigied ticket. Or vice versa.Talking about new ideas.
You've outlined Democrats' dilemma quite well, Mr. Blow. With 20+ candidates, we are overwhelmed, & thus the safe choice--Biden--becomes our coping mechanism.
We're longing for new leadership: someone younger & more concerned about ALL the various groups of people (including working class whites). Thus the appeal of Mayor Pete, Beto O'Rourke, Corey Booker, and Kamala Harris. However, homophobia will play a role once more voters realize Mayor Pete is gay. And can Booker & Harris overcome racism (& sexism, in Harris's case)? 2016 showed how much sexism is still alive and well in the reaction to Hilary, & the backlash against the 1st black president also was a factor for Trump's win.
So that takes us back to the familiar names but who are older: Biden, Sanders, Warren. Warren would be the best IMO, but she has to overcome the same sexism that helped defeat Hilary. Sanders has to overcome antiSemitic prejudice, which is also alive & well (let alone his socialist label which too many people still equate with communism & the old USSR). So we're back to Biden. Can he overcome his touchy-feely images (shouldn't be an issue given Trump's far worse behavior, but fairness has no bearing in people's choices), & his political record (support for Iraq invasion, tough-on-crime bill that sent many black men to prison, the Anita Hill testimony)?
The Democrats really have a conundrum. Will the NYTimes help us solve that with some in-depth reporting on more of the viable candidates?
1
I've skimmed this and read Mr. Blow's column. I think we're at the It's-too-early-to-tell stage. One thing I can take exception to is that progressives constitute the majority. Anecdotally, not my experience and I try to venture away from my silo as much as I can.
Also, why not reach out to Trump's base? Jobs he promised haven't materialized, many have stopped looking for work thus not counting in the unemployment statistics, and they have concerns about healthcare. I'm a black queer woman. I'm going to vote to beat Trump no matter who runs (though I have concerns about Bernie, who looks at the Democratic Party as his flag of convenience). But I think it's a mistake for Dems to take their base for granted and not put efforts into expanding it.
3
How true; early polling may not reflect the final results...by a mile. Although there are the loyalists to a given individual no matter what (just look at Trump's 'base', ready and willing to support a liar and demagogue, as a cult of personality), there are also skeptic folks that want to wait and see who 'makes sense'...apart from charisma, to possibly satisfy their future needs and wants...and change the current chaos created by an unscrupulous, incompetent and corrupt bully in the Oval Office. Besides, the current river of despair and disappointment shall see much water pass through...before the final scoop is tasted. Aside from working from the bottom up, at a community level, the will to win must be accompanied by clear purpose, hard work and tenacity that, at the end, may fill the voting booths.
I will ride with Andrew Yang all the way to the finish line,he has inspired me like no other. Obama I used to cry to some of his speeches for his beautiful use of language, a great orator,not a great president. Andrew Yang doesn't make me cry but go Oh Yeah that's true he makes me actually think about problems, I've seen glimpses of what he is referring to about automation in news stories and such but this is the only person who has articulated everything into something that regular people can comprehend. I have been a student of history basically since I could read which was almost 40 years ago, Andrew Yang is the right man at the right time. Yang2020
3
@MikeC
I could not agree more. I had never donated to a political campaign in my life before donating to Yang. He makes so much practical sense, and would help so many people if he can get his ideas into action.
I beg you to check him out if you haven't yet:
https://www.yang2020.com/
Not left, not right, forward
1
Democrats Must Be Daring. Daring to believe that your vote makes a difference after the 2016 election debacle and fighting in the trenches to get out the vote is tremendously daring and all some may muster. As you say it is much to early to worry about particular candidates, but the fighting soul of our coalition as supporters of our democratic system must be what carries us on.
3
According to most pollsters, 100,000,000 eligible voters did not bothr to vote in 2016! This is a catastrophe--it brought us Donald Trump. Since most analysts estimate that a majority of Americans are inclined to be liberal, the sit-at-homers most take a lot of responsibility for saddling us with the spectacle of our current President.
So it seems to me, that since any one of the Democratic candidates would be incalculably better than Trump, our main focus has to be to get out the vote. We need to run a big ad campaign targeted to motivating Democrats to actually vote.
13
@Elizabeth Bennett
Hooray for Ms. Bennett, You hit the BullsEye and the African-American vote in particular. They voted in larger numbers for Obama, but dropped considerably for Clinton.
Ads or whatever it takes.
And then of course Russian interference which is another enormous problem.
4
The problem for Democrats is that they are all packed into a few districts in a few states. Winning an already Democratic stronghold by 80/20 rather than 60/40 does no good. We have to win purple States and Districts 53/47 and to do that means winning back the middle. I'm not saying Biden is the guy but we need to win the House, Senate and Electoral College not the national popular vote.
4
The Democrats need a tough street-fighter who can think outside the box, communicate effectively with normal people, and be a plausible commander in chief of the armed forces. Preferably someone with relevant experience but a minimum of baggage from the past. Someone with a good "brain trust" who isn't a one-man-band (so to speak). Someone with good digital-security software engineers. It's a difficult assignment.
6
Democrats need to learn that whoever eventually wins the nomination, vote for them. There is no perfect candidate so support or hold nose, but vote D.
35
Many of us lifelong Democrats are dismayed at the timidity and conservatism of some the leaders of our party.
We want them to be bold and courageous, and to fight for us instead of seeking safety.
But our leaders won't be bold and courageous unless we are too. They won't support what we care about unless we support the ones who stand up for what we and they believe, instead of trying to placate everyone else.
So vote for what and whom you truly believe in, not what you guess will make middle-of-the-roaders happy. It won't make them happy anyway.
49
Thank you Mr. Blow.
Now is the time for Democrats to stand for what they believe in and take their case to the nation. We should state our vision of the country and how we plan to get there.
Now is not the time for timidity, or the safe bet or sure thing.
Once the Democratic Party stood for bold ideas and then lost its way trying to appeal to an illusive “centrist” voter who seemed to exist only in the minds of pollsters. We need to return to those days when name-calling didn’t make us turn tail and insults were ignored.
11
We've lost election after election because we failed to nominate a candidate that the young voters would get excited about. For that reason, I believe Biden would be our worst choice, as I think he's about the only one in this category.
18
@glow worm
In the past 28 years Democrats have won four times and Republicans four times. In two of those four Republican elections, it was only an electoral college victory. The Democratic candidates actually won the popular vote. We haven't lost election after election.
I agree that it's important that everyone feel energized, but a way to do this is to build a coalition throughout the party and elect someone who will bring people together and make everyone feel empowered. I think Biden is the best person to do this. We have enough issues so that the there's a job for everyone - the president, cabinet members, Congress, Senate, the business community, local communities, and individuals.
6
@Chris
correcting myself on my past presidents comment. I was trying to go back 30 years and include Bush Sr. but my math got mixed up. It should presidential terms over the past 30 years.
Absolutely. The Democrats can't hope to either phone in (aka, "safe") or cringe their way to victory in 2020. There is no coasting, here, and the "safe" choices are decidedly unsafe.
I think the other thing people need to appreciate is that Trump isn't a historical aberration -- or, more accurately, he's a symptom, and not the source of the political disaster we're experiencing.
The GOP's approach to politics since at least 1994 has gotten us where we are today. They've been working hard to build their one-party state, and have taken attacks on our elections themselves as part of their arsenal.
And, sadly, the Democrats have their own mawkish share of the blame, too, by treating vision and progressive (and even liberal) values as things to be avoided, which renders them spineless.
It takes political courage the Dems have lacked (and even in wins, where there's a mandate, the Democrats squandered those mandates by trying to mend fences with a decidedly hostile GOP). Americans want progress -- you know what progress is? Moving forward. You don't progress by avoiding progressive ideas. The solutions for the 21st century require 21st century ideas, and that means vision.
Go big, or go home. Sadly, 2020 may end up being the last election the Democrats get to do this -- they can't afford any more meh candidates that can't generate enthusiasm for their ideas.
6
Mr. Blow usually is more transparent than he is today. Simply, he could say that Biden is a weak choice for President, despite being high, right now, in the polls and seen as "electable" but not a candidate he can support. Fair enough. A challenge I read from Blow is the one about going with your heart, going with your dreams about our country's future. Biden doesn't inspire dreams. He's about safety; he won't shake the boat too much and he won't move it forward as quickly as needed. Will a candidate emerge who seems electable and inspires those dreams? That's what I'd look for; I don't find it yet.
2
What Blow is really saying - in code - is that although Biden might be seen as the safest candidate, he will not inspire the excitement, enthusiasm and wide-spread participation among Democrats, Independents and disaffected Republicans. And he is right. That is a real risk.
Biden is stiff, uses a teleprompter, and tends to mangle his responses to Trump's put downs of him as a sleepy, weak, not-so-smart politician. His 'existential threat' come-back was a case in point.
And on the policy side, Biden really doesn't represent change - at least not the kind of upheaval that voters who threw their lot in with Trump three years ago were looking for. Joe is a great guy - intelligent, honest and considerate - all the things Trump isn't. But he represents the status quo (the Clinton, Bush, Obama status quo - not the corrupt Trump status quo).
Many voters believe America is due for a make-over. The only front-runners capable of delivering that are Sanders and Warren. Both have demonstrated the capacity to excite - to coalesce Democrats and others under something of a revolutionary flag.
Sanders in particular exudes a selfless devotion to a cause that young people find hard to resist. He is steady, articulate and tireless. Warren is not quite as steady but she is articulate and tireless.
8
Thanks, Charles Blow, for your words to the wise! I was leaning toward a safe-ish candidate who wasn't inspiring. And realized that person didn't make my heart smile.
The 2020 race at the end may be as much of a surprise as the 2016 race was, but if the one who stole my heart wins, then we'll all be happy as clams at high tide.
A few candidates caught fire in the past 100 years. Those who won became America's legendary leaders. You could count them on a couple of digits of one hand.
I took your words to heart, Charles. So I sent a couple of bucks to the one who lights my fire, who I like and who will reshape American society. Who is an amazingly talented visionary. Who will keep our precious democracy alive and kicking. Am hopefully following this candidate all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue 17 months from now. The possibility is gorgeous!.
5
It's so odd to me that Democrats generally love to gravitate toward the "safe" candidate when it's proven to be such a losing strategy.
John Kerry. Al Gore. Hillary Clinton. Michael Dukakis. Every one of these was seen as the safe, electable bet. Every one of them lost. Bill Clinton is the only 'safe' one to have broken through, but this was after twelve years of GOP rule, and in the midst of a recession.
Voters have been pretty clear since 2008 that 'safe' isn't gonna cut it. Among the qualities that the electorate found most appealing about Obama in '08 is that he represented a clean break with the disastrous policies of the preceding administration. Trump's appeal to many was that he was a repudiation of a system that they felt had left them behind.
Yet many Democrats seem to feel that the best course of action is someone who will restore us to the pre-2016 status quo. The same status quo, incidentally, that resulted in the right-wing dystopia under which we currently live. Sounds kinda insane, no?
Between Congressional Democratic leadership's refusal to hold the president accountable, and the move toward Biden by many Dems, I can't help but see the Democrats as a hopelessly timid party. A party that certainly does not measure up to the needs of our present moment.
25
@Vin: Of the four candidates that you mention, Gore & Clinton won the popular vote. IMO both of those campaigns were stolen from the democrats by the electoral college and our biased supreme court. There are many candidates this time that can beat trump. We just need to get EVERYONE to vote. Talk to people about not sitting this one out. Every vote is going to count, especially since stump has indicated that he would accept help (again) from Russia!
2
@Vin
Mike Dukakis lost because he was too liberal. Remember Willie Horton? Dukakis was attacked for his support of a prisoner furlough program.
4
"Safest" may be the same as "favorite" in 2020. Since many people want a return to some sense of normal, that may be why a centrist (at least in present polls) seems more likely to win. Perhaps we need to get back to safe and normal first before voting more with our hearts in 2024.
4
@Jeffrey Freedman A centrist will not win. Trump, and right wing populists throughout the developed world, are winning because they address the failures of the neoliberal economic order. Nominating a neoliberal will open the door for Trump's second term. The Democrats have several candidates, most notably Warren and Sanders, who are addressing the same issues from the left. These candidates can win.
12
Okay, it's nice to hope for a win + a candidate with some kind of progressive program. That hope is all smoke and mirrors. This is not the era of reasonable differences, this is the era of McConnell/Trump bald power politics. We already had an inspirational Democratic candidate and 2-term president who, though a great person, was the wrong person to play on that political battlefield. In the near future the important things are to win (both Presidency and the Congress), and then to reverse the incredible damage done to the Supreme Court, and then to give those changes some chance for survival by knocking down the worst distortions of our political process. Progressive programs are philosophical toys that mean - nothing. Let's talk about health care reform. Does anyone think, after Obama and Pelosi pushed through a moderate reform that has now been almost gutted by right-wing machinations, any true reform is possible without first leveling the political playing field? Anyone who thinks that - Mr. Blow included - is delusional. It's okay to debate progressive hypotheticals, but give it a rest once a candidate has been chosen, and not only vote but push for the gritty political moves that have to be made before we can really discuss literally any reform, large or small. It doesn't matter whether the President is Warren or Biden, as long as that President has the guts to push for lasting Supreme Court and electoral changes.
@Pete The gritty moves that have to be made all boil down to removing Republicans from power. The way to do that is to nominate Democrats who inspire people to vote, i.e., progressives who are addressing the economic concerns of the 99%.
9
Joe Biden checks all the boxes for a safe candidate except for age. He is a white male with long experience in the federal government in Congress and the executive branch. He is heterosexual. And he even has an image that isn't elitist and he is certainly not too far left, although he is a liberal. If he is still in the race when the primary arrives in New York and his opponent is Sanders and/or Warren I will probably vote for Biden to be on the safe side but like many Democrats I am not enthusiastic about him. Among the 23 candidates my choice is Jay Inslee. He appears to fully grasp what a serious threat climate change is and that an enormous effort affecting all of society is needed to have any realistic hope of avoiding utter catastrophe down the line. Inslee appears to clearly understand that this is an emergency situation, not because the present effects of climate change can be characterized as an emergency although some are quite severe, but because sufficient action can no longer be delayed. It is easy to see how we are continuing on a path that could very likely lead to an extreme climate not suitable for large populations of humans for many thousands of years. I think Inslee is the best choice among the candidates to try to get us off that path.
1
@Bob Please pardon the pun, but I don't believe the voters will warm up to a climate change candidate. The international situation, the economy, immigration, and America's crumbling infrastructure are topics the public can sink its teeth into and support a candidate who has their best interests at heart. Sanders and Warren and Buttigieg are all solid, top shelf choices.
8
I think this problem will work itself out. By the time Super Tuesday comes around, name recognition for the leading democrats will be high and we will have more confidence regarding who polls best against Trump. Any dem who polls much better than anyone else will get my vote.
Vote for the person you actually want to be president. If everyone did that, we'd know exactly what country we live in.
14
@Diego It did happen, Hillary won the popular vote.
Today’s op ed on the cost of insulin gives reason enough for some major changes in this countries direction. The problem is much deeper than Trump. State governments as well as federal are full of elected officials who stand in the way of reform. A more liberal president may only stop the bleeding Trump has caused. Real change has to come from the bottom up. Republicans have done a good job of convincing voters that change is bad and that reformers are radical socialists. The road ahead is going to be bumpy.
1
This is definitely not the year to be afraid to vote for a bold, progressive candidate. Please bring the US into line with the rest of the civilized world with healthcare, minimum wage, infrastructure, education. The US is slipping into a banana republic state and it's painful to watch. It's time to get with the rest of advanced countries or get left behind to a degree it will be impossible to catch up. Not to mention the human suffering from lack of affordable medical care.
48
In order to rid ourselves of trump and his nasty little minions I agree that Democrats need to be daring. What they don't need to be is stupid. The Bros who are beginning a repeat of their "stay home if MY candidate isn't nominated" campaign from 2016 I simply as that you look around you. Are we, as one of your number said then, "closer to the revolution" now that trump is in office?
3
@Neal
"Are we, as one of your number said then, "closer to the revolution" now that trump is in office?"
Yes we are. People are waking up due to Trump and we're leaving those who can't carry their weight behind.
But it might take four more years of Trump to really do it. If so, so be it. Not our fault. Sometimes you need to go two steps back, as with Trump, to get three steps forward.
War is like that. It requires sacrifice. If you don't think this is war, get out of your cushy chair and ask the Republicans.
The moderates' lack of courage elected Trump, and they will keep electing him until they find some courage. Instead they take the easy way of no responsibility and they blame others. They are incapable of learning ("But Hillary won!" they moan).
They want gain with no pain - a free lunch. Nothing worthwhile is free. Only a Biden-style politician with that con-man smile will offer something for free. And only a still-asleep moderate will believe that.
2
Yes Donkeypartiers, please do select your favorite "daring" candidate.
Trump thanks you in advance.
2
"Democrats must be bold." "Timing is everything." "It is all about being the right candidate for right now."
I am puzzled. The photograph of the columnist looks familiar. But is this essay written by the same Charles Blow who supported Hillary Clinton throughout 2015 and 2016 and sneered at Sen. Bernie Sanders's progressive ideas? Or did the Times hire another columnist, coincidentally named Charles Blow, but with diametrically opposed opinions about Democratic politics? Very confusing!
15
Charles Blow's constant Democrat bashing is counterproductive and accomplishes nothing.
1
@sharon5101 I strongly disagree. A presumption among many thoughtful people is that the great enemy of a good life and a decent world is something called ‘bias’. By bias, people have come to understand a twisting of the facts towards dark and entirely nefarious ends. According to this interpretation, bias is invariably and necessarily bad. In some quarters, the word has simply grown synonymous with evil. In order to hate bias so much, one has to love the idea of something else with equal passion: ‘the facts’. Peo- ple hate bias because they ultimately believe in the redemptive possibility of some- thing completely objective, and scientifically verifiable. Loathing of bias is the flip side of faith in facts. Facts evidently exist in many areas of life. Science and many of the hu- man sciences are beautifully based on evidence-based, fact-yielding work. The prob- lem is that in many of the most important aspects of existence, there simply are no ‘facts’ available. The big questions that bedevil us, individually and collectively, have no facts to appeal to. – How should we live? – What is the right economic system to in- stitute? – What sort of relationships should we have? – What choices should we
make? – Who are we and what do we want and need? In the face of such dilemmas, we may well long for facts – by which we really mean, answers we can be assured will be indisputably correct. No absolutes, everything is margins. We are the stories we tell ourselves.
2
@sharon5101
He is not bashing Democrats, just the ones who elected Trump; the Republican-lites.
1
Voters want a leader who will make the country safe, secure and prosperous and who will make the US more just economically and politically. Most of the Democratic candidates give the impression that the voters want position papers and politically correct platitudes. Those candidates aren't electable.
1
This is the first election ( probably in my lifetime of 65 years) where staying home and not voting because you are convinced it won't make any difference at all is a huge mistake. That being said, the candidiate on the Democratic side that excites the people, gets them to recognize how dangerous Trump really is, and convinces them to come out to vote will win the nomination and defeat Trump. It doesn't matter who it is really. We don't need impeachment. We don't need to hear from Mueller. We just need someone to step up and help America understand that ignoring climate change, ignoring income inequality, and hating other peoples of the world because they are poor and want a decent life are not the answers. Whoever can do that will win. I think the debates will help Americans vet the field and many will not be able to go on. And the candidate who faces Trump has to point out that when Trump uses all the derogatory terms towards that person, he isn't just talking to the opponent. He is addresssing the voters who support that candidate. So if you are sleepy. A loser. Pathetic. A disaster. Should be locked up. Should be beaten up by the police. Are lazy. Shiftless. If you are offended by being called that, go get the guy who is saying that about you through your candidate. Spend whatever time necessary on 1 day to stand up and say to that guy I am offended. And I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU. One day. One election. Make a difference. VOTE.
19
The problem with this analysis is that anyone paying attention should be extraordinarily enthusiastic to see Trump leave office, regardless of what Democrat replaces him.
Why isn't the most enthusiastic message that: our guy or gal is a sane functioning adult who believes in laws and decency, and theirs is an unhinged criminal degenerate who is an international disgrace and we're lucky he hasn't started a nuclear war with this phone, yet.
I am extremely enthusiastic about having a President who is not a grotesque international embarrassment. I would be thrilled, more thrilled than about any election result in my life, to have a President who did not foment the racist birther lie, did not call the Klan and Neo-Nazis "fine people," is not on tape bragging about his success in habitually sexually assaulting women, has too much basic human decency to attack gold star families and war heroes and (truly psychotically) the ghost of a war hero, who didn't bankrupt businesses and commit racketeering fraud, who doesn't mock disabled reporters, and who isn't on tape bragging about his own daughter's great body and how he would be dating her if she weren't his daughter.
Trump is sickening. I couldn't make up the prologue and epilogue of vile things he has said (and bragged about doing) if I tried. Yes, count me among those who just want the person most likely to beat him.
"Our guy isn't a perverted criminal" is a great weapon.
102
Get excited all you want, but the Democrat apparatchik will never let a Buttigieg or Warren or Harris or Bernie through. You'll get your Biden and like it.
That said, I could be wrong. Maybe an angry Democrat voter throng comes out and surges their own Trump to the White House. A polar opposite wouldn't surprise me.
4
Blow's opinion piece title should read "Too many Democrats are learning towards their favorite candidates rather than my favorite candidates."
9
Joe is a no! Same brand as Hilary. We don't need or want another corporatist Democrat.
17
I, personally, hope bernie decides to support Warren. Choosing between Warren, Biden and Harris is really hard. because the number one goal is to beat spanky. Warren is very bright, tough and prepared. Biden is well known and probably the surest bet to beat spanky. I would prefer to see Harris in the senate. VOTE DEMOCRATIC
4
Hear, hear!
In a separate matter, I saw you on Bill Mahr. The beard becomes you —it adds gravitas. Time to update the NYT pic.
3
The republican party is irrelevant.
There are FAR more Progressive voters out there than there are republicans AND independents (mostly republican lite) combined. There are also over 100,000,000 that sit out any given election. They just need to be woken up and inspired.
Having said that, there is absolutely NO need to worry for the moment. Listen to ALL of the Democratic nominees, and let them truly debate the issues and form the party platform. Whomever does win the nomination, then support them (even if they are far from your first choice).
Simple enough.
Work from WITHIN the party to make that candidate better, the party better, and ultimately the country/world better. That is how it is supposed to be done.
The last candidate in 2016 was flawed and had a lot of baggage, but many wanted the revolution now. This is what we got and it is inflicting an inordinate amount of the pain for that choice. People are not going to be as foolish to make the same mistake twice, because they now know the results.
Just show up and everything will be fine .
123
@FunkyIrishman
That's right. The moderates assume they're the big center, but they are few and getting fewer. They have no future. When it's us against them the voter distribution is not normal, it is bimodal.
The moderates' inertial thinking - not Trump - is the problem. They elected Trump and will do so again.
12
@FunkyIrishman
Commenter Bill Brown has been lambasting progressives here for weeks, saying that this is a center right country and if we go "progressive" we'll lose.
I've been saying, oh, for at least 50 years that this is a center left (or really, hard Left - not Marxist, but social democrat or democratic socialist or most appropriately, libertarian socialist) country.
Virtually all the polling evidence supports this. I asked Bill for some hard evidence and as of yet he has not supplied any.
I asked the late lamented conservative commenter Richard Luettgen for hard evidence of his contention we're "center right" - he never provided any...
because there isn't any.
I've been so delighted to see you persist in your presentation of the truth of the progressive orientation of Americans - if anybody arrives here who wants to present the case for us being "center right" - please please please, don't do as the Trumpists do, just parroting biased opinion -
"show us the facts."
13
@don salmon
I assume that AACNY, or ebmem, or Southern boy, or some other regular 'conservative' supporter might drop by an present a Faux-News version of "Leftists' (they want to take your guns away, they're all baby killers, etc).
So I realized I should clarify - for the sake of simplicity, by "center left" I'm simply referring to the FDR liberal post-WWII consensus, up to the Reagan years (and by extension, the global consensus in developed countries, re gun control, abortion, climate change, parental leave, minimum wage, business regulations, environmental regulations, climate change, fossil fuels, support for renewables, universal health care [private/public or whatever form], mostly free or low cost education, regulation of drugs, food, worker safety, etc etc).
In fact, i'd be interested to hear from anyone who can come up with even 5 examples (with SOLID empirical evidence) of majority support for center right policies.
Heck, I'd be delighted to hear (with SOLID empirical evidence) of majority support in the US or anywhere else for majority support for center right policies for even one issue (if you choose immigration - be sure you present valid empirical evidence and define the results very clearly)
11
"Current polls simply capture a moment in time"
Absolutely! Thank you, the NYT! People are in dire need of such wisdom and guidance to understand complexities of the process.
1
"Democrats have . . . visionary ideas". Too many, they scare people. That's the appeal of Biden; he's the candidate of people who just want to slow the bus down and stay in a lane they know. That also explains Buttigieg; he's too young and inexperienced, but at least he sounds sensible. Elizabeth Warren just plain has too many ideas of every kind, and she's abrasive about it. Harris and Booker are black and that's not what this election is about. Sanders' ideas sound young, but he's old. What unites Democrats? Donald Trump. Is negative unity a winning strategy?
1
@Ronald B. Duke: Warren has "too many" ideas? After 2+ years of nothing new from stump and word salad on a daily basis, I'd rather binge on a bunch of new ideas. Most people aren't scared, they're misinformed. And yes, negative unity is a winning strategy. That's how republicans won last time with the help of Russia. Time to raise this country to a much higher level than the dystopia that now inhabits the white house!
1
The republican party is irrelevant.
There are FAR more Progressive voters out there than there are republicans AND independents (mostly republican lite) combined. There are also over 100,000,000 that sit out any given election. They just need to be woken up and inspired.
Having said that, there is absolutely NO need to worry for the moment. Listen to ALL of the Democratic nominees, and let them truly debate the issues and form the party platform. Whomever does win the nomination, then support them (even if they are far from your first choice).
Simple enough.
Work from WITHIN the party to make that candidate better, the party better, and ultimately the country/world better. That is how it is supposed to be done.
The last candidate in 2016 was flawed and had a lot of baggage, but many wanted the revolution now. This is what we got and it is inflicting an inordinate amount of the pain for that choice. People are not going to be as foolish to make the same mistake twice, because they now know the results.
Just show up and everything will be fine.
Don't you wish Democrats for once were as shameless as Republicans?
If Hillary did any of the things we know Donald has done -- things he admits -- the Republicans would have shut down government until she was summarily put out of office.
But Democrats -- our feckless, tepid Democrats -- are still playing by the rules that Trump and the Republicans have long since ignored.
3
As someone who predicted, way back in July 2015, that Trump would win the Republican nomination and would have a good shot at winning the Presidency, I offer another wild-eyed, early-days prediction: the Democrats will nominate a Kamala-Pete ticket and revolutionize American politics. Because a revolution is what's needed.
1
@Matthew Hughes
How do you think those two corporate Dems will revolutionize anything?
2
With all due respect to Mr. Blow, he needs to recognize a couple of realities. First, the base should be redlining on the enthusiasm meter simply to vote against Trump, regardless of who the democratic nominee eventually turns out to be. Secondly, the election can't be won by the base alone--it'll require a bunch of Obama/Trump voters to cross back over and vote blue again. It may be an unfortunate fact of our times, but a fact nonetheless, that the candidates who are likely to excite the Democratic base are the same candidates who are likely to turn off those potential cross-over voters, while the more ho hum candidates like Joe Biden are an easier sell to them. We need a nice, boring nominee that doesn't offend anyone and can gather together a majority that sees the Trump years as the dumpster fire they were, and for some of those more exciting personalities to focus their energy on evicting Mitch McConnell from the Senate leadership.
52
@VoiceofReason
I don't think it does "require a bunch of Obama/Trump voters to cross back over and vote blue again." All it will take is for enough people in the places Trump won who didn't vote for Hillary, either because they stayed home or voted for Jill Stein, to get out and vote for the Dem nominee. For that to happen the candidate has to be someone who engenders enthusiasm, not ho-hum safety.
16
@VoiceofReason
If enough minority voters had taken Trump more seriously as a contender to win in 2016, we'd be handicapping the Republican field's prospects against President Hillary Clinton's re-election.
7
@Bill M: I thought the idea of moving Trump and his goons from the White House to a prison is motivation enough for almost anyone who didn't vote for Trump in 2016. There are a lot of exciting progressives, though.
5
Charles: For once I find myself asking, is this guy (you) serious? A candidate can appeal to both both diversity and the white working class, to both normality and change. We are all in this together and, my opinion, there are several strong Democrat candidates who could unite what you seem to present here as irreconcilable differences.
7
Sorry: this is wrong.
The top tier includes a socialist (Sanders), a mayor of a medium size town (Buttigieg), a former Harvard Law professor (Warren) and a black woman from California (Harris). None of them (who take about 50%+ together) are really conventional candidates.
43
@Bill Dan, you nailed it. The Dems have many unconventional candidates. Most are polar opposites to Trump and his party.
7
@Bill Dan Senators make very conventional candidates. The way you referred to Senators Warren, Sanders and especially Senator Harris says more about you than it does about them.
11
@MMR Sen. Harris is a sharp and dynamic person. She is one of the gang who would be a quick study and able to respond to an attack on our country. She can be trusted vs. the current dude at Pennsylvania Avenue.
11
I’ve already decided to go with my heart. Mayor Pete. I don’t care if some other people say he is unelectable.
2
I do believe this is the most serious election of our lifetime and I personally am treating it that way. Like so many millions of others, I am utterly horrified about the direction this country has taken in the past two and a half years. I am an immigrant to this country, one of the reasons being that the US is a Republic so I give a lot of thought to my vote. I am looking for a serious, very intelligent candidate who has ideas and well thought out policy proposals that can deal with the mammoth task of helping to put this country back on the right path. My choice is Elizabeth Warren.
8
I agree this is a defining election for the future of the US.
1
"If your leading warrior isn’t one who inspires the troops but is the one default general simply because he came of age in the arena, you are bound to lose."
It's thoughts like this one that make me think Joe Biden is the wrong choice for the Democratic nomination. He is too safe, too diplomatic, too middle-of-the-road. He comes from the Hillary Clinton era. He reaches back in time propped up by his resume. We need a candidate who reaches forward in time. One who offers hope, newness, creativity, energy.
Mayor Pete, Warren, or Harris would be better, in my opinion. All would be able to stare down Trump, maybe more effectively, less clumsily than Biden. And all offer a new era, a new example, a history-making choice in race, gender and sexual orientation. With Biden we get get an old white man.
I think the fear of Trump winning again is driving the support for Biden. And fear is not what you want to build your house on. Better the foundation is great ideas, clear message, exceptional communication, inclusiveness, and hope.
Lately it looks like Biden is acting privileged, sort of coasting toward Iowa, expecting the nomination. That calculated over-confidence is a bad sign.
We want someone up in there everyday. Not coasting on resume. Someone who fights with their poetry and prowess.
Biden mails it in, so far. He lazily offers resume. And he flip flops on cue after watching ones in the trenches with a real message. That is not leadership.
2
If people above all are craving a feeling of safety and normalcy, wouldn’t it follow that their favorite would likely be the one that makes them feel the most safe?
1
I am most excited about the candidate with the best chance of beating Trump. His/her ideas or lack of them don't bother me. If elected, that person will not veto legislation passed by congress because it is too progressive or not progressive enough. There are three big and equally important issues progressives have to deal with( 1) who has the best chance of beating Trump, (2) can progressives hold the House, and (3) can progressives take back the Senate. Nothing will change if Trump is defeated and we can't get the Senate to do anything.
8
Although I share many of Mr. Blows instincts, which I think are correct in most election cycles, we are not facing a normal election against a normal candidate. To quote Vince Lombardi, this time "winning is isn't everything, its the only thing." And, to win, democrats must recognize that what appeals most to our base may not be the most appealing in a general election. New Quinnipiac national poll has Biden beating Trump by 13 -- which more progressive candidates ahead by only 6 or 7. As to worries about turning out our base in the general election, Donald Trump will accomplish that for us on his own. (2016 was an entirely different turnout paradigm: while DEMS found TRUMP odious then, most DEMs did not believe he had any chance to win and so turnout was muted. There is also evidence to suggest that progressive and black turnout was muted by the Russian interference in the election which targeted peeling those groups away from HC)
4
This time around, we just need the media and the DNC/DCCC to back off, and allow all the candidates to state their ideas/agendas, then let the primary voters decided the winner and not the Establishment.
@diamondmarge7
My heart , my head, my gut plus reading/studying/listening/making an art form out of knowledge gained;i.e. my passion: none other than a
Bernie Sanders-
Tulsi Gabbard ticket is for me
1
"I say that Democrats have to ask themselves who they really are and what they truly believe. Do they truly believe in diversity, body autonomy, equity and egalitarianism? Do they truly want to reshape American society — its economy, its political system, its racial and wealth caste systems..."
- You do realize that we're just electing a president? To defend the country and the constitution, and to run the government? In an extremely successful nation where half of the country routinely votes for Republicans?
I'm sorry, I just don't understand why the Democrats should embrace a revolutionary agenda. And expecting every president to the the heir to Dr. King is just crazy.
1
“Politics is a war of ideas. If you don’t believe in the strength of your weapon, you are destined to lose.”
Well said. And when you make your choices based on “electability,” rather than issues, your are surrendering to the status quo, not challenging it. The same status quo that gave us Trump & McConnell & Kavanaugh (not to mention Pelosi & Schumer & the rest of the safely cooperative & powerless Democratic leadership).
2
The idea that there is some magical center in American politics that will put you in office has devastated the Democratic Party. To stay in the "center" they moved to the right with the advent of neoliberalism and Reagan. They sold out their New Deal heritage and became a minority party. Although Obama ruled as a centrist, he ran as an outsider who would change the system. Time to get back to our progressive roots, and that doesn't mean Biden.
14
Today, Elizabeth Warren seems to be the most organized by the number of plans she's proposed. I think the candidate that is daring enough to create transparent processes that can exist in perpetuity will be the best option for Democrats. These are the 5 beliefs I'd advocate regarding new plans and policies,
1. Citizens and government want the same things.
2. Technique counts less than intent.
3. Solutions don’t have inherent value (one size doesn't fit all)
4. We all Should Promote Methodology
5. World - class inquiry precedes world - class advocacy. (Good decisions based on good data) Our goal shouldn’t be perfection, we should strive to do the greatest good through the most pardonable inconveniences. Despite all that’s negative in the world today, an economic era of enlightenment is possible since the major difference between mass media and social media is; the mass media puts the audience in a passive position. Social media puts the voters at the center and with work, could do a better job at producing a more informed populace and higher voter turnout in 2020. Through social media, it’s possible to implement campaigns that interacts with existing and potential voters. Democrats have to do a better job of acknowledging and/or recognizing we have to proceed knowing to increase opportunities for all is likely to favor those better able to take ad- vantage of them and may often first increase inequalities.
1
If my United States of America cannot enter the 21st Century as both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want it to, then the USA and its empire will fall.
I am spending time in Burlington, Vermont where I have just found a new friend, also a Larry, who has known Bernie Sanders from the time when Bernie first began to run to be Mayor of Burlington VT.
We two started a discussion about the only two candidates who interest me seriously, the two I name above. We both had to end the discussion in order to get to work on jobs we had just been given. We take up the discussion tomorrow.
Charles I would like to see you comment more on the fatal American obsession with "race" and how that leads or may lead candidates to provide "race-based" proposals.
Sanders and Warren are best for ALL the people, since, for example, Universal Health Care for all will do more for your favorite subgroup than any action targeted to provide for group A, B, or C.
Sweden provides the example to support my argument. People seen as black, notably women from the Horn of Africa - I know by name 100s - are served far better by Swedish ob-gyn pre, peri, and post natal health care than any imaginable group-targeted program.
I wish Bernie had used the designation of Swedish society to say that he is a Social Democrat, not a socialist. Sweden, not a socialist country, seems to be his model.
Perhaps Warren and Sanders can make clear how their proposals differ if at all.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
27
@Larry Lundgren My comment was accepted in a microsecond, thank you algorithm.
I would like to see an analysis by a political scientist of the extent to which Sanders' and Warren's proposals match what Sweden offers me as compared with what the USA would offer me were I to move back here.
Not moving. Would even like to know how well each is informed about Swedish health care, renewable energy, tuition free higher education and more.
2
@Larry Lundgren
Bernie Sanders showed us that there are more of us than we thought. Hooray! But, Sanders, in spite of his amazing success, doesn't have the looks, the personality, or the communication skills to win the presidency.
3
Sanders just delivered magnificently the most magnificently structured speech defining DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM. YouTube, posted in its entirety by CBS
knocked it outta the park
I want to live in the world he describes
Have been for Bernie for years; but folks, check out
Tulsi Gabbard. Another magnificent human being The only two I would consider
10
Each election cycle brings its own big new idea. Then the next starts with everyone assuming that, while one or two candidates have the next big new idea.
A candidate without a big new idea is the loser, generally.
So who has the big new idea for a campaign?
Copying what Trump did is not a big new idea, it is starting with what worked last time. Copying what Obama did even more so.
Copying what almost worked for Bernie? Maybe, but how new can it be?
I'm looking for coverage that suggests which Democratic candidate has the big new idea for this campaign cycle. So far, it hasn't been reported where I've seen it.
That big new idea is what matters, not the polls a year and a half out.
2
@Mark Thomason
Bernie has the next big idea, which is also the best idea we most need now: Democratic Socialism.
But that's a hard sell to dumbed-down well programmed voters.
So we simply redefine it and make it emotional. Sell it as hatred (an easy sell) of its opposite. Sell the hatred of Corporate Socialism. Even Republicans hate Corporate Socialism - everyone does.
That's how Democratic Socialism wins in a landslide.
2
I used to believe that our country was one of majority rule. I now think we are veering far from that ideal, between gerrymandering; the skewed electoral college; laws allegedly aimed at ending voting fraud but really aimed at disenfranchising minority voters; the current battle over who should be counted in the census, etc. If the majority no longer rules, the legitimacy of government itself, and the need for citizens to obey the law is called into question - with Donald Trump being Exhibit A. So, it is our job as the sort of patriotic democrats the Founding Fathers were building this country for to at this late - but not yet impossible - stage to take back the reins of government. Let us restore it from the oligarchy, the money men taking over - and bring it back to the majority of the people. That is what this fight is truly about.
8
I strongly support Joe Biden, not because he is perfect but is a decent human being who has learned from his mistakes. Not only does stand the best chance of defeating Trump, he is also our best hope for returning this country to normality and restoring our place in the international order.
The far left candidates supported by the columnist and probably many readers would most likely lose to Trump and even if successful would push for policies that would be both massively expensive and bring an unprecedented amount of regulation and authoritarian control over our everyday lives.
8
@Paul Baker
Yes. I’m not 100% committed to any candidate yet but I’m leaning toward Biden. I think his experience, temperament, and desire to build a coalition tends to get overlooked in the rush to measure value by counting policies. He also seems to have a clearer vision about how he sees America and why he’s running than a number of other candidates. He’s older and retirement age, so the argument that he’s doing this to bolster his resume or ego doesn’t carry much weight. I believe he stepped in because he was sincerely worried about the damage Trump was causing and thought there should be someone to oppose him with more stature and experience. This just isn’t the year for a risky gamble.
3
If the Democrats nominate someone who wants to "remake" the country or panders to the base, I will sit this one out. There is no evidence that the Democratic Party, much less the general electorate, wants to swing way to the left. If you accept that and are lamenting it, fine but that will pass if Trump is defeated. If on the other hand you reject that notion then I advise you turn off your TV on inauguration day in January 2021.
5
There are a lot of independents and former Republicans who feel abandoned by the party of Trump, and will choose to vote Democratic in 2020 because of Trump. That said, they weren't Democrats before because they don't like the progressive wing of the party. They just don't like Trump. Many will participate in the Democratic primaries because they are afraid that the Democrats might otherwise nominate a Sanders, or some other non-centrist. Such a candidate will persuade centrist voters to stay home, or vote for Trump while voting for Democrats in Congress.
.
Unemployment is low, the economy is relatively strong. Most Americans are not going to want to vote for radical change in 2020. Trump will be the incumbent, and for many the "safe" choice relative to the Democrat. Don't nominate a radical candidate just because the NYT Op-Ed page wants somebody who inspires them. The legislation that passes will depend on the Senate, not the president.
16
The Democratic Party needs a candidate who offers something to the many Americans who are struggling economically.
"Let's go back to the way things were in October 2016" is a losing message. For a lot of voters, things were not working well in October 2016. Trump offered some of these struggling voters an answer: blame immigration and free trade. It's a bad answer. But the Democrats can't win in 2020 by running against Trump's answer. Democrats need an answer of their own.
Some of the Democratic candidates are offering answers. I think they're more electable than candidates who only offer a return to the way things were.
82
@Rob
Your response, and others, assume that Trump is Prez because we “lost”--we didn’t, by any truly democratic definition. The only strategy we need is one that wins the electoral college. For the bazillionth time, Wisconsin went to Trump because of disgruntled Bernie people who voted for Jill Stein in Madison rather than HRC, NOT because of working class whites who voted for Trump. My district in Milwaukee is very working class white, and the majority were solidly for Hillary. There are some Trumpies around here, but we still invite them to parties and they don’t wear MAGA hats or say anything about it.
1
I am not very concerned about this--or rather, I agree it's a concern, but ultimately I'm not too worried.
The nominating process is not a perfect test or dry run for the presidency. But it does yield certain important pieces of information: who can organize, who can inspire, who can command attention, who can raise money. Even if you take them at face value, polling results are point-in-time sketches that reflect current collective knowledge and information. As knowledge increases and candidates show their strengths and limitations, the results change.
The two big current drivers are name recognition and what we might call received reputation. Debate performances and early results themselves will dislodge those drivers. Barack Obama wouldn't have been the nominee in 2008 without his field organization, his strong debate performances and his surprise Iowa win.
To get specific, I have seen nothing from Biden other than his ability to raise money--largely driven by establishment interests--that makes me think he'll be the nominee. I strongly suspect that when he's side by side with Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg, the comparison will not be to his advantage.
Ultimately, I have faith that whoever wins this nomination will have fully earned it.
16
The republican party is irrelevant.
There are FAR more Progressive voters out there than there are republicans AND independents (mostly republican lite) combined. There are also over 100,000,000 that sit out any given election. They just need to be woken up and inspired.
Having said that, there is absolutely NO need to worry for the moment. Listen to ALL of the Democratic nominees, and let them truly debate the issues and form the party platform. Whomever does win the nomination, then support them (even if they are far from your first choice).
Simple enough.
Work from WITHIN the party to make that candidate better, the party better, and ultimately the country/world better. That is how it is supposed to be done.
The last candidate in 2016 was flawed and had a lot of pitfalls that came with her nomination, but many wanted the revolution now. This is what we got and it is inflicting an inordinate amount of hurt for that choice. People are not going to be as stubborn to make the same mistake twice, because they now know the results.
Just show up and everything will be fine.
5
@FunkyIrishman On what basis do you conclude there are more progressives than republicans and independents? That conclusion is not consistent with the results of the 2018 Congressional elections in which centrists flipped the house. If it were true, we would have Bernie in the White House.
5
@FunkyIrishman: “… but many wanted the revolution now.”
But wouldn’t a Hillary win in '16 have been revolution enough —first female president ever?
1
I personally use our 2008 election of President Obama as the high bar to achieve success and, in this case, victory. Charles correctly acknowledges that it needs to be the right president at the right time. Barack Obama who was not the favored in the beginning and even was a bit of a long-shot when faced with Hillary Clinton proved to be just what we needed after the Bush debacle of two wars and the Great Recession. On the day I went to the polls eleven years' ago, my husband asked me who I was going to vote for, to which I answered, "Clinton." I went into the booth saw those two names from which to choose, and my heart told me to fill in that bubble next to Obama. Best political choice I ever made. My point is that all candidates being fairly equal, Charles is right to urge us to go with our hearts. I know where my heart is, and I hope that by the time California votes in the primary, she - yes, she - is still in the mix. For me, it is time for a woman to be president. And we have some darn good choices. Yet, if it is a man who is our nominee, I will be on his band-wagon in a nanosecond.
44
As always, the 2020 presidential election will be decided by a handful of swing voters in Florida, Ohio, and perhaps Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Of course, you have to do well in Iowa to get to the point where voters in those states get to decide for the rest of the country. So just look to the candidates who can appeal to those few voters and that's who will be on the ticket come November 2020. Clearly the electoral college has to go if were ever going to give the rest of the country a true voice in our presidential elections.
8
@Leonard Clearly the Electoral College will NEVER go.
3
Choosing the safest candidate is like designing a person by a committee! The result will not be a person but instead a dysfunctional being. Democrats should embrace the most progressive candidate who can enthuse citizens to vote for him/her. Don't fall for the Media's manipulation like calling Joe Biden as the leading candidate. Biden is leading only the status quo establishment. The nation will neither be here nor there under his presidency. Having such a President after Trump doesn't redirect the nation to a m ore progressive path. IMO, such a choice is no better than Trump. For once, Democrats need to develop a spine and do what is best for the 90% of the nation, meaning, elect the most progressive candidate who will lead our nation to join the civilized world and lead it. We need deliverance from the clutches of corporate enslavement, out of control wall street, endless wars, and to provide universal health care, paid vacation and sick leave for every employee, affordable higher education, livable wages, clean environment, stop voter suppression, and things like that.
26
@Subhash "IMO, such a choice is no better than Trump."
Are you serious?!!!
3
Democrats should banish the self-fulfilling idea of "electability." Even the professional pollsters and prognosticators can't tell this far in advance. Current polls show little more than name recognition.
Choose the candidate you like best. Support them early, and feel free to change your mind later. But don't choose your candidate based on what you think everyone else will prefer.
136
@Eric
I agree. After all, conventional wisdom at this stage of the game said Trump was un-electable.
Oops.
4
@Eric
Good advice, although I cannot but fervently hope others inclined to vote Democrat see the great benefit Bernie Sanders, who has for so long presented a full agenda for the people, will bring to the presidency.
4
@Eric Not so. Both Biden and Bernie have near-100% name recognition but Biden is routine 5 to 25 points ahead of him in both national and early state polls (and some not so early state polls too). Give Democratic voters a little credit for knowing what they want.
1
I couldn’t agree more. One thing to remember is many Americans are not so interested in politics that they spend much time thinking about it. That is why we have so many that sit elections out. And don’t forget that among the Trump voters were people who voted for Obama, Mayor Pete and even 10% of the Bernie Bros who voted for Trump rather than Clinton. Figure that one out. People tend to vote for people who they think will do what they want them to do or reflect how they are feeling at a given point in time. That is why I am hoping that the Democrats will put someone up who is transformational. Someone who has policies and ideas that are based on a strong moral underpinning and has a clear vision for the future and where they want to take this country. We need to get people to the polls and we won’t do that with the same-old, same-old. I will support whomever the Democrats nominate in 2020 as anyone who loves this country should. But people are going to want the anti-trump come 2020. We need to give it to them.
17
Bottom line, Democrats must unite behind candidates who can demonstrate beyond a doubt that they can defeat Trump by a large margin and carry the Senate.
62
@Jefflz That would be an excellent strategy if we all knew who could defeat Trump. But we don't. If each person votes for the person they are most excited about as the best candidate, the results will at least be a clue for what candidate has the best chance.
6
"I say that Democrats have to ask themselves who they really are and what they truly believe"
Whatever the answers, Democrats better believe in turnout regardless of the nominatec Democractic candidate as we can be certain that he or she will not be everyone's first or second choice. And if you're worried about the party's choice, remember that turnout in primaries is important too.
An "Enthusiasm gap" is no excuse to stay home. The Presidency and the Senate or too important to leave in GOP hands. Among other things, the belief in an inclusive democracy and voting rights is on the line.
If Democrats do not turn out in record numbers, then by 2024 it may not matter much "who they really are and what they truly believe". No one will be asking because the answer will not matter.
182
@LT
At this critical juncture we do not need egocentric splinter candidates to siphon off voters and hand Trump a victory. Helping to create a united front is the patriotic duty of all.
10
It is difficult if not impossible to gleen from this giant Democratic list sufficient information from tv or the internet who most of our candidates are. One must take time to do the research. I'm retired. I have the time. Most others do not or will not. They work. Their days are filled with little leisure or study time and few options. Thank goodness we have "test votes" like Iowa's which tell us at least what like minded people are thinking. Were I part of that state's caucus, I'd support Insley. But whoever emerges from this list will get my attention. If the Democrats ultimately choose Biden or Sanders as their stardard bearer at the convention, then he will get my whole hearted support. Trump must go. We must elect a Democrat. We can review the details after that Democrat is in the White House.
28
@Emory: unfortunately thinking like that ("any Democrat will do!") is likely to lead to disaster.
3