"Lock him up" along with Mitch McConnell and William Barr.
4
It says something about the age in which we live that an upstart wannabe radical element like the (hit) squad led by Ocasio-Cortez can stride into Congress and within days decide that their voice matters more than anyone else who might disagree. Instead of cultivating opposing views and doing their homework with history, they spew their agenda, caring not in the least who is offended. Were they Republicans, the press would have branded them and hounded them long ago. But because they are Democrats and minorities, they can accuse and berate and insult and label anyone they wish at whim. What a disgusting spectacle. The only good thing about this crew is that they serve as a constant reminder of why Trump was elected in 2016. Keep it up, girls, and reap what you sow.
12
No. Thank God.
Borders matter.
English matters.
America is a melting pot; not a salad bowl (soup is way better than salad).
If you wish to keep your culture, keep your county. We love ours here.
Men are men. Women are women. God is good. As is our economy, civil rights and freedoms.
You are welcome, world. If not for USA boys (yes, males) you would all be speaking German and goose stepping for Hitler. Instead, you are free and able to critique America wishing for a more gentle state.
Would that state stop Hitler 2.0? Nope.
#MAGA
2
To all the commenters here who keep claiming Democrats wanting to give free healthcare to illegal immigrants is a manufactured Republican talking point
California Lawmakers Move to Expand Medicaid for Illegal Immigrants
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06/07/california-lawmakers-move-to-expand-medicaid-for-illegal-immigrants/
6
Elizabeth Warren is not an elitist and will fo more for middle class Americans than other candidates. Big business and the very rich are having it too easy in our struggling republic.
5
You would think the Democrats could unite around the issue of climate change. Although it does not seem to be a big vote getter and addressing it successfully seems nearly hopeless. If things continue as they are emissions-wise the US at some point will not be anything like the country we know it as. Already we can see some of the early changes. Biden's goals are similar to those of AOC on climate change so there is reason to believe uniting is possible. Trump is bad and that is an understatement but unless Trump unleashes a nuclear war climate change in the long run is even worse.
2
Kamala Harris is an interesting candidate.
Policy-wise, she is largely a blank slate. No one knows what her positions really are.
Personality-wise, she has the stature of a future president. She looks people in the eye, and speaks directly and clearly. She is a leader.
I don't care for her cheap shot against Mr. Biden in the debate. But that will be long-forgotten by Nov 2020.
---
At this point, I haven't decided who will earn my vote in the Democratic primary over half a year from now.
But I do know one thing. I will vote for any Democrat over Donald Trump.
7
@MidtownATL
Kamala Harris is smart enough, forceful, and a fraud. She is nothing more than political expediency wrapped in demographic allure.
Having no convictions that would impede her ambition, she voted yes on her first defense appropriation bill, though it was a huge increase and included $285 billion more than the Pentagon requested. She voted no on the latest defense appropriation bill, realizing that a no vote was appropriate to appear progressive.
I will only vote for a candidate that has convictions, ideas, and the courage to lead boldly.
5
Well, he's right about one thing. I am an anti-Trump Republican and my fellow conservatives have at times questioned my loyalty and called me names. One even said I was a "liberal" for questioning Trump's behavior with Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Ronald Reagan used to talk about the GOP being a "big tent" that could accommodate Republicans across the political band. But nowadays political orthodoxy is expected on the right and the left, in both parties, and those who stray are labeled and harassed.
6
Bernie Sanders, his integrity, courage and ideas can beat Trump.
Bernie won the primaries in Wisconsin and Michigan, states Hillary lost in the national election.
Bernie has a proven record of giving people who otherwise would be too disillusioned to vote, a reason to vote.
A Future to Believe In, and all that Bernie stands for, will inspire millions more to vote.
But the Establishment, the NYT and other Establishment mouthpieces hate Bernie, as he will not protect the Establishment status quo at the expense of the well being of working people.
But there are way more working people.
The time for change is NOW.
Or the US can have more years of Trump, giving other countries a chance to work together to protect the planet from US Extreme Capitalism and the US constant desire for regime change in support of Capitalism.
8
@Lucy Cooke
Thank you.
I voted for Bernie in the Democratic primary in 2016, and voted for Hillary in Nov 2016.
I have not decided yet who I will vote for in the 2020 Democratic primary.
But I will give Bernie this. He has defined the issues that matter today: healthcare, income inequality, the cost of college, and so forth.
I thank him for that.
3
In answer to your question Mr. Edsall - I believe Senator Warren would unite both factions. She seems very well respected by both progressives and party stalwarts and is clearly very well qualified to be the next President. I cannot imagine any Democrat, progressive, liberal or anti-Trumpist pouting if she were nominated. She seems to be at least a 2nd or 3rd choice for just about everyone left of center. Other helpful factors for the general election are that she is not a lifetime politician and was a Republican most of her life.
Now, can she win Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? I'd like to think so, but the jury is still out. This question is just as important.
9
@Frank Roseavelt: The fact that our votes don't even matter because we don't live in "swing states" is yet another atrocious monstrosity of this born into slavery system.
2
@Frank Roseavelt
I would vote for Liz Warren in 2020. I would vote for a bag of rocks instead of Mr. Trump.
2
I am convinced that the best thing for the country is for the Republicans to win everything in 2020–Presidency, House, Senate, and by extension the Supreme Court.
Nothing will destroy both of these awful political parties more quickly.
1
What does Nancy Pelosi stand for? Waiting for the next election hoping somehow, some way things will be different this time.
This isn’t a compelling reason to vote for Democrats. I’m hoping the Republicans win everything in 2020. I think that’s the quickest way to destroy both these useless parties.
A Trump win will bring this country down before it tears down the two parties. It's a no go from the get go.
1
@617to416: Destroying something without something else in place to immediately fill the vacuum is nihilistic idiocy on steroids. Trump does it.
3
The first Democratic primary is seven months away. The Democratic convention is a year away.
It is entirely possible that the eventual Democratic nominee for president is not even in the race yet.
5
I'm recalling a few things the author forgot. First, that HRC won by 3,000,000 votes despite a weak campaign and Comey's last minute gift to Trump. Second, healthcare isn't free, undocumented workers pay taxes including social security (that they pay for but don't receive) and most undocumented immigrants work. Third, candidates of both parties pitch to their base in the primaries and shift toward the center in the general election. Fourth, the whole immigration discussion ignores the reality that tens of thousands of Americans knowingly employ undocumented workers because they know they can away with it and the GOP know well that the Anerican economy depends on employing undocumented workers.
6
@Doug: that's like saying Hillary won the Pillbury Bake-off. It's nice, but so what?
WE DO NOT ELECT POTUS BY A POPULAR VOTE.
I thought everyone learned that in 8th grade civics class. I guess not?
To her credit, Hillary DID KNOW THAT, and so she conceded promptly.
BTW: most illegals work under the table, and steal SS -- thus undermining BOTH minimum wage laws AND the integrity of the SS system.
Also if they are such eager workers.....why are 55% of all births on Medicaid to illegal alien women dropping anchor babies?
2
Trump cynically harnessed xenophobia to ride anti-immigration sentiment to victory. So the Dems decide to raise their hands for healthcare for illegal immigrants. You can't make this up.
Dems brushing off 2016 as Trump improbably drawing an "inside straight" are starting to sound like people who call every year's flood a "500 year storm." Denial isn't just for climate change.
20
@Blair: The intervals between floods of any magnitude are steadily shrinking.
2
If you deny healthcare for any group of humans, some of them will become sick with curable diseases, regardless of whether they brought them from across a border. Tuberculosis, for example, which people catch right here on the regular. Do you want to deny health care to people who may infect you or your family? The idea of health care as a human right is a different issue (I think it is). But denying people health care is self-harm. “Illegal” people contribute the the economy, unless we deny them health care. It’s not just a matter of empathy. Conservatives talk about unintended consequences a lot (I don’t know if you are conservative or not; doesn’t matter). Here’s unintended consequences of withholding something.
10
If Democrats don't stop running on eliminating private medical insurance, decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings, and giving prisoners voting rights, they will hand the election to Trump on a silver platter.
Democrats: focus on strengthening Social Security, growing wages, helping people who lose jobs or income due to trade, improving access to healthcare, college affordability, climate change, affordable housing, consumer protection, etc. Otherwise, you will lose and deservedly so.
166
@James Grosser I agree with most of what you said. As much as I'm sympathetic to the living conditions of people trying to come into the US illegally, we can't decriminalize it.
But on the private medical insurance piece, I disagree. Private medical insurance does not provide care and they do not provide medical research. They are an entirely unnecessary middle man that siphons off billions of dollars for no legitimate purpose. Just because something is the norm doesn't mean that it is correct. This is one area where Dems need to fight hard. The change can be gradual by expanding access to certain groups initially...but the long-term goal needs to be cutting out the middle man entirely.
21
You’ve heard this “ad nauseum” but private health insurance is compromising delivery of medical care because it is motivated by profit and employs a vast bureaucracy, and burdens the health care system with red tape. Up here it is very simple. Governments (federal and provincial) fund and co-ordinate health care delivery including infrastructure (hospitals, etc.). There are no favourites (forgive the spelling) and no-one is pocketing profits. The result is far more front-line resources. No system is perfect (elective surgery wait times are lengthy) but every Canadian has free health care and our personal tax rates are not out of line with those of the US. Every modern society must deliver this to its members IMHO.
36
@Aaron
Criminalizing border crossing has not stemmed it in all these decades so clearly such inhuman policy is a complete failure. Instead, we need to change the circumstances these "illegal" immigrants live in their countries. We can do that. Very few commoners want to uproot themselves from their native places. Only the wealthy do that by choice. If we help those countries to set up democratic, egalitarian societies then we don't have to worry about 'border security". Obviously, our military superiority has not helped us to stop border crossing.
10
I've been a Democrat my whole life, but if the platform includes healthcare for illegals (explain that to the working class who pay a large portion of their income for insurance), reparations, and an obsession with identity sensitivity, then I may just sit this one out; I do not want to be part of the new Party of Stupid.
150
@John, I hear you, but sitting this one out is basically casting a silent vote for Trump. Please think about it long and hard. The priority is to win the White House back and hopefully the Senate too. Then things can start to happen for the better. It's everyone's responsibility to vote. Please don't sit on the side lines.
69
@John: I don't know where this "free health care for illegals" idea comes from.
First of all, everyone, including the white working class, would receive health care benefits under any of the Democratic plans.
Second, in countries that have universal health care, people who are not legal residents (whether tourists or people living there illegally) receive emergency care only. I've heard from friends who were tourists in countries with universal health care, and they have received emergency care (a cast on their broken bone, treatment for heat stroke, gravel washed out of their eye) but no follow-up care.
What a small-minded attitude to think, "I'll do without a benefit I really need, just because people I don't like will qualify for a small part of it."
106
@John I was a county chairman for a Democratic presidential campaign at the age of 19, and I cannot believe it's come to this. I now have a better understanding of how the GOP Never Trumpers feel. The radical Dems are intent on shoving someone down our throats who is too extreme. In '16 we had a Brooklyn progressive bubble telling us demographics were magic and that Dems could win easily without western Pennsylvania and the rust belt. Now we seem to be headed for more delusion.
40
The Democratic Party has abandoned American citizens. The new base of the Democratic Party is illegal aliens. They have been offered free health care, deportation relief, and a pathway to citizenship. These policies are de facto open border policies. I will not support the Democrats or the dumpster fire Republicans in 2020. Both parties offer nothing but misery. The system no longer works in America.
5
@Lynn in DC
The Trump Republican Party has abandoned the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and common decency.
4
I understand that Trump's fans don't know how to use the dictionary, but you should know how to, Mr. Edsall, and PROGRESS is not a perjorative term.
Therefore, neither is the word "progressive".
So if you're going to claim "neither side wins" then I suggest you do an article on how the electoral college is not representative of America.
It certainly wasn't when Trump won.
And it still isn't.
Also, fight for the right to vote.
I'm getting sick and tired of the nonsense that is passing for an intellectual debate when it comes to our elections. Your overdone wrestling match criteria between "progressives" and "moderates" is bogus. Stop already. A lot of the Democrats running for office have a platform, and your argument is nothing but lazy.
Pay attention. That's the least you can do, and you're not even doing that.
So tired of the way you and other "pundits" are framing this race already that I could scream.
4
I mentioned in an earlier comment that I thought the Democrats should emphasize, that many average Americans are not benefiting by the 'booming' economy.
For a good article about this read "The Trump Economy Is Leaving Many Americans Behind" in today's NYT.
6
@Mary Ann Donahue Many people are concerned about how far they will be left behind in the down economy, which will take place if a left-wing populist is elected.
3
This problem is certainly not new, and
Archie Bunker versus Meathead is/was
true enough.
"Limousine Liberalism" was a way to
denigrate, and I vaguely recall the
NYC politician's alliteration being
successful in reflecting the phenomenon
and his reelection.
So what is new under the sun?
Yes, DJT, and seems to escape many contradictions of rich man
populism better than anybody, I exclaim
befuddledly.
And does the demagogue get reelected by
our not terrific Electoral College absurdity?
That also depends upon the wannabes the
GOP uses for sabotage, and Democrats
failing at consensus amongst ourselves
again so foolishly.
1
Although it's difficult in the time of Trump, we're just going to have to be patient in sorting out who the Dem nominee will be.
But, yes, we have quite the dilemma: vote for who is most electable vs. whose stand on issues aligns the closest to the progressive-leaning party. & no, they aren't the same, as I see it.
The most important thing the Dems must accomplish is to get Trump out of office one way or the other (election or impeachment & conviction in the Senate if the Dems win the Senate). The 2nd most important thing is to retake the Senate to negate Mitch McConnell, who in his own way is doing as much to destroy this country as Trump.
The top Dem candidates in the polls all beat Trump, but polls have been wrong (see Hillary, 2016). It's probably going to come down to Biden vs. Warren, but you never know. Who'd have thought in 2008 that Obama would be a contender against Hillary, let alone the victor? Who'd have thought in 1992 that Bill Clinton would be a contender let alone the victor for the Dem nomination & then the election?
Biden has a lot of things the Repubs will attack (hypocritically, but still), & if he doesn't do better in the debates, then he won't do well against Trump in the debates. (However, the importance of the presidential debates in determining the victor is probably overstated. See W. in 2000.)
Warren has to overcome sexism (even among some women, sadly), but if she moderates her stance on, say, the immigrant issue, she could be our best hope.
3
A crash program to remove all the activities by humans that is increasing the proportion of carbon gases in the atmosphere should be a high priority for our government. Every effective means to recover carbon in to solid organic bodies and remove it from the atmosphere should be employed, too. But the fact is that we can only effect these changes over decades, not in just one. The Green New Deal is hype and poor policy.
We need to consider reparations that effectively respect the poor legacy of slavery and racism to end the pain and suffering, for good. This probably does not mean a cash payout but honestly felt apologies and efforts to rectify the disparities which remain. But it means careful thought and discussion that results in a consensus as to how to proceed.
We need to achieve universal health care which does reduce the costs as well. No current solution does this, and the limits of ACA and Medicare cannot be ignored in finding solutions. Medicare is not modeled for universal care, thus Medicare for all is just a slogan, not a solution.
1
The Dems need to use the tactics that got trump elected. Negatives can be more effective than positively. “Lock Him up. Save our health care and the planet from crooked trump. Great smart people negotiated the Iran and Climate agreements and he tore them up. Save our planet and America from trump. Bring back competent people to govt. “. Drain the trump swamp. “. And then follow up with the positives. But reparations and free rides sound like phantasy, things trump can easily attack.
1
As far as I'm concerned, the Democrat platform has only one plank that matters, which is getting rid of Trump. I want to vote for the Democrat candidate who appears to be most capable of defeating Trump, period. I don't care, e.g., how Biden chose to "work across the aisle" decades ago, who's the biggest Socialist, who's the most moderate, who took campaign donations from whom, etc., etc. I want to hear the candidates bash on Trump. Whoever is best at that has the best chance of defeating him.
3
If anyone can unite Democrats, it certainly isn't anyone even remotely close to the orbit of, "The Squad." I love the idea that in a perfect world, there can and should be a high degree of diverse opinion within every political party which has a hope in hell of long term ideological health. Witness what happens when the opposite doctrine is adopted. Case in point; the Republican Party in the USA of the past forty years. Unfortunately, the public pronouncements of, "The Squad" are not being made to further diversity of ideas but rather to score points against a Speaker they dislike. They dislike her for cutting deals with "the enemy," the same reason Tea Party freshmen hated John Bohner. How many decades of sequestration rot will it take for these perpetual freshmen, who are poorly read and woefully undereducated in the areas of economics and public finance, to figure out that merely reading The Constitution will show them that Bohner and Pelosi were and are simply working within the system that exists? Senators Warren and Harris stand in sharp contrast to VP Biden but the real question is not whether Americans are ready for Medicare For All. The real questions are who can demolish Trump in the one-on-one debates after the nominations AND then beat him in the general election. Campaign promises are DOA if there is a divided Congress. And even if Democrats hit the 2008 jackpot again, an enormous if, they may have to first put The ACA back together again, if it can even be done.
3
@Ed Dougherty: In a parliamentary democracy, there can be political parties for every opinion. This makes coalition-building a public process. The US founders wrongly blamed the parliamentary system for the issues that motivated the rebellion: the slowness of communications across the Atlantic in the age of sailing ships made negotiations untimely.
@Ed Dougherty
The three newbees comprising, "the squad", presume that they have right on their side and anyone who does not join with them are against them. They are adults who are too inexperienced to see their own lack of understanding. They will just keep contending until they get what they want. If they are unlucky, they will succeed, and learn with regret that they get a lot more which they never imagined, and really do not want.
3
Dear Democrats,
Mr. Trump is a radical. He is an adolescent punk throwing molotov cocktails at the establishment. He uses conspiratorial language such as the "rigged system", the "deep state", and the "swamp". He seeks "deconstruction of the administrative state."
The antidote to this is not to be a radical railing against the system from the other side of the political spectrum (e.g. AOC). To do that is to let Mr. Trump win.
Rather, the answer is to be the new "silent majority" that seeks to preserve all that is good about America, and to improve the lives of all Americans by offering a better future with opportunity for all.
I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Personally, I support single-payer healthcare (a public option is a fine step in that direction). I support large investments in infrastructure, and am willing to pay higher taxes to do this. I believe in the social safety net. I want to control the cost of college (ideally through increasing the supply of higher education -- more public colleges through a new Morrill Land Grant Act).
The positions I advocate are not milquetoast Republican-Lite. Neither are they radical. They are sensible and pragmatic approaches that can be accomplished within our existing government system and American institutions. FDR did this once. We can do it again.
Don't fall into Mr. Trump's trap of railing against the "rigged system" and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That is juvenile, sophomoric, and a false choice.
6
@MidtownATL: Almost all of the original US Constitutional provisions for liberty to enslave are still in effect, and the XIV Amendment mandate for equal protection of the law across the whole US remains unrealized.
@Steve Bolger
I disagree. Literal slavery is long gone. Institutional "slavery" was largely outlawed 55 years ago by the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Affirmative Action was a soft version of Reparations.
Are we there yet? No, this is a continual work in progress. But, despite many hickups (and the reprehensible Trump administration), progress and the arc of history are moving in the right direction.
That all said, Democrats need to stand for equal opportunity, and not equal outcomes. Removal of institutional barriers to opportunity is part of counteracting the remaining negatives. Supporting education is part and parcel of the positive.
Despite Mr. Trump, I remain an American Optimist.
4
Only Andrew Yang can beat Trump in 2020. If you haven't watched it yet, you should definitely watch his interview with Joe Rogan in February 2019 on youTube. You will see why I am saying this. Also check out his detailed policies (there are about 100 of them) on his website. I do not care about the $1000 per month Freedom Dividend, I care about the future of America, especially within the next decade. Please read his book (also in audio form) "The War on Normal People". In it he explains the major problems facing America within the next decade and he explains very well why his solutions will work.
1
@Andy
Mr. Yang correctly diagnoses the problems. His solutions are not the right answers.
The answer is not to stroke a check to all Americans. The answer is to provide equal opportunity (not equal outcomes).
---
In the 19th century, half of the people worked in agriculture. Today, about 2% work in agriculture. Yet we have more food for more people today.
We are in the midst of another secular shift in the economy today. By the 1960s, a single worker with a high school education could get a good factory job for life, and support an entire family with a middle class income. Those days are gone, not just in America but worldwide.
Technology has not ended the need to work. It has just disrupted the comfortable jobs of the past (like factory jobs recently, and farming jobs in the previous era). This is not the end of work and income. We don't need a Universal Basic Income.
Rather, we need to support and embrace the jobs of the future. We need to advocate for higher pay for these jobs, and support unions and labor.
The idea that there is a future with no work for people to do is an old canard that has never proven true. Technology does not eliminate work; rather it creates even more work, but just in different fields. Mr. Yang wants to give $1000/month to the modern equivalents of buggy-whip craftsman. That is a non-starter for me.
3
@MidtownATL: In today's US economy, one schools for 30 years, works for 30 years, and hopefully lives 30 more years in retirement.
@Steve Bolger
A college degree is the new high school degree. That is 16 years of school instead of 12 years of school. (Or 14 years with a community college two-year degree.)
Very few people go to school for 30 years (18 years + high school). Perhaps brain surgeons do that. Even Ph.D.s only go to school for for about 19 years on average.
What are you talking about?
I say this as someone who deeply values education, and teaches computer science at a major STEM university. Most of my students finish with a B.S. degree (16 years of school), and enter the workforce with starting salaries of at least $60k-$70k per year.
How did the trumpster get elected? Russians? Hillary missing the big picture? how about voters who are not in the 1% decided that dems talk a good game against racism, pollution etc etc but there is no baloney in the sandwich. private and university education gets more and more expensive while public school quality gets worse and worse. housing is not affordable- where there are jobs. Minimum wage is unlivable and laws governing corporations favor off shore money storage and ridiculously low rates of taxation- meanwhile the haves benefit and gain wile the have nots continue to struggle and lose. The dems routinely take corporate money - just like everyone else. The day that corporate influence in politics is controlled/reduced, we may begin to see laws being made that reflect what the people want.
1
Michael Bennett!
A moderate, young-ish, reasonable candidate without a lot of baggage like Biden. Great experience in many different fields. He can pick someone more left-leaning as his running mate.
Choose someone too far left leaning and you may win but will likely lose the house again as people become afraid of too much change too fast.
At this point, I think he can build bridges that actually lead somewhere.
2
Pelosi can't unite the Democratic Party! We missed our chance when the old guard (remember them- they're the ones who cost us all the lost state houses and provided for the republican gerrymandering) retained power!
1
The progressives present idealistic plans as part of their platforms but, voters should not be intimidated by these plans. Our system of government is designed to moderate the proposals. No bill passes without compromises and modifications. Voters should fear the election of a progressive candidate.
If you quote Lee Drutman, talking about the sweet spot, why not quote from his book?
"The Business of America is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate."
Who sets up what that 'sweet spot' is?
Our politics is restricted. We have to argue within the restrictions set by the corporate megadonors to our elections. Their main credo is to profitize and privatize.
This affects both parties. The GOP dominates in many ways---even when a Democratic president is in office.
Lawmaking for the public interests faces an uphill climb. Candidates are simply labeled left wing radical if they don't stay within norms set by big money interests. They've simply defined American Freedom in ways that increases their profit and political power. And decreases both for the majority of citizens.
Edsall wrote 1 column a while ago on campaign finance underlying our political problems. That was it. Where's the follow up, as our 2020 campaign starts to heat up?
Is big money-directed politics so entrenched and normalized that columnists and news media feel it's hardly worth it to talk about it?
So the big money has won.
2
With the Democratic party being run by republican-light corporate owned mainstream democrats it doesn't make a difference if you vote democrat or republican because you are going to get the same republican legislation because the same big corporate donors give to both parties.
I don't care who the democrats run because I don't vote republican or republican-light. Pelosi demonstrated that fact yet again when she passed the republican's border bill with no questions asked and then with her "its my way or no way" childish temper tantrum. The democrats drove me from their party exactly because they have nothing to offer but republican-light politicians and republican-light ideas. I voted for my last democrat for national office in last years midterms. I am a Green and I will vote Green.
Nothing will change if a democrat wins, they will just come up with more excuses for why they have to obey their corporate masters. Who were the first people Biden talked to when he announced he was running? He went straight to his big corporate donors like Comcast. Biden as already said he is against universal health care and least you forget, The Affordable Care Act was a republican idea way before the Democrats picked it up. A pox on both of their houses!
2
@Marc Hutton: Enjoy four more years and possibly a lifetime of Trump. Black or white: If you’re blind there’s no difference, indeed!
Recycling my thoughts on this from a comment yesterday: The focus must be on "who can make the most effective rebuttal to Trump's claims of being a successful president equipped to lead through another term, with a focus on exactly what that rebuttal is? Its basic aspects must be:
The economy (which, unfortunately, is always cyclical) is on the upswing, but like in the 3 Little Pigs, wisdom is all about the provision you make for when harder times set in. Republicans are all about partying during the bonanza; Democrats are better at seeing and addressing the limited reach, depth, & duration of any relatively prosperous conditions. While the economy is relatively humming along is the time to build the solid edifice to protect us when the Big Bad Wolves, be they in the form of recession, natural or human-made disaster or threat. Republicans throw their hands up in the air & appeal to social darwinism when hard times hit. The question Democrats must ask voters is who will have their backs in those conditions. But it's not all about safety net, its about spreading prosperity more evenly to enjoy good times more equitably as well, & more evenly shared prosperity provides more security for rougher waters. Democrats must also admit the failures of 3rd Way/New Democrats esp. Bill Clinton, who ceded much of the pro-worker message to Trump who scooped it up. Democrats must take that message back, swallowing hard & admitting Trump's been using the proper Dem playbook on trade.
3
@Anon
"The economy (which, unfortunately, is always cyclical) is on the upswing"
The economy is clearly late cycle. We are not on an upswing, but rather in a topping pattern.
We will be in recession (probably a mild one) within a couple of years, and possibly before the 2020 election. This is not a political opinion, but rather an objective observation. I do not wish for an economic downturn, but they are a natural and inevitable part of the economic cycle. (Look at the bottoming unemployment rate of 3.7% and the flattening/inverting Treasury yield curve.)
Mr. Trump has never had an approval rating of 50%+, despite the continuation of the longest economic cycle in recent history. The economy is the only thing keeping him from even lower popularity.
Democrats cannot count on an economic downturn before the election. (Nor should anyone wish for that.) But Mr. Trump is skating on very thin ice. And the economy is beyond his (or any politician's) control.
4
@MidtownATL: the economic meltdown is coming much sooner and willmake the 2008 crash look like a Sunday School picnic.
Now: I can't call the date -- if I could, I'd be a billionaire! -- but I know it is coming. All the signs are there, hyper-inflated stock market and real estate -- irrational exuberance.
If it falls during Trump's reign….it will destroy him.
If it falls just as President Biden or Warren or Harris is sworn in ….. they will take the brunt of it. They will be blamed for destroying Trump's golden economy.
@Concerned Citizen
The 2008 Great Financial Crisis was a once-in-a-lifetime event. The next inevitable recession will likely be a garden variety recession. (Which will still hurt most Americans.)
It could well happen before the Nov 2020 elections. But Democrats should not count on that (nor wish for it).
Regardless, the next recession, if it happens under Mr. Trump's watch, will certainly hurt his reelection chances badly. The current economy is the only thing that is keeping him afloat politically.
1
The more you care about yourself than you care about others, the less likely you are to be a Democrat. The more you care about yourself as well as about others the less likely you are to be a Republican(and even that's quite stretching forgiveness and empathy).
The fact that Democrats have allowed themselves to be preempted and defined by Republicans has painted them into a corner that will deliver another term to Trump, regardless of his criminality, ineptness, collusion with our most formidable enemy
and amorality.
We're all to blame for that.
The moment we realize it is the moment we turn the tables back toward democracy.
2
This is exactly the absurd generalization that cost Hillary the 2016 election and will propel Trump to four more years.
7
@Brian Middlebrooks
Au contraire, friend. It was Hillary who cost Hillary the election, which was hers to lose.
@Guido Malsh
Obviously that's why Republicans give far more to charity than Democrats do. Sheesh
1
Mr. Trump campaigned on stopping the "endless wars", and focusing on "America First" domestic issues (such as infrastructure).
That message has some appeal to many people across the political spectrum (including many Democrats).
But look at Mr. Trump's record. He spends an inordinate amount of his time instigating foreign policy conflicts around the world (with our allies and adversaries alike). And he supports an increase in military spending. (We can both take care of our veterans and defend our nation for far less money if we avoid the endless wars.)
Call Mr. Trump out on his hypocrisy.
2
@MidtownATL
Trump is the first president since Bill Clinton not to start any new wars.
1
@Campesino
"Trump is the first president since Bill Clinton not to start any new wars."
1. Clinton had Kosovo. Reagan had Grenada. So go back further. Possibly Jimmy Carter?
2. Mr. Trump is the instigator. He is picking a fight with Iran (on behalf of Israel and Saudi Arabia). He kisses the behind of Kim Jong Un, possibly avoiding a fight, but meanwhile North Korea has more nuclear weapons than when Mr. Trump took office.
Again, I will ask. If Mr. Trump wants "America First" and a stop to the "endless wars", then why is supporting an increase in the Pentagon budget? (It is much cheaper to defend the United States and support our veterans than it is to engage in conflicts across the globe.)
And why did Mr. Trump hire the biggest war hawk in America, John Bolton, to be his national security advisor?
Hypocrisy.
2
@MidtownATL
1. Okay
2. Not shooting at Iran are we?
The problem is that the tea party isn't just a conservative phenomena - too many people are starting to think of compromise as evil, push for their ideal world, even when the majority of citizens do not agree with their ideal world.
We are a democracy. The middle, the moderate is a good thing. We should be aiming to take steps forward by building consensus, or making deals to get a small liberal step forward in exchange for a small conservative step forward in the areas that do not have most of the public against them.
All the doom and gloom, everything is broken, so we need to throw everything that has worked for us out the window, to solve the urgent and brand new problem of poverty, discrimination, crime, illegal immigration, sex some people disapprove of, unwanted pregnancy.... it's posturing by groups that know they get more money for a crisis than for moderation.
And Trump is a reflection of that, and is an actual crisis. But the rest - we need stand, strongly, without compromise, for compromise and moderation. Not for letting Republicans insist on a radical right wing view that they get by refusing to compromise, not for the same thing from the radical left wing.
I agree we don't want passive - we want someone who will stand strong, who will not compromise further than the middle, will not allow the extremists on both side to keep pushing us apart.
2
We need a person who can address the working class (irrespective of the color of the skin) and the millennials at the same time. President Obama did this and can be done again.
The problem here is this. The working class wants status quo and Trump has promised to bring the jobs back (esp. Coal jobs). And to be fair, he has screamed and shouted when factories closed and reopened some coal mines. The reality is that coal is losing to natural gas. And Trump is getting accolades on the boutique things he has done.
Can the Democrats call Trump’s bluff? Can they call the bluff on many of the ideas that Republicans pushed? I do not think so.
The Millennials (and Gen-Z) have other deeper issues. They want action on Climate Change and wishes a new economic model which can address the death of traditional jobs via automation. As a matter of fact, most are working, directly or indirectly, with technology that would replace traditional work. They can see into the future.
None have addressed their concerns.
Hillary lost because of two reasons: (a) some voters in Midwest moved from Obama to Trump; and (b) a good portion of the millennials stayed at home.
I fear that the Democrats are moving down the same path.
1
@Deep Thought
Well, Bernie's two strongest and most devoted bases of support are voters under 40 and working class voters making less than $60k. So he would fit your criteria perfectly.
Unfortunately, the party loyalists and most boomers really dislike him.
I agree that the Party is "better off" when neither the progressives nor the moderates are in complete control.
I've often argued that the same holds true with the GOP. It is good for the Party when neither the alt.Right or the moderates have control.
Thus, in the Democratic Party, the Party is far "better off" going into 2020 with outright anti-Semites holding sway among the Progressive wing.
Not only is there the refusal of the Party to specifically condemn the anti-Semitism of Rep. Ilhan Omar, but not one Dem congressional member attended the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem. ( Israel and Zionism is not "woke" in the eyes of the progressive wing, but Islamic terror via the PLO apparently is).
It will be good for the Democratic coalition that Sen. Cory Booker, when asked, refused to directly condemn the notorious anti-Semitism of the very Rev. Louis Farrakhan, but then condemned Joe Biden for the "pain" he may have caused by his stand on busing from 40 years earlier.
It is good for the Dem Party that neither wing has complete control so that Chuck Schumer can call for the resignation of Secretary of Labor Acosta, for overseeing the previous plea agreement of accused pedophile Jeff Epstein, but that no one in the party currently calls for the resignation of the Lt. Governor of Virginia, who has been credibly accused of sexual assault.
Yup, no need for the Dem party to speak with a coherent vision when everyone can be accommodated by taking no stand.
6
The question of what is important to Americans does not include government financed medical care for those in the US illegally. The moment when every Democratic candidate raised his or her hand will come back to haunt the party. They should ha e refused to provide a binary response to a very complicated issue. Most people would favor emergency care for these folks but not comprehensive free medical care.
3
@Thomas Smith I don't agree with you. The Democrats have a more prescient view to a very rapidly developing economic and national security problem: healthcare. If a nation is not able, nor can afford, to get well after being ill, then that presents a real and foreseeable problem to the continued viability of the living standard of those people. Those who stood in the way and did nothing when they had the chance will rue the day they neither recognized nor took action on the problem.
This is just like the difference between the political parties in recognizing and taking action to combat climate change.
There is hope; as an Independent....I see that there are
challengers to those who call themselves Democrats and
those who call themselves Republicans.
The challenger for the Republican nomination is William F. Weld
2 term Governor of Massachusetts who will debate Trump in
the New Hampshire Republican primary.
The challenger for the Democratic nomination is Tom Steyer
who just announced his candidacy.
Both Weld and Steyer ...are on a mission to resurrect the
values of their political parties...which have been skewed
by campaign financing ….and media hype...
Wait and see....the Republican ship and the Democrats
ship may just right themselves....and set a new course...
It is true that we as a nation cannot survive without
re framing what the original framers of our Constitution
intended ...that is to fit into the political and economic context of 2020 ….we need to get all the flotsam and jetsam
out of the way...like Trump and McConnell and those that
encase them in their tawdry tentacles
1
The GOP baked in imagry of Dem elitism is one of the biggest scams in history. The GOP is truly the elitist party-- the Dems the party of the average citizen--as much as it can be with our mega donor election financing.
"The sweet spot is progressive on economics and moderate on immigration and cultural issues.”? Hey, what's a 'cultural issue'? Can't you be specific or are you trying to obfuscate?
The rw GOP is the party dominating our 3 branches for years, and with its own state media, FOX. Their mega donors set norms and limits within which our lawmaking operates.
Thus they restrict our freedoms and our democracy, even as they use distorted propaganda about our 'freedoms' from big govt interference. Up is down. They mean govt interference in profits, as corporations increasingly use America as a colony whose resources they exploit.
The Dem base tries to be pro democracy. The GOP base is pro corporatocracy, to the detriment of their voter base. The GOP, once arch foes of the Soviet Union in the Cold War, now works to increase the power of our own US oligarchs, as it colludes with them for political dominance.
Sounds exaggerated? But this is the real domestic collusion our media ignores---arguing on politics but staying within the terms the GOP /mega donors have set. That's obviously why we're the only modern nation still w/o HC for all. It's labeled too radical.
And why the media never talks about campaign finance setting up the parameters of our politics.
Every time you think about criticizing the base of your own party, criticize Republican politicians instead.
That would go a long way toward weakening the Party of Trump.
@McGloin Has anyone broken this to I'm-not-saying-you're-a-racist-but Kamala Harris?
2
The Dems are the Whigs circa 1858.
Toast.
The Dem Socs are leading now while the Dems assist the Gop in destroying the world.
3
Maybe Andrew Cuomo, most definitely Michelle Obama, but none of the current candidates on parade for the Democratic nomination.
Decades ago the right figured out how to mostly put aside their internal differences and work together for their larger agenda. Dems still haven't learned to do that. Most Dems don't even know there's something to learn. When Dems are in a hole it never occurs to them to stop digging, they just send out a request for more shovels. The hopelessness of the Left has been obvious for a long, long time. If the thing that unites them is trump then the right has already won. Again. As usual.
3
@Jamila Kisses: If the Roe v. Wade case had been decided on the grounds that autonomy over one's own body is a power reserved by the people from any government, or that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" rules out interfering with how people choose to deal with unwanted pregnancies and fetuses with congenital health issues, it might have become a settled issue.
1
Hello! I do not care about what is best for the party. I care about having a shot at keeping global warming below 4C and about having a real health care system. And not being ruled by billionaires. And I think most people care about those things. Take it from there. Just wondering how Kamala Harris gets lumped in with Warren and Sanders--she is a true corporate Dem.
4
Agreed re: Harris, I do not see her as a Progressive, but rather as an Opportunist. And to be clear, that may well be then winning formula in this environment...
2
@Michael
Winning what? Four years later no significant action on anything, crazier weather, five-figure deductibles--that's what she would bring.
3
"Is There Anyone Who Can Unite the Democrats Besides Trump?"
I think there is and it would be an excellent way to get all of the Democrats on the same page.
Since the day William Barr took over at the Justice Dept. as Attorney General we have seen unethical, shady, contorted and possibly illegal conduct.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi of the House has some reasons for, as yet, not opening an Impeachment Investigation into Trump, but I don't see any reasons why she should not go after an Impeachment Investigation into what Mr. Barr is doing. I believe such an investigation would document and shed new light on what Trump and Barr are doing to our Nation and it's laws and Our Constitution.
I wish the New York Times and the Washington Post and other news outlets would raise these issues with Pelosi.
The party was strongest when the FDR wing was in outright control. It was weakest when the "third way" was in control (the capitulations of which on "ending welfare as we know it" and "ending the era of big government" and on and on emboldened the right to feel entitled and enabled to take more and more and more leading us to where we are now)
1
Trump appeals to Americans who feel that America has been changing and changing against their best interests. They see big changing demographics with the former white majority of around 80% dropping to closer to 60%. They see basic heavy industrial endeavors from mass production of consumer goods to vast civil engineering projects to massive mechanical and electrical facilities which used to drive the economy more powerfully dwindle and replaced by businesses that exchange information with digital technologies. From commercial endeavors with heavy needs for labor to those that rely upon light needs for labor. They feel left behind, and they are right.
But the solution to their plight is not the past. That is gone for very good reasons which cannot be eliminated. Republicans and Democrats have not tried to address the hard questions, yet. They offer solutions based upon untested hypotheses from ideas offered not by the people affected nor even by well educated and experienced experts but by their friends, those who offer them money to run for elections. That is why the most incompetent man ever to be elected President has a good chance of being re-elected.
2
I know, let's run Hillary Clinton! She's ultra-moderate. What could possibly go wrong?
What people fail to realize is that leaders actually lead. Nobody was concerned about illegal immigration (which was declining and thought of as a non-issue during the Obama years) until trump came along and forced the issue to the front and center. There are currently no Democrats running who are even approaching "far left" - it's all rhetoric led by Republicans and mindlessly parroted by journalists from all parts of the media. Dems just want to fix our broken healthcare system and maybe do something to help young people struggling with student loan debt. These are already popular ideas that need to be pushd, by leaders, to the front and center of our politics. It's not radical or even "far-left".
8
In these commentss:
I'm sure seeing a lot of claims about Democrats wanting health care for undocumented workers.
I guess there's a lot of FoxNews viewers posting here.
To all those making this assertion: How would undocumented immigrants use a nationwide single payer system that requires documentation? Ever tried to get more than emergency care in Canada?
Also, you understand that you read like the Reaganite types complaining about "them" (darker skinned citizens in this instance) gettin' free stuff?
Submitted July 10th 3:30 PM eastern
4
It would have to be someone not running on corporate money
The present financiers of the "moderate" ( Pelosi, top donors Facebook Inc ,Salesforce.com, Intel Corp, Amazon.com , Google Inc; Schumer top donors Goldman Sachs, Citigroup Inc, Paul, Weiss et al, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Credit Swiss group, Morgan Stanley) believe, correctly in my opinon, that the progressive are a deadly danger to their earnings
To get out of the grip of the corporations that fund the Democratic Party is on overdue, but difficult and costly revolt.
"Look, with even a few mild words of reproof, Obama has lost a huge funding source from Wall Street. "
Paul Krugman, 5/25/2012
Donor Data
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary/nancy-pelosi?cid=N00007360
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00001093&cycle=CAREER
2
Is There Anyone Who Can Unite the Democrats Besides Trump?
US Women's Soccer!
4
At first I did not read any of your article, only the sub-title. And I made a comment.
Now I have read the article and you basically are promoting the new progressives, not Joe Biden.
Your key sentence deal with the moderates: they are "too spineless for the moment, too frightened, too noncombative and too associated with the past."
I agree: You are mad crazy if you vote for Joe Biden. Trump won because of the millions that the regular, moderate Dems have ignored for years. Millions of them were in pain because their jobs, went missing, they had no health care or it was too expensive as were their drugs, the were concerned about their safety, and their hopes were dashed.
Vote for a progressive person; minimally Warren; better yet Bernie. Not in a lifetime should you vote for Joe Biden.
2
It is clear that Democrats Value Illegals over your average middle class person from flyover country!
Did Hillary call "illegals" deplorables...or just "average american" voters?
5
@Guy
Hillary called a large number of Americans deplorable.
Trump called Mexicans rapists and murders, and called Muslims terrorists.
Both are terrible things to say. One of them was a huge political mistake. One of them is extremely dangerous rhetoric, from a historical perspective.
1
@MidtownATL: Hillary Clinton called the racists, misogynists and xenophobes among Trump supporters “deplorable”, and she was being too nice.
I just can't wrap my head around the idea that a person's politics is in many cases is not defined by their stance on issues and possible solutions, vs. their "ideology," or "identity." Seems to me that's the root of so many of America's problems, with the responsibility falling on the people in question.
What else is new....Will Rogers had the same comment about 80 years ago.....''I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.''
I just looked only at the sub-title: "The party does best when neither side (progressives/moderates) wins outright.
Can't believe you put that subtitle in. Why should we care about the "party doing best." I thought this was a rep Democracy? What about the people doing best? Any ideas on that? I hear experts in economics and history (e.g. Richard Wolff) recently talking about the demise of capitalism. I agree with his logic; it is in shreds. Disparity in wealth; no living wage is available to millions; millions live paycheck to paycheck; millions without health insurance; medical costs twice as high per person than in any other country. We are an oligarchy; the corruption in the wealthy buying off the representatives is despicable, horrid, vulgar and criminal. And you are worrying about the "party" doing best. I suppose you will somewhere in the article support Joe Biden. Wrong. Very, Very wrong.
Re: Warren is an elitist
Obama has an elitist education and was a senator but was not viewed as an elitist.
Warren has an elitist education and is a senator but is viewed as an elitist.
The difference? Conclusion: A black man is electable a white woman is not?
Just asking.....
4
@Ursula
"Obama has an elitist education and was a senator but was not viewed as an elitist."
Mr. Obama was very much viewed as an elitist by those who did not support him. They felt that he was arrogant, condescending, and lectured people and spoke down to them.
(I say this as someone who voted for him twice.)
3
@Ursula You didn't hear the things said against Senator and later, President, Obama. Most of those did call and view him as an elitist. As for Senator Warren, I don't know of anyone who truly believes she is un-electable. She's smart, focused and got a good track record. What anyone, male or female, will need to beat Trump (and be considered to be electable) is to be so hungry to defeat Trump that they convince us all that they would eat him alive were he to come over for dinner. That kind of appetite hasn't yet shown up in the debates.
Difficult to do when you create a new hyphenated demographic voting block every week.
8
Democrats have the ideological enemy defined but they lack the political rudder that will coherently lead them to vanquish the enemy. And they are too egotistical to prioritize the running the country towards safe harbor. Stormy years are in the offing.
1
In what is fast becoming just a popularity contest, I wish the Democratic Party had a famous, beloved person (not necessarily a politician) to run.
1
@DD: Oprah 2020!
The conversation has been biased in ways that keep conservative politicos comfortable because, they start the conversations. These politicos seek to return our politics to a time when people like them had more control. That's not conservative but reactionary. It resonates with many people who recall earlier times when they were doing very well. The anti-elitist message as it is presented really is an anti-progressive message, that progressive policies took away the good times. They are asserting that attempts to end racial inequities disadvantaged the majorities who had benefited well during those unequal times by imposing reverse discrimination. They are asserting that social support programs and services to offset the inequities made by the private sector stifle the economic engine of prosperity. It conveys the message of reactionaries to undo it all.
The loss of prosperity for the majority came from failed policies in the private sector and failed remedies offered by Republicans starting with Reagan. Businesses did not innovate in time to retain their share of the markets. They misled the public by blaming it on politics when it was their reluctance to sacrifice obsolete but profitable operations for better ones. The tax cuts and regulations did not result in economic expansion, it resulted in rapidly accumulating wealth in private hands so that neither the public nor the government could access any of it. That is not part of the conversation.
6
In countries with established public health plans, optional extra insurance costs much less because the public plan supports the medical infrastructure.
5
Experiment my sister and I did on our mother.
We listed the various challenges this country faces, and then listed--without a Dem or Rep label-- the two different approaches of the parties.
Which did she say she aligned with most? The (Dem) list.
How does she describe herself? Staunch Republican.
6
In times of crisis and intense polarization, the GOP didn't hesitated to pick a side. At least the electorate knows its position.
The Dems should do the same and go all-in with Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard ticket. It's time for a showdown for the soul of America; fence-sitting will only prolong the rot.
29
@VK
Agreed. Time to know where we stand so we as citizens can plan for our futures.
4
@VK You ticket will guarantee a Republican President and a Republican Majority in Congress for at least the next 4 years. Berni is all hat and no cattle and the vast majority of Democratic voters, like me, have never heard of Tulsi Gabbard.
15
@VK What if the majority of Americans do not agree with Sanders/Gabbard ticket. Do we force them to accept it in order to stop the rot? Or do we abide by the decision as per Electoral College. ???
3
“At one level, people respond positively to mavericks. Americans love independence and authenticity as personality traits. We valorize people who go their own way and follow their own principles — following your conscience and blazing your own trail are iconic American characteristics.”
This does NOT describe Joe Biden and never has. My fear is that he’s another HRC (“It’s my turn”) and that won’t do anything for voters.
I’d mush rather see Warren, Buttigieg, Booker or Harris ascend as they seem to have fire in their belly. I don’t care how they feel about Trump, we all know the answer to that. Their path forward will be to produce a strategy, plan, and specific policies to address middle America. One of them can do it.
1
At the car wash this AM I was forced to watch Fox News and they were in their glory with repeated stories about AOC. As my car was ready they hit the jackpot with the Pelosi vs Cortez conflict. AOC is going to drive even moderates and independents into the GOP camp.
6
@Rich Murphy: I was polled by a car dealer asking how the dealership could improve its customer's experience. I wrote "Block Fox News on the TV". It did.
1
@Rich Murphy
In the 1930s and 1940s there was a avowedly socialist member of Congress, Vito Marcantonio. He was initially elected as a Republican, and as far as I know people didn't flee the Republican Party because of him. The party and the county survived just fine, and the "extremist" views on civil rights Marcantonio championed are now pretty much the mainstream view and the law of the land.
1
Democrats’ and, indeed, every American’s goal in 2020 should be to dump Trump. The so-called progressives are out of step with 90% of Americans. I am afraid that someone like Warren or Harris will be nominated, who is unelectable anywhere but the two coasts and a few liberal pockets in between. If so the country will lose and we will be faced with four more years of the destruction of the environment and everything America stands for.
62
@Bathsheba Robie
I would say that depends on who runs with Warren. She is the only one who has policies and solutions to our most pressing problems.
15
@Bathsheba Robie So elections do have consequences?
5
@Bathsheba RobieAt this point Warren is not my first choice,but I would vote for her even with a more outrageously liberal running mate.
As president she still has to convince both Houses of Congress to pass any legislation she puts forward.
People seem to have forgotten that even with both Houses in Republican hands for two years tRump could not get the ACA repealed and he's still fuming about it.
11
The Republican use of "elitist" (or elite) baffles me. The Republican party is led by an alleged billionaire, and acts to help other very wealthy people. It sounds like they say any well-educated person is elitist. What does it mean to call the Democratic Party elitist?
3
@Jake: Trump doesn't consider anyone who isn't a billionaire his equal.
2
Under a rational funding plan for universal health care, everything that creates need for health care could be taxed.
@Steve Bolger
Younger healthier people paying in would benefit us all. Right now we have the socialize the losses of insurance handing our most at risk and costly age group to the government when there is no profit to actually provide a service. Because insurance isn’t about medical, it’s about a middle man making profit
Perplexingly, the youth vote is not part of this discussion of viability despite being essential to beating the president. Pelosi and party officials forget this key group, who see the future in very different terms than older voters. Institutional Dems will come to regret it again if they keep it up. Clearly, they learned nothing from Hillary's loss.
This is why young people don't care how old Bernie is: he stood up for the important stuff affecting them and most citizens first, despite being cast aside by cheats within the party. Even among the general population, most see the rigging of Republican policies; they want Medicare for All and action on climate change, and more.
2
@C. Reed: Bernie repeated the same old riff the whole 2016 election, neither expanding on it or filling the details.
@Steve Bolger: And hanging in there to the bitter end praying that James Comey would knock out Hillary for him was inexcusable.
1
@Steve Bolger
I forgot that the primaries were a product rollout, and I think Bernie did too.
1
My personal politics are left of center, but I will support the Democratic nominee, and I have no use for those purists who stayed home in 2016 because they didn't like Hilary and thereby helped enable Trump's election. But I'm also
interested in electability, and as a lifelong Democrat I do not underestimate the ability of my fellow Democrats to form a circular firing squad over an issue like immigration.
And I'm worried most of all just now about our ability to retake the Senate. What avails it to elect Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders if Mitch McConnell is still majority leader in the Senate, with the power to block cabinet and judicial appointees?
That brings me to a much under-discussed moderate, Amy Klobuschar, whom Edsall does not even deign to mention. She's a new face. She keeps her cool at debates and doesn't try cheap showmanship. And -- although this may smack of Joe Biden talking about Eastland -- she has on occasion been able to work with Republicans. It would be pretty hard for the Tumpies to brand her as a leftist ideologue, though I'm sure they'd try to.
And if Klobuschar ended up in the Vice-Presidential slot, she would be president of the Senate. There are unexplored possibilities there. Or, at least, mitigations of worst-case scenarios. Could we shift the discussion away from the front-runners for awhile? There's plenty of time for more than one of them to implode.
1
@Out here in Galena: The Democrats cannot afford to vacate any Senate seat they presently have.
1
Whoever the Democrats select will have to significantly moderate in order to have even a remote chance of beating Trump. Regardless of the popular vote total, social media interference, or other distractions, Democrats need to laser-focus on the ten swing states that will decide the election. To win these states, their message needs to be decidedly different than what we heard in the debates. Hammer the Republicans on the debt and deficit, shoring up Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and other mainstream issues. Dems have to play smart politics and resist making the same errors they did in 2016. They could start by taking an honest look at what went wrong three years ago, and paying less attention to poll numbers. Smart political strategy will be their only hope.
6
@Brian Middlebrooks
Like running a corporate Wall Street moderate?
These are populist times. Good luck choosing an establishment crony capitalist dem or repub.
I found this fascinating, especially the graphic of the change over time about immigration attitudes amongst whites being a critical threat, the conservatives went more anti-immigrant whereas moderates hover around 50% and liberals dropped to mid teens. It is likely that white conservatives and moderates have fewer friends or relatives who are immigrants among their social networks or don't live in places where there are many immigrants living more than any other reason. Society is based on daily interactions, and if you don't talk or meet immigrants in your day to day, you have no reason to think "they're just like me!" which is the underlying issue: immigrants are just like us and pose no threat to whites or any other peoples any more or any less than anyone else.
1
Moderate vs. Progressive same old story pitting one against the other. If Trump wins forget about either being able to further democratic causes and we all lose. This is especially so for Progressives who would be much closer to achieving any of their goals with a Moderate Democratic President. Nothing is written in stone no matter who wins especially if McConnell continues to shut out any discussion on anything that might help the American people.
I consider myself a moderate but there is a difference between the "moderate" and "liberal" wings of the party. The AOC crowd is more active on Twitter and they attend more rallies than the rest of us. And as long as the nominee is Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or whomever else who passes their litmus purity test, they'll even deign to show up to vote on Election Day.
The moderates meanwhile, have their preferred candidates too but the difference is we will show up to vote no matter who the nominee turns out to be. And that's what all Democrats have to be willing to do if we are to vote Trump out. Don't let the perfectly pure, in your mind, be the enemy of the good enough, which to me is Absolutely Anybody but Trump!
2
@TH
You are aware that the Democrats predicted that McGovern would lose, because "we will make him lose" if he doesn't do it on his own. You can bet the corporate Dems would tank Sanders or Warren--never let them get near the White House even if it means four more years of Trump.
@TH
Moderates also tend to not be engaged. When informed they lean left.
In reading all of these comments, I sincerely hope voters will take a look at Governor Bullock. He is a governor in a red state that Trump won but also has legit progressive credentials. He expanded Medicaid (again in a red state), prioritizes overturning Citizen's United, wants to ban assault weapons and just generally has awesome ideas. He was late getting in because he had to, oh you know, be Governor of Montana but he's awesome. Plus, I really want to watch Trump on a debate stage with a cowboy..... I really and truly believe he may be THE candidate the different factions of the party can rally around.
4
The trains are running on time and Trump is the engineer albeit out of control deficits and a divided country caused by Trump's racist policies. Mussolini left Italy shattered and with our future deficits and lost allies America will have few friends in the world except the world's dictators like Kim,Putin and MSB thanks to Trump's love of dictators and contempt for our democratic allies.
As long as the media in general does the hand wringing for the democrats while associating republicans with strength (which is both false and ridiculous), then we'll keep worrying while the right wing side of things will keep stealing, plundering, lying, and worse of all, getting away with it. The democrat candidates bring diversity, strength, integrity and concrete, practical ideas. How about we talk about that instead? And how about the media start doing its job and exploring the right's candidates with the same level of scrutiny? Am *so* tired of these "woe-is-me" about the democrats that the media loves to dish out. Come on, guys, DO YOUR JOB.
5
The USA is ungovernable now. The chasm between the republicans and democrats is unbridgeable; the chasms among the democrats themselves are probably unbridgeable; the republican party, misnamed as it now is, has chasms of it's own but very few well known classic republicans (there probably actually are very few now) are standing up and speaking out against the destruction being wrought in the name of one sociopathic narcissist.
The various chasms between and among all the demographic groups of the US are growing every day and one day in the not too distant future will also become unbridgeable.
Of course this is also happening in most of the other western democracies as well to varying degrees. It's just that the US dominates so much of the world in so many ways that you unfortunately get the most attention.
Democracy, as we've been practicing it, doesn't scale up any more. The limit has been reached and the failures are beginning.
2
In the end Democrats will coalesce and unite behind anyone of the leading candidates, we don't have Hillary to kick around this time.
2
1) mandatory voting for everyone
2) voting day is a federal holiday to make this possible
3) ranked choice voting
4) ditch the electoral college
Expected result:
a) less political contortionism
b) policies that are at least acceptable to the majority of Americans
c) fewer or no wing nuts in office
4
@Andrew
Not sure if you know this but getting rid of the Electoral College would require 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 38 out of 50 states to vote for it. Do you actually see that happening?
2
Everyone is intoxicated with polls. Everyone loves a horse race.We are deluded into believing that as indifferent scientists pollsters measure “the temperature” of voter sentiment the way a thermometer measures the temperature of water. The different results of multiple polls asking the same question —so called meta data—demonstrates that polls and political scientists suffer from the same confirmation bias that afflicts us all.
This does not make them dishonest. It makes them human. The fatal flaw in polls is that they attempt to conjure the distant
future from a tiny sample in the present. Pollsters individually,
are political partisans. They are hired by candidates and their parties to predict their future.
Or rather pollsters sell—yes sell— their wares to clients who wish ,like Pygmalion , to self-create the most“beautiful”candidate that the voters will buy. Their future truth becomes present gospel until the actual election results prove their fallibility.
It is time for voters to evaluate the candidates and their policies based on how they might improve their own lives rather than what pollsters tell them. The future election then becomes the only truthful poll of the actual temperature of aggregate voter
sentiment.
1
The Democrats have followed a centrist strategy for several decades now, and have watched their power evaporate while the Republicans took over everything. So why is it still considered the winning strategy? It’s been a long time since Bill Clinton won on a centrist, “New Democrat” platform. Obama won because he promised hope and change, not accommodation and compromise. We need another FDR, someone bold and unafraid to start with big ideas. For once in my lifetime! Please!
3
@Bruce Crabtree
"Obama won because he promised hope and change, not accommodation and compromise"
And he promptly lost over 1,000 seats at the state and federal level
@Bruce Crabtree
Agreed
One way to find this nuanced position is for candidates to say this:
We are all immigrants (1st, 2nd, 3rd generation, etc...), immigration is the lifeblood of who we are as a country. Immigrants contribute so much to our country and way of life, we want them, we need them.
However, many millions of our citizens are also facing great stresses and we need to address these more effectively with new solutions and ideas in all corners of the country (jobs, healthcare, education, housing). We need to focus on finding solutions to vexing problems those who are struggling face and to those living in poverty already here.
We should also create a path to citizenship for the DACA population, reunite families who have been separated, clean up the mess in detention centers that were not built for what is happening now. Passing an immigration reform bill that addresses what we're dealing with now in 2019 is essential and while we may not get everything we'd like to see happen, it's a start.
2
The general public understands that open borders policy, """"free"""" college, reparations, """"free"""" healthcare, the socializing of private sector work, Identity Politics and mass expansion of entitlement programs will hollow out the middle class and create an equality of disparity for all citizens of America.
9
@Mystery Lits
You are paying for most of that right now and typically at the highest prices in any first world nation with lower than average outcomes.
And no it won’t hollow the middle class. That middle class for the under forty crowd doesn’t exist.
I am so glad that the question regarding decriminalizing illegal border crossings did not arise the first night. And I hope that Elizabeth Warren takes that gift and uses the time to create a compelling and politically attractive “proposal for that.” I was very dismayed by Julián Castro‘s injection of section 1325 into the debate and using it to demand a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. Immigration is a complex matter, and one doesn’t have to adopt the radical views of Trump, Miller, Kobach, and the rest of the anti-immigrant hardliners if you think that border security is necessary. Warren has started down a promising road, asserting that a big part of her strategy will be to change foreign policy and climate change policy to address the push factors that drive immigration. Let’s hope she doesn’t get railroaded into adopting a position that she will regret later.
I had the same feeling about Kamala Harris’s confrontation with Biden. One doesn’t have to be a segregationist now to have taken a mistaken position 40 years ago. I personally do not support Biden, but I thought this, like Castro’s stunt, was an expensive (for the party) way to gain a cheap victory and momentary rise in polls. Just how much do Democrats value party solidarity and yearn for progressive change? Or is it just all about one’s own success?
7
@Ockham9
She is data driving. If you make a compelling argument and have relevant data she will change course.
@Ockham9: there is no border security when you REWARD illegal immigration by giving the illegal children DACA status….so they can sponsor their whole clan with chain migration -- up to 60 individuals! some elderly, sickly, needing vast sums for medical care!
The downside of four more years of Trump is far greater than the upside of any of the Democratic candidates. Four more years of this president is unthinkable.
Electability is issue number one, two, and three.
3
@Bruce
And anyone on that stage of democrats was more electable than Trump. If middle America truly wants republican hate through the world there isn’t much we can do about it.
Just imagine Biden winning. Four years of nothing and more of how we got here. Then Trump gets elected after.
Best do something. These are populist times and the youth don’t have pensions, medical, education and a healthy climate.
Tic tock. Times running out.
Dems will lose the election if they persist in their push for open borders. It cause many voters to hold their noses and cote for Trump. Please prevent this disaster......
10
@Bongo
Independents support immigration as much as democrats. It is only hard line republicans that are closed borders. What was the quota under Trump for the year? 45,000 people?
Creating or magnifying conflict is the bread and butter of politics in journalism. We don't have to play along with the game as defined by others. Bruce below mentioned a Republican campaigning event today at the White House. To add to the list of Republican strategy: they will also work to sow divisions among Democrats. Let's not help them. Fretting about whether there are any "unifying" or "electable" Democrats is a self-fulfilling recipe for defeat. I believe that those of us who are Democrats, as well as those non-Democrats who want to turn this country around, have a responsibility as citizens in this as well as in all other forums - to ensure that what we write is not harming Democratic chances of taking control of the White House and Senate.
5
I'm politically liberal, I vote, and I live in a Midwestern swing state where Trump supporters are common. I have friends who also are politically liberal and who vote, but who live on the more liberal and solidly Democratic West Coast. We have been deeply split on the issue of "the risk Democrats who step forward are taking."
In Wisconsin, I see a country that has relatively little appetite for progressive mavericks, and thus a Democratic Party that has drifted dangerously (maybe fatally) to the Left. My friends in California see a country that's demanding progressive mavericks, and thus a Democratic Party that's doomed unless it continues to push Left, and hard.
I think it all comes down to what we see around us, in our every-day lives. That's our "truth." All politics is local, right? Job Number One for any Democratic candidate for POTUS is to be the "anyone who can unite the Democrats." Such people do appear regularly in the course of history, but it's far from a sure thing. For Democrats in 2020, it's not off to a good start.
15
@RR
If we have an Achilles heel, this is it. I am a liberal in Appalachia and I have a deep abiding fear that anyone who polls high in Brooklyn or San Francisco or Seattle or DC can't turn out people here. Conversely, anyone who brings my friends out on voting day may leave those folks at home. My own mother is a great example. She is older, a lifelong democrat who always votes and gives good money to our nominee. This year, if we go as far left as the debates threatened she has already said she will only give time, $ and votes up to the state level and just not vote for president. (Don't worry y'all, I'll bring her around!) But seriously, on the ground in more rural or suburban middle America this is a growing sentiment.
4
@RR
I’ve been thinking. The best way to win is ignore the presidency. Unify to take the house and senate. Liberals are sick of being ignored but a corporate democrat will not be tolerated.
Here's the hard truth - over 100 million people in America live at or below poverty levels. Many more (millions) of working and middle class families are not getting ahead and deal with daily financial stresses that the 1-10% do not understand. Maybe they do figuratively, but not literally.
What's happening at the southern border is heartbreaking, and it's even more heartbreaking to consider that 70 million people in the world are currently displaced. It's unfathomable and will get worse with climate change & failed states.
But one commenter said it truthfully -- ask any of these millions of people who are struggling in the USA, those who lost a job, those looking for a job and facing age discrimination, or those looking for their next meal what they think about borders and they will say border security is needed.
Democrats have some time - it's only July 2019 - but each candidate needs to be far more realistic on what will get them voted into office and what will not. Moving left of center on immigration will not help win the election in 2020, especially against the backdrop of an economy that has helped the few but not the many.
There's a more nuanced position to be found here for the candidate who can authentically connect to voters concerns.
7
@EastCoast25
Can you even tell me what the center is? What is the policy?
@Mathias Often it's socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, while not perfect, is the most popular governor in the USA for this reason. Of course there's a wide swing on being socially liberal and fiscally conservative positions, but most people want to see the voice of reason in all debates - while sub-groups may not.
In an economy where millions of current citizens are being left behind, that has to be first priority and the focus. The perception cannot be that it is not.
1
The issues as portrayed by the Press paint extreme positions within the Democratic Party as the norm. As a life long democrat I find those types of characterizations inaccurate. Let's take one issue, healthcare for illegal immigrants as an example. Most people agree that providing emergency medical care for those arriving in desperate shape at our southern border is the right thing to do. Now democrats are being portrayed as wanting to provide comprehensive free healthcare to all those entering the country illegally. That's just bunk. Any thinking person realizes that would be catastrophic in terms of stimulating more illegal crossings from the disenfranchised in Central America. The main stream Democrats I know are very much in favor of controlled borders and orderly legal immigration. The Republican media outlets (ie Fox News) are trying to portray Democrats inaccurately and mainstream media are becoming enablers. Get it right or don't cover it at all.
3
Could not agree more!
This article is informative, but it overthinks the issue. It tries too hard to interpret numbers in order to figure out what people are looking for in a President.
People (like me) will give a charismatic and smart leader the latitude to figure it out. “Show me what you got, and then we can talk about what you want to do.”
1
@Dennis W: The Republicans exaggerate everything. There is no objectivity or appreciation of relativity in that ravenous collection of power-mongers.
3
@Hector: The capacity to understand people on their own terms matters.
I think Lady Justice can unite the Democrats, for she is the fairest of them all.
There are many paths forward for our country and our people, and only one path backwards. Trump represents regression and decay, and the people who hate progress and advancement and change can easily untie behind that. Those of us who aren't desperately clinging to a fantasy remembered through rose-colored glasses have a lot of different opinions about how to make the world better, and we have different priorities, all of which are under constant attack from the regressive right: women's rights, social justice, fair wages, detoxifying masculinity, improving infrastructure, trying to slow climate change before it's too late, and so on. It's much harder to unite behind a common leader when we have neither the singleminded obsequiousness of the right, nor their unifying hatred of anyone different from ourselves.
1
I am a first generation immigrant. Even immigrant voters do not believe in open borders or health care for illegal immigrants. If the party campaigns for such crazy ideas we shall surely have four more years of that narcissist and nitwit.
My first choice is Warren and one of the following: Booker , Castro or Harris
60
@Bikome: What motivated your migration here?
@Bikome
What do countries like Britain do if as a foreigner you get sick or are injured? Do they treat you or not?
@Bikome Yes, it is a common for immigrants to want to shut the door behind them.
Edsall makes a good point: absent dislike of Trump, suburban Democrats (moderates) and urban Democrats (Progressives) may as well be in different parties.
7
Nope. Like herding cats. And, it shouldn't be just defeating Trump but a challenge to the entire GOP and their restrictive, repressive, regressive dogma that has stalled this country, exacerbating the serious challenge that we face. The difference is the Dems are all bout governing, which the modern GOP is not. Dems—gotta decide what you stand for. What's the big picture? Why should I vote for you? A hundred policy initiatives aren't going to do it. You'd be lucky to get one passed with a Republican Senate under a president who is a Democrat. That is the reality. Time to face it, people.
3
@Jim: Nobody will be able to get the public sector on track absent the understanding that it is inherently socialistic.
The real issue. White tribalism.
Immigrants are an easy target because they can’t defend themselves.
It would help if the Dems actually talked about what unites people instead of what divides them. Art, literature, music, humor, science, education, travel, curiosity. Economic and social opportunity need to be priorities - but there has to be some counter-balance. There are wonderful book club discussions, for example, that are broadcast sometimes - from Nashville, Miami, Phoenix, NY. How wonderful would it be if a Dem showed some knowledge of southern writers, midwestern writers, and northern writers. And it would help just as much if the op-eds covered what unites people too. 90% of the op-eds are predictable as soon as anyone reads the headlines. and another 9% are just click-bait.
4
This is what puzzles me:
Yes, Warren is a “ hardscrabble Oklahoman” but was also a professor at Harvard. Shouldn’t this be looked upon with admiration and something/someone to strive for rather than being used as a negative trait by the opposition??
When did we become a nation that looks down its nose at education and become threatened when someone has a decent vocabulary?
5
@Orangelemur,
The salary of $400K + for teaching one class per year at Harvard is where Warren is vulnerable.
3
@Orangelemur: The Republicans and Fox News will bash Senator Warren's Harvard professorship as equal opportunity for a Native American under false pretenses until cows jump over the moon.
1
@Michael: Fancy schools pay big names big bucks to teach minimally. The real teachers are graduate students and post-grads everywhere, while the names solicit research grants.
2
Now that Trump has consolidated so much of the federal power with his lackeys in place & Pelosi acting like a sniveling coward, more worried about risking her own political power than doing the right thing, it is doubtful that Democrats, playing fair, will be able to unseat a dictator in the making with anything short of a new revolution. Get ready for 4 (or 8 or 16) more years of King Donald, followed by whoever he chooses as his heir. We can't afford to run a corporo-democrat like Hillary Clinton in pants, like Joe Biden. The grassroots can no longer be depended on to vote for neoliberal Democrats merely out of fear of Republicans. They have seen that fail for 35 years. They will sit out this election, in hopes of breaking the hold of the centrist cowards of the current Democratic leadership & start building a new Democratic party for 2024, when the current leadership has retired, been forced out, or died. The younger Democrats are filled with the zeal to restore the party to the same party that gave us the progressive policies of FDR, JFK, LBJ, & even Jimmy Carter. The idea of a President Biden will stand no more of a chance than Presidents Gore, Kerry, & Hillary Clinton did. Get used to living in a plutocratic autocracy as what's left of Democracy is torn to shreds because Trump's supporters hate democracy & centrist Democrats are too spineless to fight for it.
1
Ouch!
Thomas Edsall, 2019: "Are Democrats or Republicans more out of touch with the American people?"
That's a good question. An even better question is whether the American people are out of touch with themselves and reality as reflected in their politics. For the life of me I can't understand how America works, and how it is expected to work in the future with, on one hand, Republicans and their religion, guns, denial of science such as climate change, and crass and vulgar business, and on the other hand, Democrats with their bizarre paradigm that especially white men are merely privileged and that the reason certain races and ethnic groups and women do less well in America must be because of a vast hatred emanating from white males and absolutely cannot be for any other reason, let alone any reason which involves the word 'biology', and that what America needs most is essentially a next to Marxist leveling of society, and that if the Democratic formula is followed America will be even better than it is now and ever was in the past...
I just don't see how America can continue with two political parties which distort reality to suit their own needs, their own fantasies, in fact it's like watching two theme parks battle it out for the most customers, Republican and Democrat world, join one to fish and hunt and pray to God, etc. all day and join the other to put down especially white males all day and rend clothing and play the victim and invent a 'better morality'.
5
@Daniel12: Democrats are perceived as what Fox News projects on us.
2
You know, I think a lot of the confusion over Hillary Clinton's failure in 2016 comes from the perception of Hillary Clinton by the public at large versus the actual policy positions of Hillary Clinton. The perception of HC by the public at the time, particularly with Moderates, is that HC was the ultimate ultra-left liberal. While in reality she was about as centrist overall in policy as a person can get. Moderates argue that she lost because she was too extreme and left, Liberals/Progressives argue that she lost because she wasn't left enough. Who is right? The Moderates. It's all about perception and who you are trying to convince to vote for you. Hillary couldn't convince enough moderates to show up. The same logic applies here. I highly doubt that a lot of Democrats are going to boycott the election over a Biden ticket. They want to see Trump defeated. Then defeat him. Learn the lesson from 2016. Biden is the opposite of Hillary, he is perceived as too Moderate, almost conservative (while his actual policies are pretty much the same as most Democrats) - this is a good thing. If Moderates and anti-Trump conservatives perceive him as some kind of DINO, that only enhances his electability.
2
@William G: I think Hillary was painted to be a Wall Street stooge because she had been paid so much to hobnob there. She should have played it as an education in how to clean up its act.
1
Today at the White House, Trump is hosting a campaign planning event: a conference of right wing social media conference involving right and alt-right activists, tricksters, think tanks, and Republican members of conference. The outrage machine will soon be at full blast.
Think about that. A partisan 2020 campaign planning event in the White House, funded by your tax dollars. Had any other administration in our history held such an event Washington would be awash with indignation, yet here we are. Another violation of laws and norms that we now take in stride thanks to a complacent media and access journalism, as well as a weak and ineffective opposition party.
If you wish to read about it, there is an article in the Times business section.
2
@Bruce
Right. No campaign planning has ever happened in a previous White House.
I think immigration is the biggest issue confronting democrats. Trump is perceived as doing or trying to do something about it and democrats are perceived as getting in the way and caring more about foreigners than the average American. I wholeheartedly disagree with this of course but I do believe this is the perception and that's what counts unfortunately. The challenge is for democrats to put forward a plan that focuses on being pro-enforcement and still humane. Our 20+ candidates want nothing to do with this because it represents a huge faultline in our party. When it comes to the general election we have to allow our candidate to "move to the center" on the issue or we won't beat Trump on that single issue. These are not my personal views on the issue but I think the party has little choice unless we want another 4 years of Trump.
8
@TS: Population stabilization is an international imperative. Mass migration is driven by overpopulation and multiplied by climate change. Forced birth is the dumbest idea in the Republican playbook.
3
@TS If the eventual candidate moves to the "Center" then I think it will be worse for them. How do they do that? How do they go from "Medicare for All?" "The Green New Deal?" "Healthcare for all who are not here legally?" Who will believe them?
Remember: they are all politicians or wannabee politicians. They will say or do anything to get elected. Sad thing is people who voted for Trump believe he is just who he says he is: someone who says whatever he thinks, unconcerned about any consequences. For some this continues to be "refreshing" although it's beyond me how they can still feel this way.
Dems: wake up. If you know you cannot govern as a socialist then say so. Be brave. Move people who may not live on the "coasts" might actually believe you and vote for you. The middle of the country is key to winning this election.
@Rosie James
They think it’s refreshing and fun because he is holding the gun to our heads and not theirs.
i think that in the time leading up to the primaries, every Democrat will place priority on something different. I just pray that when a nominee is chosen, no matter who it is, that the sentence “I am NOT Trump” will be enough for Democrats and
Independents to unite.
Trump was running without a political record in 2016, so he could say whatever he wanted. 4 years later, he has a record that speaks for him. No matter their differences, Democrats and Independents MUST unite behind the Democratic nominee to make sure that Rump does NOT get another term .
1
I'd like each Democratic candidate to state 1) what he or she thinks are the most important problems facing the U.S. and why they are the most important problems, and 2) to propose practical, politically feasible steps to mitigate or solve those problems.
3
I'm so tired of the media's lazy use of "moderate" and "progressive". I consider myself a "progressive" because I am in favor of most of the goals of the squad, but I would probably be labelled a moderate because I think the tactics and approach of many progressive proposals are counter productive and unpopular. One example: I want universal health coverage like Germany has (that allows for a private insurance option). I think Medicare for all will rally the progressives but alienate most Americans when they realize they can't keep their private insurance.
I like the label pragmatic progressive.
3
@David
You keep your doctor. You lose the middle man if insurance. Do you like your medical it stays.
You keep your medical. You lose the insurance agent middle men and the government replaces them.
That’s it.
Let's hope that the Democratic candidates do not fall for any more of that "raise your hand" stuff. The issues being discussed are too complex to come down to a yes/no position. Ditto the "what would you do on your first day in office" nonsense. A few executive orders can be changed, but most of the issues are not things a president can accomplish. The president, in most cases, can propose, but Congress must dispose. What I am hoping is that all Democrats will speak up against the elitist label that Republicans have attached to them. To do this, they have to speak plainly to economic issues and who the Republican Party actually works for. Three large tax cuts for the rich, and diddly for everybody else. Say it out loud, and keep repeating.
1
I know that the Republicans are so good at repeating a simple phrase over and over so people automatically repeat it--like "Democrats are for open borders"---not so but it doesn't matter when it becomes sort of an automatic response like Hello. We have to do better in getting a simple response out because people aren't going to read thoughtful longer responses or arguments. If we cant do this--sad but true--we'll lose.
4
@DPS
Hard to argue Dems aren't for open borders when prominent members of the party call for abolishing ICE and decriminalizing illegal border crossings.
2
The problem with cultural progressivism is that the proponents believe its ideals to be inevitable - that is, we are merely on a path, the only path, to the inevitable virtuous end-state. This reduces the debate solely to “when,” and bypasses “whether” altogether, and that, in turn, creates the moral imperative: if cultural progressivism is true and correct, then anything that slows attainment of that utopian end-state is an obstacle that should be removed. And this, I think, is why progressives cannot moderate their demands. So I’m not hopeful for an awakening to the risk this poses to a Democrat victory.
11
You nailed it. These people believe compromise on any level is morally wrong. This is why federalism is so important and central to our rule of law.
7
@MWR
Yet populism remains and will remain. If medical for all, fair wages, access to education, climate response and ending citizens united is utopia its a pretty dismal one. And last I checked other first world nations already do most of this. So why aren’t we.
Why not ask republicans to move towards the left for awhile. Maybe if they did so the rest of us kicked in the face would be more likely to come back to the table. Last I checked they are playing winner take all and winning. And a moderate means they get to keep taking and winning at our expense.
@Shay
Compromising with liberals is fine. Compromising with republicans at this point is unacceptable.
If you have a better plan. Show us
"the party does best when neither side wins outright."
A brief, clear, mantra!
What can be won, lost and in between states, when a political party, a framework for diverse peoples and their ranges of self-created identities, as well as those projected on by others, with documentable behaviors, expressed as well as hidden views, is given a sense of Personhood?
It's become "trendy."
Since, for example, fetuses, living celled-entities, have recently also
become "personified."
By the sacred work of modern-day crusaders.
Fellow-BEings, who, at times,
appear to mix up praying and preying.
ONE letter, changed, added, deleted
can make such a difference!
And one person's efforts
yours-mine- first steps, and
ongoing ones,
can contribute to making a difference
which can make a much needed sustainable difference.
Sides?
Barriers to be moved?
Bridges to be built. "Bridged!"
Equitable wellbeing for ALL to
BE more than attached letters!
Transmuting personal accountability into mutual-trust-building,
empowered by civility,
mutual respect, caring and mutual help.
Let's choose not to BEcome side-lined in the mazes of semantic-surrealism.
"Sides" can be sung about: "Which Side are You On?'
@S.Einstein: The US is divided over the meanings of basic English words in public discussions.
2
@Steve Bolger
"The US is divided" in much more than the "meanings of basic English words !"
there are fissures, perhaps even bottomless, in basic human and societal ummenschlich-enabling behaviors which FLAW needed ethics,values and norms: civility. Mutual trust. Mutual respect. Caringness. Mutual help, when and if needed. Missing personal accountability for harmful words and deeds! Amongst ordinary folk who choose to BE complacent. Others who choose to be complicit in "evils!"
Words can not adequately describe, nor explain, what is permitted to BE, regarding, for example, the current "kidnapped" migrant children.
The geographical Great Divide is what we learned about. The current socio-ethno-eco-political-religious DIVIDE is not new. It may not be bridgable. ALL problems, and their dynamic, complex, multidimensionalities may not be resolvable. As we may want. Need. EVEN as each of US has a choice-responsibility to contribute to making an effort, ourselves and with others, which can lead to making a needed targetted difference. For equitable wellbeing. For ALL of US.
Words, inadequate in their essence, are never IT.
I've been a Democrat all my life. I think this quote by Harry Truman (or some variation of it) still holds true: "Any working man or farmer who votes Republican ought to have his head examined."
3
@davidwar
for the last twenty years, the Republicans are the only party representing workers. The Dems demand a more powerful government with which to control the choices Americans make.
You can have large gov't or free citizens.
Pick one.
8
@The Observer: My career devolved from a product manager of semiconductor processing equipment to a marketer of empty factories during the presidency of that union-killing Metric conversion reversing fool Ronald Reagan.
1
@davidwar
Back in the days of Truman most southern conservatives were in the Democratic Party. How things have changed. When workers and farmers support the Republicans today it is largely based on white identify not because they work. Many of these people do not have college degrees and they resent people who do. They see the ridiculous level of wealth in cities like New York, Boston, LA, and San Francisco to name a few and look at where they live and are very angry. For a number of reasons these people are furious inside and their anger is most easily directed at immigrants. Trump has clearly demonstrated that.
3
Trump's base will be about the same amount of people as in 2016. The Democrats need to find a leader who will motivate people to vote. If the Democrats cannot beat Trump, who can they beat? If they lose again, they should hang their heads in shame, change the name of the party and get out of politics.
2
Democrats need to focus much less on issues and much more on personality. They need to project a democratic personality and then live into that personality, so to speak.
1
It's interesting that Mayor Pete (Buttigieg) was not mentioned in either the progressive or moderate camp of candidates. This probably speaks well to his objectivity over ideology approach to the issues and bodes well for his electability across tribal lines.
7
Perhaps we are taking our politics too far. We are months, months away from the first vote in the Democratic primaries. Yet, we are led to believe that the shadow boxing outlined in Mr. Edsall’s column is meaningful.
That is not to discount tangible events such as raising money where questions of how much and from whom are important, but those are not votes—especially if most of the money comes from wealthy individuals.
But the reality is that this political handicapping is more fantasy football than the actual gridiron.
Trying to pick out the winner at this point is both pointless and harmful. Let the candidates speak, the people listen, and then vote. That last step begins on February 3, 2020, in Iowa.
1
There is a split on some issues such as college financing, minimum wage and health care for immigrants that will be resolved between moderates and liberals.
The major issue of the day seems to be universal health care and whether private insurance remains in place for some. This is the one issue the Democrats must get right which, in my opinion, they have not done so far. I am a health care professional and I can only say that the Democratic Party has completely muddled the problem since they decided in retrospect that Bernie Sanders proposals resonate with the American people.
Within the realm of health care for all there are many options. Before any platform is discussed or adopted by any candidate there should be a well informed and comprehensive education of the American people and discussion of the options. That has not happened. Some countries keep supplemental insurance intact - others do not. The Republicans have argued that
health care for all will cost the taxpayer more but that is completely untrue. The Democrats owe it to themselves and the American people present information that is clear and in an easily understandable format to everyone to make sure that the choices and the implications are well understood ahead of any decisions.
3
The main issue here is that the clash between party elites has further deepened the divide between average American citizens. We are all members of the same country, regardless of background.
Corrupt Trump has exclusively sought to feed the fire with bigoted rhetoric, leading many American citizens away from remembering the tradition of American freedom. Likewise, the GOP has supported him and continued to fight against progress with draconian and backward policies, if only to slow down the Democrats' attempts to fix inequality in America.
Rather than focusing solely on social issues (which are still critically important) we need to understand the plight of the middle/lower class working class, many of whom are Republican. While other Democratic candidates have focused on attacking Trump, they forget the problems that actually got him elected. A vast majority of middle-lower class workers struggle every day to make ends meet, and these are the people who feel excluded when Democrats focus solely on identity politics.
When it comes down to it, Americans just want financial security and opportunity for their families. They are not all racists at heart.
Andrew Yang understands this situation, and will start by reducing financial insecurity across the country. Considering both "sides" is what makes him electable. We can only succeed if we work as one, The American People. Not left, not right, forward.
5
Planning to vote for the nominee, whomever it might be. Staying out of the intraparty fray until then, as all 20+ contenders are monumentally more qualified - both in experience and temperament- for the office than Trump.
4
"While there is such a thing as too far left, there may also be such a thing as too spineless for the moment, too frightened, too noncombative and too associated with the past."
The risk, however, is standing on combative principles and losing the election. The candidate must be male, moderate, charismatic, white, Christian, straight, and under age 70. There are many running who fit these requirements, and we need to select the best of the bunch. Selecting such a candidate will not only remove Trump, but will make the enormous task of national reunification easier. The bigots will have lost all of their basic ammunition.
It is time for pragmatic action.
6
I do not understand the concept of viewing polarization between Democrats and Republicans as based simply on otherness as opposed to deep differences in policy. I, for one, have very deep differences with GOP policy. As for healthcare for undocumented immigrants, I wouldn't put that on the from burner for now, given where we are and might be going with our own healthcare issues.
Is there anyone who can unite the Democrats besides Trump?
That's a good question. But I fear the answer. Especially when the knock-down-drag-out between the left and moderate sides continue to snip at each other like we're seeing now.
It's not only political. It's increasingly personal.
And that's not a good sign.
Democrats are in a hard place at the moment, between an over-crowded field of candidates and the turmoil within, they don't seem able to come together on anything -- not even on how to depose Donald Trump.
3
@N. Smith: It is religious. Failure to enforce "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" makes US politics a competition between idolatries.
The problem with “moderates” is that they are basically politicians that would be on the right in European countries. They believe in bromides like “getting things done” and “bipartisanship” for its own sake. So yes, it’s true Joe Biden and Klobuchar & others get a lot done. But their accomplishments include voting for endless wars, starting new wars, deregulating Wall Street, skewing bankruptcies laws in favor of credit card companies, and escalating the incarceration state. In these cases, I’d rather they get nothing done if that the alternative. Forgotten in this equation is what you vote against, what values you hold; it’s not just passing bills when those bills wreck havoc in people’s lives.
Just passing bill that are horrible for people and make their lives worse is a bad thing, not a good thing. But the moderates don’t believe in anything other than caving to republicans and win they win elections they can’t even pass a minimum wage bill out of the house as promised because of right-wing democrats that rely on corporate backers.
The progressive have a message and policies, and the moderates just make vague promises they never intend to keep and work to dilute every potentially good bill. Nancy Pelosi says idiotic things like “she stand for healthcare, education, and better pay for workers.” Everyone, including republicans would agree with the statement because it is utterly meaningless and devoid of any specifics.
2
@Joe Smith: Too much is presumed. The Democrats who okayed Bush's military buildup to invade Iraq did so to maintain pressure on Iraq to comply with UN inspections that would have peacefully established that Iraq had complied with UN mandates to dispose of prohibited weapons.
2
@Joe Smith
This is only partially right.
There is also a big split between progressive on economic issues and progressive on idpol issues
1
Yes, but it was impossible for Saddam to surrender his WMD since he had none, as those who voted to give Bush the ultimate authority to invade should have known. (Someone brought up on these pages a few days ago the story of Scott Ritter, who was not called to testify by Joe Biden- he had been an inspector a couple of years before the invasion and had said that Saddam no longer had these weapons). Hilary and Biden were derelict in not reviewing the records. Tragic for our country.
Dems will lose if they are perceived as putting the needs of legal citizens after the needs of illegal immigrants.
Dems will lose if they run on issues such as student loan forgiveness.
Dems will lose if they forget the working man/woman.
I am a lifelong Dem yet it pains me to watch the Dems candidates in a circular firing squad at each other, their petty bickering.
And yes, I do feel they are out of touch with the common man/woman.
Hilary did not even campaign in Michigan. Arrogant.
I know and have talked to Trump voters. I know why they voted as they did.
I am not getting the impression that the current candidates have a clue that they might want to do the same thing.
9
Student loan forgiveness affects most American families. So does Medicare for All.
1
Don’t need it, don’t want it.
1
The only real Democratic maverick is "She who must not be named." You know...the person whose platform is against regime change wars, against intervention in Iran, Venezuela, Syria, et al. She would free Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, reduce exorbitant defense budgets and use the savings to finance infrastructure and social welfare programs. She keeps her calm when attacked and has a powerful riposte (ask Tim Ryan how it feels when she was done with him during the first debate). Her style is the only one that can defeat Trump who has defeated every candidate who has been stupid enough to attack him using his own brawler tactics. And she is the only progressive Democrat whose measured responses has Libertarian, Independent, and crossover appeal. Even her ideological opponent Meagan McCain, who attacked her policies on The View, praised her composure during the first debate.
6
@Leonard Michael Ross
I could get behind Tulsi but the "base" despises her
Well, I've never shed tears over a political opinion poll before, but I'm sure this time won't be the last time...
Took a look at the match-ups on the Washington Post site this morning, the one where you can filter by demographic.
The match-up that punched me in the gut:
b/w Warren and Trump 9% of Democrats go Trump.
with both Harris and Buttigieg 7% of Democrats go Trump. Call me naïve, but why isn't this number zero???
another depressing one was among post grads: in the above match-ups b/w 36% and 41% of post grads go Trump
There are no words...
I couldn't look at any more
4
Poorly written article throughout touts centrism and self-identification with candidates/nominees, then flip flops at conclusion to indicate potential "spineless" results. Times readers deserve better ideas.
3
The one and only characteristic I admire about the republicans is their party discipline. Republicans are the closest thing America has to the old Soviet style communist party. Run as a Republican and you surrender your brain and your soul. Vote how you are instructed, when we tell you to. Say nothing negative about another republican. Deviate from the party line and pay with your political life. Democrats? Come on in and do as you darn well please. Anything goes and we love you for being different. Democrats are the Methodists of politics while republicans are Catholics. It isn’t easy being blue...
1
This country has been divided for profit by the big media companies.
Fox news makes liberals gag. MSNBC and CNN make conservatives gag. We are a now a tribalistic society. And our tribes are defined by which media companies you get you news from.
It really has very little to do with political policy anymore.
3
Oprah Winfrey
1
"Moderates" have been winning for decades; they consistently shut progressives out of national leadership. Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama and Hillary Clinton were all considered "moderates". Have we learned anything from 2016? It appears Biden supporters haven't. If we fall for the same electability trap Democrats always seem to fall for, we'll see Trump in the White House for another four years. Time for a different approach.
2
Democrats need to stop thinking in terms of moderate vs. progressive. I don't care how you label a policy, as long as it achieves a worthy goal, is fair, and is realistically achievable.Take two positions that are associated with the left:
1) A $15 minimum wage. Call it left or center, this makes sense. There is an implementation and enforcement mechanism already in place, it would do a lot of good, and we know roughly how to estimate and possibly mitigate any unintended consequences.
2) 4- year transition to Medicare for All. There are so many political, practical and regulatory questions about this one hardly knows where to start. Take just one of those many questions. Health care premiums currently paid by employers would have to be converted into tax payments. How will the tax code be rewritten to accomplish this? How will it be guaranteed that the revised tax code doesn't slam some households while providing windfalls for others? How will the wages, salaries and benefits businesses offer adjust to the new tax environment? How will we sort this all out in four years, never mind by the first year when millions of people are already being moved to MFA? I haven't heard any of the candidates supporting this proposal explain the practicalities of implementing it.
I will not be supporting candidates based on where they are placed on a center-left spectrum. I'll be looking at what they're actually proposing, and whether it makes sense on its own terms.
2
The author, like many Democrats, doesn't seem to understand how Clinton was elected in 1992 and re-elected in 1996. The truth is that a HUGE percentage of the people who voted for Reagan couldn't stand Bush. He was only elected in 1988 because there wasn't a competent Democrat running against him. Republican voters disliked Bush so much in 1992 that Conservative former and future Republican businessman Ross Perot got 19% of the vote. He received 8% of the vote in 1996, when Republican voters were unhappy with the mediocre Republican candidate Bob Dole, but many voted for him anyway, because they knew Perot didn't have a chance, and knew that Perot taking a large percentage of the Reagan Republican vote insured that Clinton would win re-election.
1
There exists a stark difference between perception and reality. What we see here is a perfect example of the Democrats failure in getting their message across to the general public. The Republicans have mastered the art of a united message as is evident by the party coming together to support a candidate who was blatantly unqualified for the job of president. Once he became the nominee, he became their nominee. The rhetoric and the ads were aimed squarely at the blue collar middle class. They are masters at taping into the fears of the everyday American.
The truth as it turns out is very different than the message. The Republican party is still the party of the rich and entitled as evidenced by the ludicrous tax cut and the billionaire makeup of Trump's cabinet.
It has always been the Democrats who believed in the government's ability to do good and help people advance. I call the Democratic party the Can Do party. The Republicans are the party of, no you can't do that!
The problem continues to be the failure of the Democrats to create a united message, form a united front and work together to take back governance at the local and federal level. The Republican party as it exists today, with the likes of Trump and McConnell, will only continue to make things worse for the middle class and the environment.
I will be a Democrat till the day I die. I only hope that we can get their act together before that day.
3
Sometime over twenty years ago I recognized if I don't ask the right question it didn't matter what answers I received. Mr. Edsall's question regarding who can beat President Trump other than Trump himself leaves me thinking that is the wrong question. I believe the question to ask is who can attract three blocks of voters; socially progressive Republicans and Democrats and the 80 % plus of independent voters. By getting support of a broad based socially responsible progressive voting block a candidate results in a coalition that can govern. There is no victory over any incumbent, including Trump, in the extremes wings of Democrats or Republicans. Just as the composition of our society changes so must the complexion of our elected officials.
@ek perrow: Pandering to evangelical demands for idolatrous public policies will not nucleate a core of rational, reasonable, and well educated people.
1
The centrist wing of the Democratic party is ideologically vacuous. It's not that they actually WANT incremental change in healthcare, or a path to citizenship just for the DACA kids, it's that they want to get elected, so they've reverted to these compromise positions. With Pelosi and with others, the sole aim is to win elections, which they do ok at sometimes, but they agenda of the party itself is rarely advanced.
4
@Jeremiah Crotser: Conventional US politics perpetuates the status quo to sustain a lucrative fundraising impasse.
2
Why is it that the left in the Democratic Party is being attacked far more than its right wing right after the right wing sabotaged any effort to change Trumps Border Aid bill?
4
@Paul from Oakland: The "left" is a straw man the Republicans can flog without fear of put-downs.
1
Missing in this commentary is the real reason for today’s poll results. Fewer people feel that the Democratic Party supports workers and the middle class not because it is true, but because of the decades long right-wing campaign of disinformation disseminated through Fox News, right-wing radio, and right-wing websites. Read social media posts by those who now hold negative views of the Democratic Party and you will see blatant nonsense stated as fact by people who spend little to no time engaged with real news. People whose families have for generations benefitted from progressive policies such as food stamps, Social Security, labor unions, the GI Bill, FEMA disaster relief, unemployment benefits, Medicare, free schooling, small business loans, welfare, the list goes on, have come to take all of those socialized programs for granted. Many are even convinced that they are self-sufficient islands unto themselves even as they hold their hands out for government largess. Until and unless the majority of the American electorate choses to put in the effort necessary to make informed decisions, polls results will continue to reflect not reality, but the latest, most successful propaganda campaign, usually that of the well funded Right.
4
@Renee Margolin: Religion disconnects cause from effect.
2
This idea of uniting democrats is like them always wanting supposedly to have a charismatic leader. In my opinion policies and the likelihood that the individual will actually try their best to implement those policies is what is most important. Charisma is a manipulation technique, not a fact that will assure that someone is honest about their intent.
Democrats won't be united because most democrats are conservatives and the minority liberals. These groups will not unite. The only thing that can happen again, as is always the case, is that the liberals must capitulate the the majority of moderate democrats who don't believe in progressive policies. So, essentially liberals must take GOP-lite rather than GOP. It's a choice that many eschewed last time out and will do again.
The US citizens deserve Trump. He is just like most of them. Even those who didn't vote for him.
The current democratic party will never work for the people. Better to let Trump destroy the country because that is what the citizens have demanded by their loyal support of the false tenets of American conservatism.
2
@Chris: Conservatives conserve, liberal liberate, and abject fools cannot even understand that these labels represent specific behaviors.
Democrats did well in 2018 by leveraging their advantage on health care - they undid this edge by offering an even better deal for illegal immigrants. Democrats do well when they demand higher wages for working Americans and affordable education that doesn't result in massive student debt.
Yet old guard Centrist Democrats have always avoided diving into issues of economic fairness with too much gusto. After all, who gives Nancy Pelosi all those big donations to the party she likes to brag about? Biden is of the same camp. Their game is to propose a slightly better gov't safety net as opposed to real changes in our economic paradigm.
Personally, I like Senator Harris - she is best suited to taming Trump. Harris can wrestle and has a prosecutor's resume. That's perfect. Warren has outstanding policies - I would hope she has a leading role in any future Democrat administration - I still don't find her especially appealing as a general election candidate.
1
To win in 2020 the Democrats need to drop extremely unpopular issues like reparations, free healthcare for undocumented people, abolishing ice, etc
These issues are divisive and appeal only to the social justice crowd.
We need swing state votes not more radical votes in New York or CA
9
An independent candidate will not be the best-equipped to defeat Trump, for the following reasons:
1. Trump is making no overtures to the center. Everything he does is geared toward his far right base.
2. Trump lost the center in the 2018 midterms by a large margin. They aren't coming back to him.
3. Therefore if indeed this election is about mobilization, and not issues, then mobilizing liberal Democrats - the group most likely not to vote in 2016 - is the key to winning the election. And that requires a liberal candidate, not an independent or a centrist.
3
@njheathen: The word "liberal" has been redefined in the US to mean "tyrant".
2
“Out of touch with . . . the American people.”
Now there’s an interesting notion.
For me, it’s interest lies mainly in the fact that it raises an interesting couple of questions. Are Americans in touch with themselves? Are they (we) in touch with what we really need?
Our leaders should lead, which involves understanding what we need and will need, seeing beyond the headlights, teaching us what lies ahead (as well as way ahead), and how we should deal with the present in light of what’s likely coming down the pike.
What part of that is happening?
Do Americans know much of anything, really? Do we know what we need, much less how best to make it happen?
For lack of leadership of the kind described above, I think we’re a woefully uniformed and ill-informed nation of people. Leadership here depends on and panders to our ignorance, thereby ensuring its own.
6
@David: Step number one is abandonment of the specious conceit that the US is under guidance by an all-knowing superhuman from outside this universe.
2
@David
"Do Americans know much of anything, really? Do we know what we need, much less how best to make it happen?"
Much of the country really knows that they need to have the federal government leave them alone so they can get on with life without interference
The author himself is in denial. The Democratic Parties views on immigration are totally out of the mainstream of a majority of Americans. A survey by the University of CA in Burbank did a survey to determine whether or not Californians approved of their state's sanctuary (city and State) policies. The results were shocking, a slight majority disapproved of sanctuary cities. The results were immediately attacked -get this- because the study only sent surveys to registered voters. This tells you all you need to know about the "progressive bubble"
9
@john krieg: Population stabilization is an international imperative completely abandoned under Trumpism.
@john krieg Democratic Party stands on open borders and identitarian politics will kill it.
1
So which is it? Should the Democrats gamble big by nominating a Warren or a Sanders and risk another 4 years of Trump? Such a nomination would be groundbreaking, but could inflict heavy damage on the emerging relevance of progressives if the candidate is beaten by Trump. Whether you agree with the polls or not, they are at least a reference point to reflect on, and at this point Biden is the only Dem candidate that beats Trump head to head (+8pts) while all others are pretty much deadlocked with Trump or slightly behind (source ABC news). And this is before Trump and his team go to work on the candidate. Right now he's content to let the Dems fight each other and a long protracted fight only helps Trump. Perhaps Biden is too "safe" for the left of the party, but that group will learn quickly that compromise is key to building a winning ticket.
1
@John: The more worldly the person, the less likely they are to answer anonymous phone calls. I do not know how pollsters correct for this.
All very good, but what about climate change?
1
@Nightwood: God will intervene to save His children by expanding the Earth.
The entiredea of “electability” is ridiculous. No one has any idea who is “electable”. Case in point: who would have thought it possible in 2015 that Donald trump could be elected to anything except an award for reality star hosts.
Vote for the candidate with the best ideas, policies, and leadership qualities. Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice. She is a fighter, and can handle an incompetent, ignorant bully like Trump.
1
Biden is too old. He will never make it through the debates. The other contenders are radical leftists (or are pretending to be radical leftists) and cannot get elected.
There was an opening for a moderate who focused on issues like the minimum wage, healthcare (not Medicare for all), raising the top tax rate back to 39.6% (not 70%), the need for better border security while criticizing conditions on the border, etc. The moderate would not claim that racism, white supremacy and bigotry are out of control, and would not come up with new terms for "basket of deplorables."
Too bad he/she did not materialize.
4
@Erik: Do you even understand the difference between socialism and communism?
1
@Steve Bolger Socialists are radical leftists in the United States. Communists don't even register because communism calls for the abolition of private property.
That's why Bill de Blasio is not a communist - he owns two houses in Park Slope. If he lived in a rent stabilized apartment, who knows?
Enough of the tribal hoohoo; to heck with the duopolistic hold on the American people--with parties that are corporations and work for Wall Street and not us.
What need is someone who can unite THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, around a movement for change. It's on the way. As T. Jefferson said, a little revolution now and then is. absolutely. necessary.
1
Did you discuss the ability to convince others to change their view? Trump encouraged republicans to change, to become more angry in general. Young democrats can be judged and admired if they change our minds. Will Pelosi or Biden or Sanders be able to change, and is this a function of age or some other factor? I am older yet open to considering change, and admire people like AOC who prod me to consider alternative views.
I'd like to remind everyone that Hillary "won" the election by 3 million more votes and Trump won the election by 78,000 votes in 3 mid-west states. That is less than 0.01% of the overall votes in the whole election. That some democrats didn't show up in these crucial states is the problem and any smart candidate would try their best to change that, like Obama did in 2008 and 2012. The idea is to win playing smart. You will never be the best candidate for all 120+ million voters. It is dream to think that a democrat can win any deep south state. Make Trump the focus and question his presidency: Do you want him to be your leader for the next 4 years? My answer is NO!
2
@Theni: Trump might have gotten the Electoral College abolished by calling for a run-off popular election in 2016. The election was completely spoiled by the FBI Director's sabotage with Anthony Weiner's computer. What a lost opportunity that was.
1
When a leader "veers," the center moves. Bill Clinton didn't "veer toward the center," he veered toward the right.
5
What realistic policies have the Democratic candidates put forth since announcing their candidacy?
Free college for everyone?
Forgiveness of student debt?
Reparations (again for the umpteenth time)?
Free Healthcare for illegals?
Who’s going to pay for this? Sure, the “tax the rich” narrative sounds good to the liberal base. But, in reality it won’t generate enough money for all free stuff being promised. So, guess who gets to pay the difference when the bill comes due? The middle class.
And continuing to push the idea that our country should be a country of open borders with no vetting or accountability for anyone who enters our country is simply insane.
I may not like everything about Trump, but I’m not about to vote for any of the insane Dem candidates.
7
@TheRealJR60: There is no free lunch, but the there is also no difference in the multiplier effect of creating jobs in the public or private sectors.
1
@TheRealJR60
Yes
1. Open borders
2. Reparations
3. Higher taxes
4. Free stuff
1
Hang in there Thomas...don't worry....the Democrats may bring in a big surprise that will get the entire country excited...
The old guard of the corrupt GOP and their powerful private sector backers are desperate and trying not to show it...they have a real, genuine loser, a sub-par fool with a con man's instincts in The Oval Office.
1
Don't know who wrote the headline but it is one of the best i've seen of late in the NYT.
Talk about hitting the nail on the head and encapsulating the article's thrust; a superb work was accomplished.
This is noteworthy in that many other headings don't get there near as well. Rather not say more.
2
Sorry, we don't have any "moderates" in the Democratic Party. We only have Republicans-LITE, and some not so LITE (like Joe Manchin, and others.) who are primarily interested in getting the big money from the rich, for THEMSELVES, and are completely corrupt. AND, we have practicable, decent, forward-thinking Progressives, who refuse to serve big donors and corporations, or shove money in their own pockets, but rather serve regular citizens who have the biggest stake in our nation's success and prosperity, and without whom, the filthy rich would not be filthy rich. Progressives are the new middle, in 2019. We are the Win-Win arm of what used to be the altruistic Democratic Party.
2
I get exasperated watching self-effacing Democrats wring their hands trying to predict winners.
If you want the Democrat to win, do these things. Vote. Give money. Walk Precincts. Phone bank.
Here are ways to make Trump go away. Turn off the television and stop reading headline news. Get a hobby. Give yourself a break. Or, make TRUE peace with another Trump term. Trump too will pass. In the long view, his presidency is just another blip on the radar. Most of what he does is political theater. He's the ultimate shock jock.
As far as the election is concerned? Who are you, and what kind of planet do you want? I don't care who you think will appeal to rust belt voters any more than who you think will win the NBA championship, or which new stock IPO you think will do best.
If you vote for who and what you want, two good things can happen. 1.) You might find that other people, including rust belt voters, want that too, and 2.) You might eventually get it. If you don't vote for what you want you will never get it.
If you vote for who you think can win, remember all the stupid stock picks you made, every time you were wrong in predicting a sports event, and these names: John Kerry, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton. There's not much evidence that consensus-electable candidates actually get elected.
Go for it self-effacing Democrats. You have my permission. Choose who you want, and stop pretending you can predict the future.
[] Drutman continued, “I think the sweet spot in a general election for a Democratic nominee is progressive on economics and moderate on immigration and cultural issues.”
This is so wrong that it's a joke in 30 Rock - Liz's boyfriend is a "Social conservative, fiscal liberal." Because he's crazy.
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
--Will Rogers
Basically, the Democrats have become the Urban Party of America--take a look at the 2016 precinct-level electoral map--and their platform variously deeply offends and outrages non-urban America. This is precisely the circumstance of the election of 1800 between John Adam's Federalists and Thomas Jefferson's Republicans.
Adams and the Federalists were defeated--and the Federalist Party faded into extinction, a fate I sincerely wish upon the Democrats.
2
@Henry Miller, Libertarian
Well said
Lee Drutman, the senior fellow at New America quoted here, makes two especially important points for the Democrats to consider.
One is that "Republicans have cast the entire Democratic Party as elitist for decades, and that imagery is now baked in.”
Democrats have allowed the other team to frame both sides. Now they must return the favor. Turn the proven Corruptican technique of repetition against them to bake them as not only elitist, but thoroughly corrupt, not your parents' Republican Party. Repeat, repeat, repeat those labels at every opportunity, while framing themselves in light of their historical commitment to their traditional base of working people. And it would "be best" if our candidate were not grossly wealthy or beholden to Wall Street or corporate entities...
Drutman also says, “Based on my reading of public opinion data...I think the sweet spot in a general election for a Democratic nominee is progressive on economics and moderate on immigration and cultural issues.”
Immigration and cultural issues could well decide the election. Voters need to see a calm, reasonable immigration plan that belies the "open borders" meme, accords with what the majority favor, promotes the rule of law, and contrasts with the chaos and viciousness of the Turnip "administration." Cultural policies must embrace white folks, too; we will not recover, much less make progress, if we don't get elected.
1
@R Nelson
"Voters need to see a calm, reasonable immigration plan that belies the "open borders" meme, accords with what the majority favor, promotes the rule of law"
A Democratic Party base that wants to abolish ICE and decriminalize illegal border crossing won't stand for it
1
Why is it so normal and accepted for a candidate to "pivot" after the primaries? As I understand the concept the candidate, using the Democrats as the example, must espouse policies and positions that are far left of center to win the primary, Then, is order to win the general election, must pivot to policies and positions that are much more to the center to win the general election. This is obviously pandering. It's quite deceptive and seems to indicate the politician will say or do anything to get elected. I don't see how this is okay. Why can't they just be honest and say what they believe and stick with it?
yes, I am that person.
I want everyone to be happy
and I stand and sit right in the middle
of the democratic party, but I am not running for office but I am voting for any democratic candidate.
It's not a good idea for civil wars and revolutions and power plays until we ACTUALLY HAVE POWER.
Our democracy isn't so direct that it is tied into our wishes via the internet.
Remember who the enemy is, democrats and it is not us.
It isn't even the Republicans, though they act like this is a war
2
I am not certain that "uniting" the Democrats is an issue. A candidate will be chosen, and American voters will decide. The urgency is getting rid of the Pretender. If it does not happen, then we will have to endure more suffering and dysfunction. In fact, it is irritating and disheartening to have the media force feed us candidates and controversy. Personally, I am not at all interested in centrist positions. We have tried that. The Republican insurgency just gets more powerful. Progressives, hopefully, will win the day.
3
“When it comes to looking out for the middle class which party do you think would do a better job — the Democratic Party, the Republican Party.”
If one looks at Warren's plans this is a no brainer.
If one considers the GOP tax cuts for the wealthy, it is also a no-brainer.
How do we get the American public to actually consider facts rather than spin?
4
The issue needs to be Trump, and all the things he is not: ethical, religious, hard working, honest and so on. Whatever virtue one prizes, Trump has none, except the gift of gab. It's not a positive message but he's not a positive guy.
When civility is restored, then the country can start to rebuild and hopefully move forward.
The question has been put: “Which candidate can beat Trump?” Apparently there is no clear answer. Another question is: “Will the Senate remain under GOP control?” In my view that question is the more significant of the two. And as of now, the answer is, unfortunately, “Yes, it will remain under GOP control.”
The Dem’s failure to address this issue is paramount.
2
This position, I think, misunderstands how politics work. The Republicans are now all worried about illegal immigration, sure. But few if any Republicans were worried about that in 2014. Trump pushed that narrative nonstop, using scare tactics and subtle racist trolling, until Republicans suddenly decided it was a big deal. Our immigration levels now are the same as they were in 2000, when nobody was particularly worried about them. Trump set that as an agenda, and it worked.
The voters don't just care about various issues. They care about issues they are told to care about. If a strong Democratic leader pushes a vision on an issue that's a winning issue, like health care costs, they will create support for that issue. Already, you see support for various liberal positions increasing as Democrats are becoming willing to adopt those positions.
The point is, leaders drive the narrative. They don't just respond to it. This is why Hillary, who was nothing if not responsive to polls, wasn't a compelling candidate, and Biden isn't either.
I'm not saying we should go far-left with Bernie. (I'm more of a Warren fan.) I'm just saying that a leader should be in the business of setting our national agenda. Being scared to set that agenda cedes the narrative to Republicans, who can keep using scare tactics to get everyone fearful of outsiders -- distracting from the real source of our economic problems, which is driven by wealth distribution.
3
The next election won't be decided by issues such as electorate perceptions of elitism, etc. It'll be simple: Trump will unite the Dems against himself, and like the GOP rallying behind Trump after his selection as the party's nominee, the Dems will unite behind whichever nominee makes the 2020 final cut. And that person will win.
1
Uniting Democrats is a tall order. Sanders aside, Elizabeth Warren would be the best bet as a woman and a candidate with integrity.
1
The only Dems who are afraid of being called socialists are those who are afraid that the corporate fat cats will not give money to them.
This is the only issue this time around. That there has been a massive theft of wealth from the working class by the parasites who bought off previous legislators.
4
The DP is no different than the GOP in the divisions within the Parties. This is normal, human nature to have organizations with differences of opinion and intent. So what? The parties work through it and shouldn’t worry what ‘the neighbors think’.
All of this handwringing about the policies of the presidential candidates is so predictable and so misguided. It is fanned by media hyperbole and unrealistic expectations of what policies actually get enacted. Despite Trump trying to make the presidency into an imperial reign, the reality is that few of his domestic policies have actually been passed. Term limits on Congress? A big, beautiful border wall? Repeal and replace Obamacare? Even with a party-line Congress, a president can usually get about one big domestic policy enacted in a term. That's it.
If Trump has taught us one thing it is to pay close attention to the integrity of the candidate and to consider things that are actually within a president's exclusive powers; nomination of judges and cabinet members, international relations, executive powers etc.
Choose a candidate with good character, integrity, diplomacy, vision, appreciation of history, curiosity, intellectual strength and an ability to weigh and consider competing points of view.
That should be how primary voters weigh their options.
5
If you put the entire electorate on a left-right spectrum, than about a third of the country is Trump's right base. They are united in their hate of Democrats. They are never going to vote for a Democrat. They will vote for Trump.
Therefore taking their opinion into account when developing an election narrative is not going to get you any votes.
That leaves the other 2/3 of the country.
The Democratic Party candidate should aim their message to the middle of that two thirds of the country. Halfway between Never-Trumpers and the far left is the sweet spot.
It makes no sense to aim your narrative and policies at the center of the entire political spectrum when the right 1/3 of the spectrum will never vote for your candidate. Sacrificing the base of your party to get votes from those that would rather vote for Putin than a Democrat is losing on purpose.
Everyone that is actually in the center of the spectrum now needs to make a personal choice between the Constitution and the raw power of propaganda and political violence championed by Trump. There is really little a Democratic Candidate can do to influence the personal choice between Justice and Greed that is 2020 election, except champion Justice and make the argument against greed.
The Right is Wrong. They attack the separation of powers and other basic elements of the Constitution. Supply Side Economics never works. Regime change never works. Ignoring climate change is insane.
The Left is essentially correct.
3
The major flaw in the aggressive stance of AOC and her Gang of Four regarding the promotion of their progressive agenda lies in their not recognizing that they will always receive the liberal vote, therefore they do not have to publicly campaign to secure it. Trump will always receive the anti-immigrant vote, and he could back off his own aggressive positions to block immigration, and there would be no danger that his base would abandon him. They know who he is.
Democratic presidential candidates will either adopt more moderate positions on many matters of concern to the American voter, or they will lose.
3
Once again..its left to me to save things...and its quite simple actually
1. The one word missing in the DNC platform is Work. The betterment of ourselves and our society is thru our work..through our creation..through our working to move us forward.
The DNC has gotten mired into the politics of the handout..
if they were to emphasize that we all have something to contribute...and that the expectation is that we all contribute..that we all work at something..then that win over the trump supporters who fell that he stands for progress through work (even though he doesn't) and common sense
2. Regarding Healthcare.Look at the German model where everyone pays a small amount into a collective healthcare pool.and the industry is regulated by govt/ins/doctors and patients. Anything else which doesn't have sound economics as its basis (ie supply vs demand..and competiton/regulations of monopolies) is doomed to failure
3. Education/Betterment. Let everyone spend 2 years in a national work program (military, public service etc) which earns $$ towards education. But EVERYONE goes thru it.. Works in Israel..it'll work here
4. Defense..relying on a volunteer army isn't enough.. see # 3
5. Competition against china..let the WTO handle our complaints...ask for reciprocal knowledge transfers from chinese firms . Keep sailing thru South China Sea
6. Middle East - back off sanctions on Iran.. bring in key players to mediate peace finally
1
Seemingly and conveniently forgotten by Mr. Edsall is that every single poll showed that Senator Sanders would have beaten Trump easily in 2016. Trump would not have been able to pretend to be a populist. Sanders would have won the white working class vote and the youth vote.
Stop ignoring the facts. Sanders would win in 2020. Warren or Harris might also win.
6
@Joe
Every single poll showed Clinton beating Trump easily, remember?
Surely Democrats realize that whoever is their candidate, they all have to vote and for him/her, if they want to defeat Trump. Once a Democrat elected, they can negotiate. Plus, better win the congress and senate if their policies are going to get passed.
JRH
2
Sorry, but Joe Biden had his shot in 2016. As the sitting vice president, he was in the best position to offer himself as a continuation of the Obama administration. However, Joe decided to sit that primary season out (he claims for personal reasons but I'm pretty sure he knew the DNC had the fix in). As a result, Democrats got Hillary Clinton as their nominal standard bearer and we saw how well that worked out in the general election. It's way past time for aging baby boomers to retire gracefully and make room for younger ideas and candidates.
3
@Earl W.
Younger ideas wont get anyone elected unless they are backed up by experience and accomplishments.
So of the younger candidates, how are they in the experience and accomplishment department?
Has any of them ever created a single job?
5
@me
But he's right. What counts is a candidates record. That takes experience.
1
This is nothing new in Democratic Party politics: FDR flitted between being "left" and being "center" his entire Presidency.
His Vice President, Henry A. Wallace was dumped from the ticket by Democratic party bosses for being too liberal, when, in fact, the party regulars were overwhelmingly behind him.
At least in America, we now have more than 0.3% of the party regulars choosing the chief executive, which is what they have in Britain, which has never really accepted the idea of democracy.
1
This brilliant analysis is why we need NY Times. Thank you. AOC’s tweet, “... wielding the power to shift [public sentiment] is how we achieve meaningful change ...,” means we need leadership from the front now, not the rear. It’s a Joan of Arc moment.
1
All the White Liberals I know want to beat Trump more than anything. That said they are liberals not further to the left. They don't support Medicare for all or free college. What does it mean that Democrats are elitists? It mainly seems to be that they aren't bigots and Republicans encourage such bigotry. On top of which Democrats have gone to college and think. Republicans reject thinking and facts. The result is the Democratic Party is not going to be as unified as the Republican Party.
1
Bernie Sanders has the integrity, courage and ideas that matter to the majority of citizens, if not the Establishment.
Bernie Sanders can inspire and lead,
The time is NOW for change,
and A Future to Believe In
President Bernie Sanders 2020!
of course, the Establishment has the status quo to protect, and will do everything do prevent a Sanders presidency.
Tom Steyer trying to buy the presidency is obscene, but typically American. His money could be put to better use, not supporting the big business circus of US elections.
2
The last paragraph nailed it, along with AOC's "public sentiment." Maybe the change in the perception of things Democratic/Republican has had to do with those Democratic politicians having been mesmerized by the "centrist" viewpoint. Sanders voices frustration over the lack in the media of noting survey studies of that "public sentiment": He notes how much the majority of people favor policies that he promotes, adding that these policies then cannot still be regarded as "leftist" if they're in the norm. Candidates like him are promoting a return to the Democratic Party principles that most people believe in, at the very least for relief from the relentless cutthroat capitalist focus in recent years (especially with the wealth distribution upward). Trump "capitalized" on this matter to his benefit alone, having conned people into thinking he'd support policies that would provide that relief. Unfortunately, he also managed it with people who are the types who can never admit to be fooled, so they stubbornly remain loyal. But again, they remain in the minority overall, which goes back to the point in that last paragraph. Be brave, fight, and don't associate with the recent past.
Bad news: I think Biden is as good as it gets.
Good news: Biden will only serve one term.
This will allow more time for the far left craft a better message than, "Everything for free."
Then let Warren, Harris and whomever else have a go at it in 2024.
1
I think that in people's pre-political heart of hearts, being moral or good means "for me and my team," not "for you and yours." Basic selfishness (probably related to what the psychoanalysts call the infant's "primary narcissism" -- a good not bad feature) transitions easily into the Republican sentiment but not the Democratic or liberal spirit. The winning Democratic candidate may be whoever projects some "self is important" and "America is best" tone, not just "we are our brothers' keepers" message.
As long as the current DMZ leader Perez is calling the shots with his ten candidates for the most powerful position in the world raising their hand as good boys and girls for agreement with generalized statements, all of them will be diminished.
Let's never forget, the very first question of the mass Republican debate when MC asked, "Will anyone who will not commit to supporting the person who wins the nomination raise their hand. Only the person in the center slowly raised his hand, responding I don't know the policies of everyone so I can't say I will support him"
From that moment, he was the candidate, as he transcended being a tool of this party. Of course he blatantly lied that he would not take any campaign contributions that would make him beholden to powerful interests.
By the time he explained that was only for the nomination, not the campaign, he was the Republican party, and more, he was showing his independence, and ability to transcend the hatred of his enemies.
Now another billionaire, Tom, Steyer ".....decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings endorsed the creation of a government-backed health care option. " There are several million w ho would take up the offer to get into this country, and if we had the resources why not, but we don't.
Democrats won't win when negation of Trumpism means promising it's own land of Oz. It's a great flick, but remember, Dorothy dreamed it.
Then there is the old notion of "team." All these fine people running weakens the Dem's effort to get the best slate on the field. Sure let there be debate about the platform, but keep the number down to something manageable and make sure the slate can agree on issues that resonate with the most voters.
Can't somebody talk sense to the group? Lock up the White House, the Senate, and the House, then lead.
To have a helter-skelter campaigns by a herd just won't do it. I hope that the group gets narrowed down soon.
Here's the reality. The people most opposed to Trump live in solidly blue states. Thus, the tax increases you're feeling the pain from caused by restricting COLA deductions on your federal returns aren't going to cost Trump anything. Reason being...the states that saw actual tax cuts for nearly every taxpayer are those states like MI, OH, WI, PA and FL... You going to make the case that those middle class taxpayers should pay more? Good luck with that.
Here's the bottom line.
Championing open borders with the right to free health care for people illegally in the country, as well as their right to vote regardless of citizenship; entirely socialized medicine; more than a doubling of the maximum personal income tax rates; vast reparations to African-Americans and native people; a fatalistic green policy; forgiveness of $1 trillion of student loans; and legalized infanticide—the post-birth extinction of the lives of fully born and separated children under unspecified conditions.
Tell me again which of the purple states you're going to win with that agenda?
1984.
Don't forget.
49-1.
6
@Erica Smythe Sorry...SALT...not COLA.
You do realize that doctors don’t actually perform infanticide, right? If a fetus is delivered as a live neonate, they will resuscitate it and/or provide comfort care as they would to any other born child. Late term abortions, aka dilatation and extraction, involve the administration of drugs that terminate the fetal heartbeat well before the labor or artificial delivery has occurred. Usually in the case of profound physical deformities (organs outside of the body, no cerebrum). I’m not sure how lying about medical procedures supports your other points.
4
If the DNC continues to ignore progressives in favor of good ‘ol neoliberals, Democrats will continue to lose.
Democrats are not even united in the understanding that socialism distinguishes the public from the private sector in mixed economies.
When the progressives can out in force in 08 & 12, the Dems. won both times. When the progressives stayed home or voted for a third party candidate, the Dems. lost in 2016.
My point: Moderates need progressives, more than progressive need moderates. In 08 & 12, Obama expanded the base with new voters, black, young, and progressives. Yes, moderates voted for him, but they were apart of the larger coalition, but not the most important factor of the coalition.
In 2016, HRC did not excite the Obama coalition, nor did she expand the base. In fact, less black voters were registered during her campaign than when Obama ran. And, she attracted less support from younger voters compared to Obama in 2012.
Again, moderates need progressives to win, not the other way around.
1
“Choosing a Presidential nominee that is not sufficiently loyal to the party’s base can risk lower voter turnout,” Stein pointed out. “This is what undermined Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in 2016, especially in urban centers of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan and Ohio.”
I believe this statement is 100% wrong.
The reason Clinton lost those states is that she did not even campaign in some, such as Michigan.
She thought she had those states in the bag.
2020 candidates should not make the same mistake.
3
Biden was always going to fall in the polls after he entered the race. He done too much in his long life in politics not to have baggage. The question is, who can pull in moderates and get progressives out to vote also? He seems to be the only one with enough name recognition to accomplish that.
1
The Democratic Party cannot be united, if by "unite" we mean for a lasting time, not briefly on Election Day. There are no FDR's among them and Will Rogers' comment about not belonging to an organized party, being a Democrat, still holds. It does not bode well for Democrats since Donald Trump has quickly and powerfully united the Republican Party. Democrats, convinced of being on moral high ground, are racing ahead of the mainstream voters in states that will count, perhaps leading to winning Electoral College totals for Donald Trump. Joe Biden, wounded in debate, carrying heavy baggage from years of service, still holds his own in leading the polls. Yes, it's still early to take polls seriously but they are what we have. Biden, a flawed candidate in many ways, appeals to the "middle" for which most of the other leading contenders express contempt. Would they not be wise to consider the political significance of "Old Joe," a centrist, leading the polls? There's a message for them there.
1
The Democratic Party will never find unity by pandering to religious sects.
1
Across the board, the electorate is ready for economic populism. Voters want government to protect them from the ravages of unbridled capitalism, to ensure that global trade deals are made with workers in mind, and to trim the horns of corporate power.
Warren (my choice) could be the standard bearer for that sentiment on the left.
But as the article illustrates, her problem, as well as all Democrats', is Borders and Identity Politics.
The effectively open borders proposed by Democrats is madness. Any progressive program one could imagine, from "free" college, to Medicare for all, or to even just make our public schools function again, is crippled by an unrestricted in-flow of destitute, unskilled, often illiterate people. Lectures about Ellis Island are irrelevant to 2019's reality, and insulting.
The left's cultural hegemony actually works against it in the Identity Politics war. Every bit of faux outrage, performative wokeness, and destruction-by-Twitter for having transgressed progressive orthodoxy on race and gender are associated with the left, and therefore Democrats. And Americans hate - HATE - what we far too tepidly call "polical correctness."
Advantage: Trump.
8
Just don’t call this “socialism”.
1
@Livonian" I just don't get what forced birth will do to alleviate anything you purport to object to. And I don't indulge in "political correctness" because I think very little is correct in US understanding of politics.
This has to be one of the most critical elections in the history of this country, even the end of our democracy. The US public doesn't seem to realizes the scope of the problem. Foreign adversaries have invaded our country inserting a puppet in the White House. This would be impossible were it not for the Republican party's support. The scam is hidden from the right-wing public by Fox News. The Republicans in charge do not seem to grasp the problem and the Democrats keep running fire breathing candidates that could never survive a general election. This is the time to come together with a centrist, middle of the road democratic candidate and make everyone right and left end the madness.
3
Thomas Jefferson said there are two things necessary for a thriving democracy: An informed electorate; and a vigorous free press. There is a vigorous alt press, if you will; but the nightly news is just not doing its job of informing the voters who is really stealing from them and who is trying to help.
Why don't we have a vigorous infrastructure program going on right now? Because Obama didn't want to tackle another tough job or because McConnell wouldn't allow it?
According to what I saw in the news it could have been either.
It wasn't, though. It was McConnell who wouldn't give Obama any wins.
I do hope that reporters like Mr. Edsall remember that in a fascist state reporters are generally out of work. And in prison.
6
I’m greatly disturbed by the recent juvenile bickering between Pelosi and AOC. This kind of split will lose us the election.
5
No, there isn’t, which is why the Democrats are going to lose the election. They might as well concede right now and save us from the spectacle that is the debate horserace and discord within the party, which has zero discipline, any idiot can apparently get up there and run on their platform as a “Democratic candidate.” And while they’re at it, just dissolve it. Why have a national party if the members cannot even get behind a platform? Even the most seasonal political observers have their heads spinning trying to figure out what the heck it means to be a Democrat. For the average American though, it probably means little or nothing. The Dems don’t seen to understand that when you try to please everyone, you please no one.
7
The Democratic Party needs a physician who specializes in autoimmune diseases. It’s good to have competition within the party – it season the candidates – one can see the differences between them – etc., but that aside – the problem lies within the voters. If their candidate fails to win the nomination the anger supersedes the logic – it all crumbles with the ominous result of not going out and vote for the winner. There has to be a medication that restores order in the brains and stop ordering the unwanted annihilation of the winning candidate. The concept: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” holds water in this issue.
THE primary goal is to dethrone Trump, not winning the candidacy.
1
The presence of White Supremacy hangs over this discussion. White folks have enjoyed the highest salaries and wages, the best housing, the best medical care, the best retirement forever because non-White people have had to work for less (or for nothing) to generate the wealth needed to preserve this White People's Democracy. White people can resolve their political differences peacefully (most of the time) because non-Whites provide enough wealth to do so.
That part of our national life is coming to an end. No surprise that White people are becoming more and more irrational about politics, and even about whether they are spoiling their own environment.
This reality gives conservatives a huge advantage in our political life--whether this conservatism is Republican or Democratic. The rub is that the cost of this conservatism can only grow as the world passes White people by, and as White people grow ever more frustrated by Reality.
Normal politics cannot withstand the stresses the dissolution of White Supremacy entails. Leadership will open paths to avoid self-destruction because of this challenge. It's pretty clear that our parties cannot generate such politicians, in part because when they arise, the conservative weight of the parties stifle them.
But non-White Americans are on the rise at home, and the rest of the world is pretty much non-White. This is reality. Our country will flounder amidst stupidity, violence, and self-pity until it accepts Reality.
1
The Wall St. fat cats’ problem is that their “moderate” (i.e., fiscally conservative, pro-rich) favorite Biden is a truly embarrassingly bad candidate. And they have no Plan B. They thought a redo of their strategy for foiling progressives with blacks, which worked for Hillary, would work for Biden, too. Too bad it will not. Hillary had terrible weaknesses, but she never appeared senile and clueless like Biden. Tough luck, fat cats. A progressive woman is breaking the glass ceiling, not a Wall St. puppet named Clinton. And it’s a good thing, too.
1
As Bruce Rosenbilt says, the Public seems Not to Care. As with our “President” they do not know enough to Care or care enough to Know. We , again, have an Article that Analyzes our Situation ...and our “President”. Regarding the “President”, I tire of the
Chronic Analysis. As an 82/year old long-retired Licensed Family Therapist, and Lutheran pastor, I have chosen to Diagnose Him
rather than analyze him. I have long believed Trump is and has
been, a successful Sociopathic Personality Disorder, swimming,
happily, in his own pool of NarcissismA. He is Beyond Treatment.....we, the People, are in Need of it! Many have questioned his propensity for chronic Lying. That is just One of
His major Symptoms. His devoted followers may be Heavily
Moralized. I consider, as with their Leader, they, too, are
Heavily Amoralized. God help us...if in Residenced.
,
Biden/Harris
Joe Biden is the only electable Democrat willing to straddle the middle ground, making him the only Democrat in a strong position to beat the unpopular president.
But that isn't good enough for the loudest whining voices on the left. They are pushing Biden into making left turns. And when you make enough left turns, you realize you haven't gotten anywhere. That is Biden's predicament and is also the state of the Democrat Party.
4
The Democrats are suffering a leadership vacuum. We all suffer when this happens.
Lenin, or perhaps Stalin for bit more DNC Politburo vigor?
2
@Alice's Restaurant: For Russian (owned) candidates you need to check out the RNC nowadays. McCarthy's days are long gone.
1
@Anna
And you need to read Marcuse and Gramsci to get DNC Politburo's current corral of candidates.
Hiss was a communist, by the way.
I am conflicted on Warren's electability.
On the one hand she appears too aggressive ,too liberal and too unorthodox.
Yet my gut tells me she is the singular candidate that take down this malignant narcissistic con man.
First there is the woman vote. She will gather as many as Hillary did and then some. There is also the anti bully vote. People don't like a privileged old white man insulting a woman. especially an honest woman who has been fighting for consumers her whole life.
Finally the debates. She crushes him with her intellect and calls him out for broken promises and Russian ties.
Yes-maybe Warren.
163
@anthony minniti
At this point I agree entirely. Ms. Warren exhibits the best of both worlds. Her record demonstrates a moral high ground at which Trump fails dramatically. As an unquestioned and very vocal consumer advocate, she would represent ALL of the People, for are we not all consumers?
Equally, she takes aim at the thing I fear the most, the continuing explosion of an American plutocracy. It's been said many times, but repetition doesn't degrade the truth of it: today's America has become a revival of the "gilded age". Banking, the backbone of any economy, is back to where it was in 2007. The distribution of wealth is gravitating upward at a rate which may become unstoppable.
Trump is wide open to exposure of his fundamental lie: being on the side of "the little guy". The proof is in the pudding, and Elizabeth Warren is the one to hold it out for the public to sample, and retch.
As for intellectual competition, does anyone have to ask which of the two, Warren or Trump, has the exponentially greater understanding of our Constitution, our government, of economics, even of tariffs?
36
@anthony minniti
The more I learn about Warren, the more I like her. I mean, I'm actually getting excited about her candidacy in and of itself.
As you mentioned, she'd been working on the issues affecting the middle class long before she got into politics. She's authentic. She's got the necessary reform policies and passion for real change. For anyone concerned that her ideas may be too radical, remember that our government has compromise and balance baked-in.
Warren: She's smart with a heart!
21
@anthony minniti -- Regarding the electability question, the candidates should be measured by "who can capture the 42% of registered voters in the general election that are registered as Independents with no party affiliation?" These are not voters loyal to Democrats, in fact, many hate the Democratic Party and call it the reason why there has been almost no pushback against the 1980's trickle-down policy and tax cuts of Reagan, followed by tax cuts by Bush and now Trump. So the candidate, who can easily beat trump must be one, who MOTIVATES the independents to vote for them and not Trump, and also motivates them to not sit out the election by pushing someone like Biden onto the ticket.
6
Unless you live in Mars, it seems obvious to any impartial observer that republicans have lost their soul, Machiavellian to the core, supporting the unsupportable...just because they can. As to the democrats, flawed as they may be, are more diverse and seem more caring, and willing to seek strength in integration and solidarity, and trying to break the odious inequality this capitalistic system is well known for (for lack of ethics, selfishness and greed have gained the upper hand), and where poverty sticks out as a sore thumb. Much work remains to be done...and democrats are the one's that ought to be given a chance to right the current drifting boat called democracy.
3
Elizabeth Warren is my first choice for president, but can she win the hearts and minds of the lunch-pail Democrats who voted for Obama before turning to Trump? To do so, she would have to moderate her positions on immigration and health care, and risk becoming an apostate among the true believers of the far left.
"If the Democrats want to win, they have to pick someone who will drive turnout. Nothing else really matters." That is the voice of absolutism on the far left, posted by a reader, but the real world is more complex.
As it was in 2016, the presidential election will be decided in half a dozen battleground states. A big turnout among urban Democrats is necessary to win, but not sufficient. It will not overcome the GOP demographic advantage in those states.
The election will thus come down, as it did in 2016, to lunch-pail Democrats, who voted for Obama before turning to Trump. They are socially conservative, but economically liberal, and will come home to the Democrats in 2020 if the angry ideologues of the far left don’t drive them away.
Given all these paradoxes, my bet is on a Biden-Warren ticket.
• "There Are Really Two Distinct White Working Classes," Thomas B. Edsall, NYTimes, June 26, 2019 http://tinyurl.com/y622dkqk
6
@Ron Cohen: In what universe does the white working class not want better access to health care?
79
@Pdxtran
As any expert will tell you, there are many ways to deliver healthcare. It is not a question of access, but how it is achieved. Overwhelmingly, the public wants a choice, not a mandate. And they want results, not empty promises.
Medicare-for-all as endorsed by most of the Democratic candidates is a non-starter, an empty promise. If we were starting with a blank slate, it might be possible, but we’re not.
Here’s how health care experts explain it: our current health care system is like a huge ocean liner; it can't be turned around on a dime. The obstacles are not only political, as Paul Krugman and others have argued, but also legal, financial and administrative.
Sen. Ted Kennedy’s public option was do-able on all counts. It has been updated by Medicare-for-America, a modern public option clearly described here: http://tinyurl.com/y39vbv8k.
On this issue, read also Charles Gaba’s powerful blog post from 2016, still relevant today: http://acasignups.net/node/3085.
7
@Pdxtran
In what universe are people so selfish and lacking in pride and integrity that they're willing, even eager, to accept government hand-outs paid for, under threats from the IRS, by their neighbours?
1
NOTHING today is more radically changing America than illegal immigration—demographics, population, safety net demands, and the meaning of the rule of law. The progressive approach is to: ignore, deny, support sanctuary cities, subvert ICE, oppose deportation, demand humanitarian consideration for all who are caught crossing the border, support catch and release, support state issued photo ID driver’s licenses, support anchor babies, support “free” healthcare and education for all, and to supply Central America with massive $$$ to improve living conditions. These positions are anathema to sovereignty. Each candidate for president must be asked in a yes/no fashion: “is America a sovereign nation?” Nationalism vs. Globalism is a legitimate debate. The US president needs to be very clear on his/her position.
8
@JDL: It would have helped if the USA had not meddled with the internal affairs of Middle and South American countries in the first place. The USA is just reaping what it sowed there. After decades of exploitation (think fruit companies and the illegal drug and sex trafficking trade bolstered by the demand of drug and sex addicts in the USA), the USA owes those countries, big time.
1
Dems only win if everybody goes to the polls and votes for the same candidate. If they don’t get their exact candidate, the “farther” left has a rep for staying home and pouting or voting for someone who splits the liberal vote and gives the election to the GOP. How many times do Dems want to do that? Electoral college isn’t going away. Abolishing ICE and private medical insurance doesn’t play well w/a large majority of voters. There’s a year to go, but an election today would re-elect the incumbent. Can the Dems get it together to dump trump? Maybe not. Unity is required.
1
Candidates-on each issue, how do your policy proposals affect the middle class? There should be one of two answers- it aids the members of the middle class or helps people gain entry to the middle class. Anything that burdens the middle class should be dropped off of your list- unless, of course, you want to lose election 2020. The ‘civil penalty’ argument is a non-starter, completely unrelated to middle class issues. There are others.
The opinions of Beltway consultants are useless, since they talk mostly to one another, are well-off financially, and may even work for both parties.
They claim, for example, that the average American voter wants "moderates." But what does that mean except that everyone knows the popular saying "moderation in all things"?
I'd like to see the DNC consult their state and local parties to find out what the major issues for their people are out in the real world. They might be surprised at what they hear.
Remember that Bernie Sanders drew enthusiastic crowds with "radical" proposals, despite a near-blackout in the media until he started winning primaries.
Voters like politicians who stand for something other than mushy slogans. I've seen politically naive people respond favorably to a politician's forthright manner, even ignoring what that politician is actually saying. They want fighters.
I'd like to remind the Democrats that if their response to Republican proposals is "Me, too, only not so much" (I'm looking at you, Al Gore), then the voters will vote only on the perceived "likability" of the candidate.
Winning the Trump fans is impossible. Bigots will continue to believe that the Democrats "want open borders" so that they can get "illegal immigrant votes" by "offering free stuff."
The prize is the 50% who think that neither party cares about them. If the Dems can figure out what makes those people tick, they will win a long-term majority.
3
“I am, in fact, a values conservative and a process liberal. I believe in justice, truth, follow-through, honesty, personal and financial responsibility, faithful love and humility - all deeply traditional values. Yet, in my view, you need to be imaginative, radical, dialogical, and even counterintuitive to live these values at any depth. Whether in church life or politics, neither the conservatives nor liberals are doing this very well today” - Richard Rohr.
The candidate who lives these conservative values at the same time she/he demonstrates a liberal application gets my vote.
The first Democratic primary is seven months away. The Democratic convention is a year away.
It is entirely possible that the eventual Democratic nominee for president is not even in the race yet.
4
The beauty of the Democratic Party's run up is that that it will almost guarantee a victory for Mr. Trump.
3
In this paper today there is a piece on the burden placed on public schools by a flood of immigrants. It's surprising that liberal Democrats, as demonstrated by 30-year data cited here, have abandoned a belief in the need for orderly and controlled borders. When Trump goes around saying Dems are for open borders, it has the ring of a smear, but then I see data like this and I'm not so sure.
3
This whole "electability" thing, and words like "progressive" are just words used in fear of losing elections.
Trump will not lose because of his rotten character, his corruption or his ineptness. He will lose because his policies have actually hurt a lot of ordinary Americans (billionaire tax breaks that didn't trickle down, attacking Obamacare without an alternative).
People want politicians to solve their basic problems. Getting access to affordable health care, decent jobs and decent wages, the ability to vote and the feeling that they are included instead of excluded.
You may feel Ms Warren is "progressive", I see her as a strong candidate with actual plans to fix what Trump broke.
I assume that Dem/Left and Rep/Right are brand names developed similarly to "Mothers Day" and "Corinthian Leather" and "Halitosis", by advertising geniuses. This has been used by the Media/Industrial/Complex to generate controversy so profitable to the News Marketeers. Democratic debate? pumped like "March Madness" or the "Superbowl". None of the candidates can find a theme so"electability" (another marketing word) is the holy grail. Voters are drawn to brands rather than individual or combined issues; it is much easier and requires little thought effort. I sincerely believe that Al Franken was the best chance for the Dems, Smart, poised, fiesty, stand up experience. We are all looking for that person that unites us behind a larger concept, but we are wallowing in the mud of advertising brands and weasel words. Trump might have had the opportunity, but he is not that smart or secure as the British Ambassador pointed out.
2
Why do voters have less confidence in the Democratic Party representing the middle class? I can’t imagine there is objective evidence that the Republican Party has been helpful to middle class on economic issues. Rather, as discussed, a tribe has formed supportive of Republicans based on non-economic issues. Drutman has identified the sweet spot. Economically progressive - culturally/immigration issues, moderate.
The Democratic candidates have allowed Trump’s use of immigrant hatred to cloud their ability to think. We don’t have to hate and use hatred to be in favor of reasonable immigration laws, borders and processes. We don’t have to prove we aren’t Trump by becoming unreasonable on the topic. When we become unreasonable regarding immigration we let Trump set the agenda.
Yes, we need candidates that display courage and wisdom. Not spineless reactions to Trump. Check out Bennet.
3
Immigration is "deal breaker" with many independents and tepid Trump supporters. It is also an issue for many liberal Democrats like me who want stronger border enforcement even though fully aligned with Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris on all issues.
Trump will continue to play the immigration card riling up his base by eliciting extreme positions from the candidates and a vocal minority of primary voters. Let's not fall in his trap.
9
It is significant that the 2016 election was the first in which whether voters had a college degree mattered. The Democrats got a much higher percentage of voters with college degrees than the Republicans. I think this is one reason that Republican voters see Democrats as the elites. Having a college degree or not having a college degree has separated Americans at least with regard to whites who comprise about two-thirds of the voters. Even Trump has a college degree and since he will not allow his transcripts to be released all we know is that in the 1968 Penn yearbook Trump is listed as a graduate from Wharton without receiving honors. Whomever the Democrats nominate that person needs to find a way to connect to whites without college degrees. They are largely the group fighting to keep immigrants out and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. Many of the these voters might not be that enthralled with Trump given how he as lied on issues like health care and are willing to give the Democrats another look.
2
The maverick who comes forward will be well-informed, honest, respectful of the press, a good listener, an outstanding communicator; a person who asks questions, who thinks before opening his/her mouth, a moral person who can walk thousands of miles in a person's shoes; a person who sees the family unit as the foundation of a society; and above all a person who reads enough books and scientific articles to know that our planet's survival depends upon each and every one of us changing our wasteful lifestyles. How many people out there dare call themselves a maverick?
1
There’s millions of unknown Mavericks who are ignored because they live in flyover country. Coastal elites will never accept them because their ideas and jobs are too old fashioned.
3
Another refreshing column from the data-driven Mr. Edsall. Methinks the Dems have a border crisis of their own. And Trump will exploit it to the fullest.
2
The path to citizenship for illegal aliens should be left open, but based on qualification by those holding down jobs, paying taxes & sending their children to school. Those with criminal records should be deported.
This does not mean support of an open border with no process for determining eligibility for becoming an American citizen based on economic hardship alone. Highly skilled immigrants with the exception of medical doctors should be barred from entry. Fueling the fires of resentment & exclusion will only lead to greater excesses by the populist right.
Presidential candidates expressing rage over excesses at the border over separation of children from adults are correct. Those advocating open borders are wrong.
Why is there a deficit of candidates with a common sense solution on both sides of the aisle?
5
Economist here and former Bernie supporter (though a demographer would probably have me picked as a Hillary supporter given my age, gender and income). Bernie is too old. Time for him to cede to Warren who is intelligent, ethical, and exactly what our country needs.
5
The Democrats are certainly divided. But this has been true for some time. In 2008, Hillary Clinton got nearly as many primary votes as Barack Obama. But Hillary supporters dutifully lined up and voted for him.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Bernie Bros in 2016, when their candidate received far fewer votes than Clinton. But for Bernie Bros, Hillary Clinton would be sitting in the White House right now. Ten percent of Bernie Bros voted for Trump (https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds), thousands more voted third party, and many more sat home. The selfishness of these voters is the only reason Trump won.
Primarily white males, these voters knew that their lives wouldn't be affected by a Trump presidency. So they indulged in their infantile tantrum and it has cost this country dearly. Roe v Wade will be reversed, hate crimes are at an all-time high, and we now have internment camps on our soil. Apparently none of this was on Bernie Bros' "conscience" in 2016. You know, when they all railed that they just couldn't find it in their "conscience" to vote for Hillary?
The fact is, women and minorities have been the only ones to pay the price for the Bernie Bros' selfishness. So the last people I want to hear from whining about the mainstream candidates are those immature Democrats pouting because their prom king wasn't picked as the candidate. Bernie Bros have a lot to answer for.
3
@Kyle Reese: Although I am not supporting Bernie this time around, the fact is that a higher percentage of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary in 2016 than Hillary supporters voted for Barack in 2008. All but one Bernie supporter I knew voted for Hillary in the general election.
People who didn't vote at all were the greater problem in 2016. Turnout among Black voters in the Rust Belt cities, for instance, was low.
Politically naive voters feel no obligation to vote if they don't like the candidates. It is the candidate's duty to arouse enthusiasm in the voters. Hillary didn't do that in the Rust Belt states.
2
@Pdxtran,
If you had cited some facts, I would have believed you. And percentages aren't relevant here, because Bernie got a lot few votes, relatively, than the 2008 situation. The fact is, the numbers bear me out.
1
I'm not buying the tribalism on both sides argument. It's ridiculous how we all beat around the bush or try and pretend that our current bewilderment with politics and the country's illogical allegiance to Trump and the Republican party has to do with something more than White America having a problem with loosing status. If we would have the courage to admit this at the start, answers would become clearer.
78
@Al Whoa, careful. Radical centrists who have voted Democrat their whole lives until they read your comment might hear you.
6
@Al
Exactly. They should be happy about losing status. That's what everyone wants, around the world. Only a freak of nature wouldn't want to lose status. Everywhere else in the world, people are happy about demographic changes, but not here! Why? Why are we so uniquely plagued by this? Why can't we be like everyone else?
7
@JB
This! Maybe the “whites” wouldn’t be freaking out if the woke liberals hadn’t been marking down the days until they die out on a calendar. Beginning with the famous “Demographics is Destiny” theory in the early 00’s. It’s just such a wonder why Trump won. Gosh! But no matter! I’m sure when whites are an insignificant horrible nightmare of a memory then peace, love and harmony will come to the U.S.! No, the world! Every other ethnic group is gentle, kind, progressive and tolerant, it’s just the pesky whites who are ruining for everyone!
1
I wish the debate moderators would stop asking Presidential candidates to raise hands if they agree with some wack job giveaway. Many Congresspersons come from moderate, even conservative states and districts.
President Obama, who conservatives like me considered radical governed fairly moderately.
I know the Socialist Democrats don’t like to hear this. But, this is a right of center country and always will be.
5
Consensus comes from education. As education is so bad in the USA and the conceptual level of American citizens is so low, there can be no consensus.
The consensus is on the religious, mystical side as a consequence of lack of education. And on the principles of individual interest as there is no social or collective sense of security.
Mystique and individualism make the worst cocktail for democratic purposes.
That is why tyrants can so easily steer the uneducated masses .
Republicans deny climate change exists. Democrats recognize it’s an existential threat. But if the choice is between saving the planet and redoing the kitchen, Americans of both parties will choose redoing the kitchen.
That’s the problem.
3
@me: As long as America goes along on its merry gas-guzzling, fracking, overheating, over-air conditioning ways, developing countries will see demands that THEY change as America trying to hold them back.
The U.S. has to take the lead in something besides having more nukes than anyone else
2
Frances Lee is correct. Democrats don’t have the right candidate yet. The rest of your piece is interesting but also a distraction. Historians are going to spend decades trying to understand why, with the clear threat of a future one-party state before them, and with an aspiring autocrat already openly defying the traditional standards of ethics and legality, the opposing party couldn’t find an electable candidate. My current diagnosis combines two elements: (1) escapism--the country is traumatized and looking for immediate psychic relief; and (2), flawed opportunism--the self-selected candidates are needy, in need of a new job or attention or both, a recipe for competitive pandering.
2
At this point in the last presidential campaign, Republican candidates disagreed on vital issues and kept sniping at each other. And Trump seemed to be the candidate least likely to unite his Party. So it is too early in the election season to dwell on divisions among the Democrats and to assess each one's weaknesses and flaws, while making predictions about their chances to win.
3
I continue to harp on a point that Edsall doesn't mention: the impact of media coverage and attention on political choices.
A case in point is AOC, a first-term Democratic Member of the House. Bright, passionate she is, but there is another ability she has that is matched only by Trump: media coverage.
So, like Trump, she soaks up attention, leaving many to conclude that she -- by herself -- is the new, progressive, liberal voice of the Party, which is a monumental exaggeration.
In fact, AOC is no more the voice of the Democratic Party than I am. Think about the many other Democratic women who swept into office in 2018. They represent many facets and shades of Democratic Party ideology; and they are smart, imaginative and dedicated public servants. Just like AOC, but without the megaphone.
My point is this: politics has boiled down to personality; that is, who has been identified as the personification of each Party. And the political media, which has never focused on issues as much as personalities, is really calling the shots for the 2020 election.
This is the overwhelming challenge for the Democrats. The news media will not cover someone who isn't extremely media savvy, leaving AOC -- for now -- as the go to source for quotes and quips.
Unless the Party takes control of the process and selects a quotable, authentic -- moderate -- candidate, it will lose bigly in 2020.
10
@PaulB67 Democrats are too stupid to realize that not only is MSM not their friend, it is their greatest enemy. Media's only allegiance is to themselves, ie. clicks, clicks, clicks. But Democrats stupidly believe, just because MSM is vehemently anti Trump, that therefore that benefits them. Trump wisely recognizes that bad publicity is just as good as good publicity. It allows Trump to fight MSM on their own turf. And he is a master of that. Nobody will outdo Trump in manipulating Media. Both the media and Democrats do not appreciate the fact that the media did not make Trump ( he made himself ) and therefore they can never take him down. No matter how much they bash him, he loves the free publicity.
2
Polls can analyze the opinions of voters across the country till the cows come home. But whose opinions *really* matter in the general election? My guess is that of voters in about six states. Donald Trump seems to have understood this in 2016; Hillary Clinton apparently did not. Donald Trump will again understand this in 2020. Who are the Democratic candidates speaking to when expressing support for liberal immigration policies, healthcare for illegal immigrants, reparations, etc? Many of the views that most of the two dozen or so candidates are now expressing in the primaries will not play well in the critical swing states when the general election campaigning begins in earnest next summer. Donald Trump will use this to his advantage. The Democratic candidates right now seem to be positioning themselves more and more to the left. IMHO, America does not want a far left president.
12
Seems to me we need a moderate at the top of the ticket and a progressive on the bottom. With Biden at the top, the progressives can rest assured that their candidate (the VP) will have a good shot (the best shot) at the top of the ticket in 2024. That may be enough to bring the wings of the party together.
2
Why no mention of Pete Buttigieg? He seems to be threading the needle pretty well.
5
The Left has so many pet issues in such a large tent it's difficult to keep track of them even if you are paying attention.
The Right has Guns and God and to a certain extent immigration. Much easier to corral. Much easier to pander to.
Most people don't think things through very well. And we are not at the Apex of compromise and listening right now. It is evident in Congress. Even the Democratic led House can't get it together.
I don't have an answer, but I can see that "I'm the only one that counts" is what is at the root of the issue. Civility is gone. Everyone seems to be arrogant and stupidly selfish. No one cares how things affect those outside their tribe.
How did we get here I wonder?
8
@mj Democrats seem to be very childish and "me, me, me" people. There are at least 3 people running for Presidency, ( Beto, Hickenlooper, etc. ) who have a shot of running to be Senators in their states. But, no, they all think of themselves as so special. "Look at me I am so smart, so special, don't you admire me? Am I not Presidential material?" They all think just because Trump did it, therefore anyone can do it. They refuse to realize that Trump is not only sly but also extremely smart, manipulative, & top of his class in media savvy. Plus, everybody knew Trump. Who ever heard of Hickenlooper, Gabbard, Daley, and other assorted wanabees. To sum up: Democrats are in general very selfish and egotistical and puffed up on themselves.
1
I will be voting "not Trump" some candidates are more suitable than others but racist, lying, misogynist conman Trump is not suitable under any conditions. The real issue isn't my vote. It's how many of the electors has he bribed?
3
Amy Klobuchar!
2
Let's not forget the criterion of "who could you imagine sitting down and having a beer with?" Truman beat Dewey (a highly qualified guy) with this one, Eisenhower beat Stevenson with it, Reagan beat both Carter and Mondale, Clinton beat both Bush I and Dole, Bush II beat both Gore and Kerry, Obama beat Romney and Hillary (for the nomination), and Trump beat Hillary. The only exception since Roosevelt (!) is Obama's victory over John McCain.
Now look at the top Democrat candidates. Warren? bad joke. Biden? maybe a few years ago but not any more? Sanders? maybe -- but he's nuts. Harris? maybe, but only if you have to. Buttigieg? regrettable, but too many of us wouldn't be comfortable. The others? never heard of them.
Jesse Ventura famously described the Libertarians as the party that didn't want to win the election.
Hello Democrats???
3
Kamala Harris - presidential candidate
Mayor Pete - VP pick.
Calm down, Mr. Edsall.
I'd rather move forward than backward. Progress is not a bad word.
Obviously in the age of Trump, this is a dilemma, but I suggest that we all remember what a dictionary is, Mr. Edsall, so that "progress" doesn't become as intimidating to Democrats as it is to the GOP.
So, get over it, Thomas.
4
The most compelling lesson of the modern era, including virtually all of the 20th Century, is that propaganda works, aided and abetted by mainstream media, increasingly in America. Republicans have perfected the buy-and-lie tactics over the past 40 years, achieving consummate success beyond their wildest dreams. For the American electorate to be so intoxicated and conned by the radical right-wing revolution to the extent that they are sliding toward the belief that Republicans are more stalwart advocates for the Middle Class than Democrats are is theater of the absurd, a surreal, Kafka-esque nadir of the American dystopian condition.
3
"Are Democrats or Republicans more out of touch with the American people?"
A better question would be: "Who is more in touch with reality - Democrats or Republicans - and who can do a better job giving Americans what they need as well as what they think they want?"
I am tired of watching so many aging white male pundits worrying about the Democrats going "too far left". Too many of them came of age under Ronald Reagan, and there's a direct line from Reagan to where we are today. The Republican war on government began with him, followed by Gingrich et. al. who declared war on the Democratic Party. That's where the division in the US comes from.
I have yet to see comparable concern about a GOP that is now openly racist, openly corrupt, and descending into full-blown authoritarianism. That will not disappear with Trump; all he has done is bring it right out in the open. His followers and the toxic belief system that sustains them is not going away either.
The GOP is now extremist. It is the party of oligarchs and religious hypocrites, cozying up to dictators abroad and accepting their help while they systematically undermine democracy here at home. Their only concern is to maintain their power and privilege.
If that were not enough, the Climate Crisis is going to overwhelm us all if we do not start taking aggressive action to deal with it. It does not care about politics or who believes in it. It will not be put off or compromised away.
Survival is the real question.
5
Democrats' focus on mutual PURITY tests lose when they are up against Repub billionaires' donor power and battering-ram brutal smear propaganda.
Democrats must have BETTER Propaganda.
Aim at your enemy! Fight fast, with gusto or lose, again.
2
The progressive left is so firmly planted on its high horse that it misses the fundamental realities surrounding immigration. It wants to welcome ever more migrants into the country, while ignoring facts about basic resources like:
- Many cities have a shortage of affordable housing.
- Millions of Americans still do not have health insurance.
- Many parts of the west are facing a water crisis.
- Many public schools are overcrowded and underfunded.
The answer is NOT to add more people to our population! And from an election standpoint, the answer is certainly NOT to put the needs of illegal immigrants over those of Americans! How so many Democrats fail to see this is beyond me. Help your own people first!!
139
@shstl,
First, it is the Republicans who don't want to deal with immigration. It is the Chambers of Commerce that oppose strict enforcement of labor laws, like punishing those who benefit from employing illegal immigrants, which would be much more effective (and cheaper) than building walls and other nonsense.
And for each of your points, again, it is Republicans who stand in the way of fixing things. How is that not obvious to you?
-Who opposes expanding Medicaid?
-Who opposes dealing with climate change?
-Who opposes funding for public schools?
-Who opposes improved public transit to connect affordable housing with job locations?
48
@shstl We don't fail to see those issues but, we also recognize that parents will do what they deem necessary to protect and provide for their children and if the shoe was on the other foot parents here would do the same. We should respect that and treat these people decently while in our country.
17
@shstl
Agreed! This issue will be the dem's Achilles heel!
A more moderate approach which would be very popular with independents is to pass the dreamers act and then adopt a national e-verify system to prevent all undocumented workers from getting employment. This is the greatest deterrent to illegal immigration.
This is also more than Trump is doing about immigration and I suspect it will hit his big donors the hardest as well as the Trump golf clubs.
39
In the 2016 election, Republicans united behind a candidate that had virtually no support 16 months before the election. They united behind that candidate and energized their base by using the threat of Clinton (and with her another 4 years of "Obama).
Democrats had no similar animating factor in 2016 and did not unite behind their candidate. It cost them. In 2020, the ability of all Democratic leaders and voters to unite and drive energy behind a single candidate to defeat the common enemy will be the determining factor.
From a practical standpoint, centrist policy positions (read: incrementalism) should help drive meaningful results in areas like immigration. However, incremental change will not be enough to address and fix many of the biggest issues of our time. Substantive change is required to address the economic issues of income and wealth inequality (and the increasingly limited potential for upward mobility); the economic issues around healthcare costs that are 50% too high and continuing to eat up wage increases and wealth; The existential threat of climate change; The governance threat of the U.S. moving away from a pure democracy (one voice, one vote) and becoming a plutocracy (masked by catch phrases, propaganda and myths; The spiritual threat of racism and "anti-otherism".
These issues will not be fixed by centrist positions. That will not be enough. Yet a centrist likely brings the best chance to defeat the common enemy.
1
For Democrats, from The Art of War by Sun Tzu (translation by Thomas Cleary):" Strategic Assessment: measure in terms of 5 things: The Way means inducing the people to have the same aim as leadership, so they will share death and life, without fear. The Weather means the seasons" (in politics, read this as the mood of the people). "The terrain is to be assessed in terms of distance, difficulty, or ease of travel " (in politics, read this as the political battlefield). "Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage and sternness. Discipline means organization, chain of command, and logistics. Every general has heard of these five things. Those who know them prevail". The real strategic goal is not about finding someone to beat Trump. It is about finding the right leader that embodies the Democratic principles, making sure the principles are well understood so that enough people will share the aims, then understanding the political terrain and organizing to ensure victory. Sun Tzu's philosophy is not about waging war. It is about doing everything right to prevent war if possible, to win without the use of weapons. It begins with principles and leadership, and then ends with victory.
3
It’s not that complicated.
If you’re branded an elitist by the opposition, are popularly considered an elitist, and reinforce that perception by never campaigning in Wisconsin and only going to Michigan once - you’re going to lose people’s votes and critical swing states.
People fear the electoral college as if it were an unspeakable monster that can’t be tamed (for the record, I think electoral college should be abolished). But, if you know what the rules are, you gotta show up and play by the rules.
I don’t expect Elizabeth Warren to not show up in states to ask for people’s votes. She’s been holding town halls everywhere, including in deep red Trump territory of WVA. No one who listens to her can call her an elitist as her passion and message to level the playing field comes across clearly.
Judging Elizabeth Warren by the standard that she taught at Harvard (and obviously lives in the city) ignores that Trump was a New Yorker and no one had issues with it.
Labels are what the Republicans try to put on us. They can’t succeed if we let them. Let our actions and agenda define who the Democrats are.
6
“Trump is one kind of maverick.”
Perhaps not. He talks a good game but in the end he is an amazing front for a small group of conservatives that with trump as president are successfully implementing extreme conservative programs. They are creating an oligarchy while also permanently subverting our democracy and those safeguards and accepted norms we’ve long had to preserve it.
2
“All of these candidates ... will face challenging questions on immigration.”
Thanks for the reminder.
Lest we forget, improved border security was the top issue Trump ran on and won on in 2016.
8
I do not think it is leftist to want to level the playing field for Americans. The game has been rigged against the poor, the middle class, those in ill health not only by Republicans, but by some Democrats as well.
I think it is time to focus on policies that are in the best interests for all of the County. And I think it is also time for the media to stop labeling politicians as Right, Left, Moderate or some other label of their choosing.
Human Beings are all complex, including Politicians. So while there maybe some issues, like Immigration, that seems to be todays hot button, tomorrow will bring another issue that will give the press another opportunity to put a label on Candidates who express differing opinions. Yesterday it seemed like the most pressing issues was the arrest of Jeff Epstein. Now its the possibility of Barr's resignation. Neither of these issue are left, right or center. They are moral issues. Just as is the Immigration problem, the Voting Rights problem, the Choice issue.
Some issues are Economic. That falls on the side of Conservative, Moderate or Liberal. But not the moral issues.
Most of the issues we are facing right now, because of the Republicans and the Trump Administration are serious moral issues. There is no way you can label them Left or Right.
They are issues of what is right or wrong.
Let's keep to letting the Candidates define whether or not issues are Progressive, Moderate or Conservative. Let them label themselves.
5
@Jean
“Level the playing field”
Exactly right.
The biggest obstacle to electing a Democrat in 2020 is turning out to be AOC and her ‘squad’.
They are very vocal and very much on social media putting forth a platform that the eventual Democratic candidate will either reject and lose some (or most) of their supporters or accept and lose the election.
3
@Maxi
It is not going to hurt the Democratic Candidate to have AOC and her squad remind them of what this country is supposed to be about. They have every right to voice their concerns, just as much as we do.
2
To be sure, past Democratic leaning voters are more disappointed with the Democratic party than with the GOP. When someone you thought to be your friend offends you it is always more of a disappointment than when someone you never really understood and don't really like does the same.
2
"The risk Democrats who step forward are taking may pay off. Traditional strategies focused on centrists and moderates may have lost relevance today. While there is such a thing as too far left, there may also be such a thing as too spineless for the moment, too frightened, too noncombative and too associated with the past."
This is your conclusion. Why not just say so at the beginning? Who can make the moderate "pitch" be anything other than blah, spineless, and unexciting? It is a horrible dilemma. Hopes were pinned on Biden and he could not box his way out of a dispute with Harris on national TV. He did not look powerful, presidential, or prepared. There was a collective sign of disappointment. Sanders', Warrens' and Harris' proposals, as examples, are all focused on making peoples' lives better. While labeled far left and extreme, they really are not - as YOU point out! Mr. Edsall, please do not be so shy. Boil it down and spit it out. The Dems beat Trump by "stepping forward", looking forward, getting a spine, being combative and taking that risk. Make that case, strongly, please.
3
I can't accept the premise that both sides are equally "tribal". When did we start using that word to describe today's political dynamics? Do we all agree on what tribal means? In my opinion the republicans fit that bill much more than Democrats as shown by their cult-like support of the President and democrats do not show a unified support for any one candidate. When did it become a crime to be partisan if one arrives at that view through opened minded, practical, and objective analysis of information at hand? "Bothsidesism seems to be the new incendiary view of today. Democrats need to be more vigilante to not allow the republicans to define the terms of today's rhetorical debates. Finding an electable candidate is most compelling and vital, but let's not bash ourselves so much democrats. We've got the republicans to do that.
3
@Garry W
""tribal". When did we start using that word to describe today's political dynamics? "
I read a novel written by a leftist writer in the 1930s. He referred to the race-based fascist parties in Germany and Italy, etc. as "tribes". That was 80 years ago and the Left still enjoys using the terminology.
@Charlesbalpha
"tribal" is not a left word. It has no left right or in between meaning of the sort.
It is the press who keeps bringing up the "tribal" word
1
The short answer to your question is no. Not as long as there is progressive puritanism in the party.
5
Dear Democrats,
This is how we win the election. The Trump Republicans are radicals. They want to tear apart the fabric of America, destroy our institutions and alliances, and rip up the Constitution.
The Democrats are the silent majority. We want to preserve all that it is good about America.
---
This is 1968 in reverse. Back then, the radicals were on the political left. They were loud and vocal, but did not represent a plurality of American voters. Nixon won the "silent majority".
Today, the radicals are on the political right. Mr. Trump tramples upon the Constitution, defies the Supreme Court, and believes he is above the law. He alienates our allies. He called Canada a national security threat. He calls our European allies a bunch of deadbeats and freeloaders. He cozies up with the worst despots across the globe (Kim Jong-un, Putin, MbS, MbZ, Duterte).
Mr. Trump seeks "deconstruction of the administrative state." He wants to tear down our government and our institutions. He is an anarchist. He is a radical, throwing molotov cocktails at the establishment.
---
This does not imply that Democrats need to be centrist, milquetoast, or Republican-lite. The preservation of all that is good about America can include many progressive policies:
1. We can guarantee healthcare to all Americans. (Provide a public option to buy into Medicare.)
2. We can make college more affordable. (Expand public colleges with a new Morrill Land Grant Act. Supply and demand.)
9
@MidtownATL
We can do both of those things and wave in millions upon millions of 'refugees' to come sit at the table too? Please do explain how?
2
@GregP
Please see my other comment about immigration.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/opinion/pelosi-ocasio-cortez-trump.html#commentsContainer&permid=101378961:101378961
"The correct position on immigration is that we must enforce our immigration laws and enforce our borders, but do it in a humane and sensible manner."
3
Just curious. Where was all this commentary about party division when the tea party moved into DC, bringing any semblance of governance to a screeching halt?
14
"More moderate Democratic candidates — other than Biden — have not demonstrated strength in polls, including Steve Bullock, John Delaney, John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet."
Seriously? You are mentioning moderates like John Delaney (who?) but no mention of Amy Klobuchar?
To me she is the great moderate hope and I intend to support her.
7
@RG
You do realize that she is a woman and won't get as much press as the guys.
2
"trump, Drutman wrote, “has, implausibly, delivered the anti-elitist performance of a lifetime as president.”"
Yes, trump plays the anti-elitist like it's the role of a lifetime of cons. If by anti-elite, we mean fractured sentences, a limited vocabulary, disjointed word salads and mean and inane tweets, then he is appearing anti-elite to his fan base.
But, factor in the private Mar-a-lago, his gilded penthouse on 5th Ave. and all those high end golf courses, he represents the elite in spades. And don't forget the trophy wives.
10
This article is theoretically, conceptually terrific dog food, except that no dog wants it. Each micro observation offered by scholars in the report make micro logic, but together they make macro nonsense.
In other words, the article offers an unconvincing explanation of reality that is Trump, who reflects the desperation, anger, fear, loathing his base (that would be all republicans) feel.
Yes, there is some explanation in anti-elitism and tribalism that explained him routing Hillary in some districts. But it does not explain, not by a long shot, why if most Americans favor immigration, want free healthcare, clean environment, a good education system, and a fair justice system - any republican is elected anywhere. But see, they are, and elected everywhere. Ergo the dog-dog food connection.
None of the republican contenders Trump faced, nor Hillary, were aware of the extent of self-destructive, nihilistic, "I am ready to blow this up" vein that richly oxygenated half of America.
Democrats were then, and are now, oblivious to this reality, It is a reality that renders redundant their arcane theories tethered to the progressive-moderate continuum.
They have zero idea that every American feels special, wants all goodies and free stuff for himself and for no one else. Trump couldn't care less about causes, he knows how to make Americans feel good: he promises to blow everyone up. Ergo, he wins. He's got the right dog food that dogs eat.
2
You can unite a large portion of the Democratic Party with the issue of busing and public school desegregation.
Just keep hammering on those who opposed and oppose it while pretending it doesn't apply in the least to forward thinking Democratic strongholds that have racially segregated public school systems like NYC.
That sums up the Democratic Party - 2019.
Now back to hammering on the folks in flyover country...
4
Bernie Sanders provided the agenda for nearly all the Democratic candidates running for president, an agenda he's supported all his life. Why not stick with him?
2
@JFP
1. Bernie Sander is 77 years old. He'll be 79 by the time he'd be sworn in
2. Sanders has almost no legislative achievements
I appreciate what Sanders has done in the past, however, he's the wrong choice to be leading the country in 2020 and beyond.
5
@JFP: Because he's not, and never has been, an actual Democrat?
2
Edsall's columns have become my favorite read on politics. They are highly anaytical as well as apolitical.
They cite opinions and data that aren't there to support a partucular cause but to help us--me--think.
They are the ultimate foid for thought snd this one is no exception.
Democrats who want to decriminalize illegal entry will probably cost us the election. Throw in free, government-funded comprehensive healthcare for those her illegally and our loss is ensured.
4
Yes, and as Frank Bruni suggest today, Biden is the man. By now, the horror of Trump has sunk into the minds of the "I just can't bring myself to vote for Hillary" and the "Trump won't really be as insane as portrayed during the campaign" and the disgruntled Bernie supporters who wanted to punish Hillary will vote for any D candidate, particularly Biden.
The Democratic Party is facing the very reckoning the Republican Party and all wealthy Americans face. The thousands of allowances accommodating corruption, the fatal consequence of Citizens United and the incremental neglect of functioning Democracy. The Dems have to get out of a knot that they have tied for some forty years. They cannot survive as the party that cedes to and benefits from corruption but will allow us to be gay, brown, black, female etc....
Their mythical Center is not holding and the bill for such cynical storytelling has come due. The Center wants to keep every penny the corrupt policy allows while clutching their pearls when the predictable consequence of wholesale disenfranchisement appears on video.
Pelosi and Schumer are stunning examples of the predicament the establishment Dems face. Through their allowances and greed they have painted themselves into the corner of zero options. What a moment in history this is. The Speaker of the house who begged voters to fight corruption is impotent to act because she benefitted from said corruption.
Let's face it, let's deal with it.
2
“While there is such a thing as too far left, there may also be such a thing as too spineless for the moment, too frightened, too noncombative and too associated with the past.”
It may be inadvertent, by Edsall captures a different problem the Democrats have: the progressive thought police have enforcers and most candidates are afraid to stray from their dogma, even when it makes no sense or is a political loser.
Biden lost more support by groveling on the forced busing issue than he gained by apologizing. Same with the crime bill: he should proudly talk about the lives he helped save, black and white.
Maybe Jeh Johnson should run. He at least has the courage to say that the current candidates’ positions are tantamount to open borders and just won’t work.
5
“Choosing a Presidential nominee that is not sufficiently loyal to the party’s base can risk lower voter turnout,” Stein pointed out.
THIS!!!!!
Democrats win when they choose exciting candidates (eg: Obama, Bill Clinton at the time), and they lose when they choose unexciting candidates (most recently Hillary).
I liked Hillary. I started out supporting Bernie but after the debates realized that he was a one trick pony, whereas Hillary actually knew stuff about, well, everything. Still and all I was not excited about electing her.
Warren is exciting! Harris is exciting! Mayor Pete is exciting! I'd take and combination of them as the ticket come 2020.
Bernie is exciting so some, but others (like me) genuinely hate his guts. Bad choice.
1
@Nathan Hansard
Why would you hate Bernie's guts.
He is the very reason why Warren, Harris and Mayor Pete is exciting to you. He is the one who has laid out all of the issues in sensible, basic terms. He is the one who has defined what the Democratic platform should be. He is a straight shooter, as is Warren and Mayor Pete. Harris not so much.
And I guarantee you if he had been the Candidate last time we would not be putting up with Trump.
The DNC worked against Sanders campaign, which is why we are stuck with Trump
And remember, Bernie through his full weight behind Hillary's campaign. And if he does not win the Primary he will do the same for whomever is the Candidate.
Sanders has proven he is a team player.
2
Democrats are on the right side of many issues but they fail miserably in distinguishing between vague ideals that most Americans agree with and concrete governance that works for the greater America. Virtually all Americans recognize that there is inequality in the world and that each person deserves and equal chance to succeed. However, few believe that this equates to extreme identity politics, reparations, and affirmative action. Most want human treatment at borders but as Jeh Johnson (frm Homeland Sec under Obama) made clear, the Democrats call for "decriminalizing" illegal immigration is tantamount to "open borders". Wiping out student debt reinforces a broken/radically expensive system while punishing those that have worked hard to pay off their debt. Taxing the 1% for everything seems popular unless you are part of the large numbers of Americans who want to work hard to become successful and finally healthcare for all sounds great unless you increase all of our taxes. Trump will win because the Democratic "Tea party" members will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
6
@Chris
I read that Obama's administration deported more illegal immigrants than any previous administration, but because of Republican propaganda, everybody thinks the Democrats favors "open borders". What an irony, that a party headed by an idiot is telling everybody what to think..
Dems theme should be how Trump has damaged our children's future!
Dems need to focus on 3 areas where Trump has done to serious harm to the health and welfare of our children's future.
Deficits: Trump's tax cuts for the rich has catapulted our deficits into the stratosphere, leaving our children and children's children to foot the bill for corporate greed.
Heath Care: Republicans are dismantling the ACA which will rescind healthcare for millions of Americans impacting children with serious and long term debilitating health issues.
Environment: Republicans are systematically reducing the standards for carbon emissions, air and water pollution to increase the profits of already obscenely rich corporations.
Lying, Name Calling, Bullying, Tearing Children from Parents, Caging Children, Wife Cheating:
President Trump is the role model for our children.
.
2
Kamala Harris keeps showing promise, but she also keeps showing that she's a checkers player and doesn't have the foggiest idea of what's just 2 moves ahead of her.
She wants to get rid of private health insurance. Wait, she doesn't. Wait! She does! Wait, she misunderstood the question. She thought they were asking about her private health insurance.
She wants to institute federal bussing and anyone who disagrees is a racist.
Wait! She doesn't want to force people to bus their kids to school, which it turns out...95% of Americans oppose.
She thinks she's won an argument for the cameras which makes her a SnapChat star (for the waning 30 seconds of fame until the lights turn off and people re-engage their brains), but it's showing her for the intellectual lightweight she is.
No wonder she determined it was better for her to sleep her way to the top. Just because you're intelligent doesn't mean you're smart.
She proves this day in and day out.
5
It’s a good question. Tom Steyer announced his candidacy yesterday and I can’t find a front page article about him or his positions. And that’s after looking at 2 major papers.
3
Bottom line: "Anyone But Trump" will win the day - even for Bernie supporters who sat out the last election. People may have to hold their noses while doing so, but they will come out in record numbers to vote against the current, continuously aghast-provoking Nitwit-In-Chief.
1
Edsall’s last sentence says it all:
“While there is such a thing as too far left, there may also be such a thing as too spineless for the moment, too frightened, too noncombative and too associated with the past.”
A perfect description of Joe Biden.
2
Trump is simply the latest deflection stopping the Democrats from realizing that as unbelievable as it may sound Republicans hate the America that most Democrats desire and the rest of the world wants back.
In 1964 70% of the GOP wanted the Civil Rights Act ruled unconstitutional. Even as most Democrats see the Civil Rights Act as an essential part of the American Social Contract in 2019 Republicans in a percentage probably greater than 90% reject the Democratic belief. There are two Americas because it is the social contract not the constitution that defines a nation. When Reagan was elected it was time to start talking two state or multistate solutions. I am afraid it is too late to have Democrats realize Republicans hate their America.
I cannot believe that even as Trump denounces Democratic America and becomes ever more attractive to his base Democrats still believe in one America, their America.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1964-republican-convention-revolution-from-the-right-915921/
Until someone is honest enough to say there is no purple America and maybe it is time to ask if it is worth holding America together the Democrats will search for a leader. It is impossible to have a leader if you can't decide where you want to go or you know the place you want to go doesn't exist.
1
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." - Will Rogers
6
Politicians need to know when it is their moment to run, and not to run. I found Joe Biden's Hamlet-like indecision in 2016 (and in 2020!) annoying. Make up your mind! Run or don't! If Biden had had the courage to run in 2016, he might have stopped Clinton, beaten Trump, and spared us all a lot of trouble. But Amtrak's most famous passenger missed his train.
3
Yes right now its Biden, but it could by anybody white, black, male, female, young, old who follow this critical formula.
Don't identity obsess or social engineer like Hillary did. Offer moderate progressive proposals that a majority of Americans need or want, examples:
1-A national health plan not the republican pre ACA de facto criminal plan of don't get sick, be rich and/or don't have a bad life event.
2-Spirit of Roe not abortion on Demand.
3-Common sense fair immigration policy not open borders.
etc. etc.
4
“That public ‘whatever’ is called public sentiment,” Ocasio-Cortez..."
NY14 is not nuanced, but she is onto something. I think that nuance is what beat Hillary. And the fact most of her voters were in a few Blue states.
"The changing attitude of white liberals, who play a disproportionately large role in Democratic primaries,..."
Hello, Elizabeth Warren. Maybe she has a plan for everything, but, she is shrill and "lectures" voters, when she should be inspiring them.
As for the border sitch, the numbers are pretty clear. More than 50% want more security. Americans don't want open borders.
2
@Mike
" white liberals, who play a disproportionately large role in Democratic primaries"
Disproportionate to what? Proportion is a comparison of two things, and you need to specify what you're comparing it to.
But what if Bill Maher was correct about Biden foreseeably dropping in polls due to his being the comfortable choice. Younger voters are not digging in yet, and are still very much dismayed with Nancy Pelosi's abnegation. If we keep forcing the Raging Biden that could be, we might be seriously let down by that very illusion.
Senator Warren, on the other hand, has been sturdy, and even fared well at a Republican town hall meeting thanks to her Oklahoma salt-of-the-earth pragmatism and straight gaze. Her plausability problems could be re-branded; I believe Warren finds American stories in the data, which makes her more of a Listener than a Wonk. Both are good, and both make her a fighter.
2
@franklivingston p.s. I do not work for the Warren Campaign, but it is 100% Elizabeth Warren. A straight shooter trumps chaotic one.
No, there is no one who can beat Trump. He has the wind at his back and opposition isn't high enough outside the bubble, where other things are far more important.
And there is no uniting a party that has a leftwing that sulks and takes its toys and stomps out of the sandbox when it doesn't prevail. As long as progressives behave peevishly, they will destroy the party's chances of winning.
9
@AACNY Ironic that somehow peevishness hurts Democrats but not our president, the most peevish of them all.
Whomever wins the nomination, Democrats are looking for someone who can stand up and push back against Trump and his draconian policies. Incrementalism, and spinelessness will not win the election. Find a candidate with a backbone who is not monolithic in their thoughts and beliefs, who is agile intellectually and who can communicate a clear vision to pull America away from the morass that is Trump's version of America.
2
I am already so tired of these op-eds. Who can unite the democrats? Who will beat trump? We need a moderate. Those lefties will make Trump president again.
We have had a couple of dates with the democratic candidates, the election is a year away. Can we let the democrats go through the process of choosing a candidate.
Also, please explain this moderate candidate position? What does the moderate democrat support? What do they resist?
Which moderate has come out with a set of policies and goals that even suggest a new direction. Or what they support of the status quo.
Maybe, these op-ed writers should spend more time explaining this centrist moderate reality and what they see as the future with their policies.
This is what democracy looks like when you don't have a tightly controlled political party. Sure is better that the current republican party and better than the past democratic party machinery.
6
@Michael Piscopiello
I don't participate in primaries because I don't like either party and don't consider myself a member of either of them. The first time at which my opinion will matter is the actual election, more than a year away. I've already decided to vote for whoever isn't Trump. So why should I waste time now choosing among 2 dozen Democrats?
That said, it was delightful to read the interview with Warren a couple of weeks ago. Not because I particularly agreed with her, but it was such a relief to hear a politician who did not sound like an idiot.
1
Quite the quagmire Democrats are in. The comparison between Democrats and their party of 30 years ago and today is quite revealing. So what happened? As the Party became more and more extreme, socialized medicine, more and more govt, and higher and higher taxes to pay for it all, they lost a lot of the middle class. They soon discovered that swelling the population in Dem leaning states would give them an edge in winning elections, so they threw in with illegal immigrants. Thats why in Dem strongholds, they set up sanctuary cities promising illegal immigrants protections from being deported, drivers licences, and now even free healthcare. Their cohorts in the media now try to create a narrative, that we should all have sympathy for foreigners crossing our border illegally. Its not working out as planned, hence the election of Donald Trump. What to do? Well, with this extreme push to the left, Democrats lost an entire generation, and will take a long long time before a lot of folks vote Democrat ever again. Every time Democrats fight strengthening the border, they lose another slice of America. It was a fatal mistake.
8
@Sports Medicine
". So what happened?"
Identity politics happened. So instead of finding a strategy to appeal to the electorate, they are finding half a dozen strategies to appeal to half a dozen electorates, each of which is assumed to have a different agenda. What a waste of time and energy.
1
There are some candidates that will not carry enough progressives to win. If Joe Biden is the nominee, I am certainly not going to vote, and I know many other progressives who will not vote. The logic goes--that it is better to wait for 4 years for another chance to elect a progressive and make real change than to be stuck with Biden for a minimum of 8 years, and face an angry populist right as we did after Obama. Joe Biden is the history repeating itself candidate. Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice...
If Tom Steyer is the candidate, I would actually vote for Trump. Tom Steyer copies Donald Trump more than Donald Trump Jr. He is one of the most unoriginal men in the Western Hemisphere. In fact he is so unoriginal and spiteful that China has given him a billion+ dollars to wreak havoc on our Democracy.
The old adage that billionaires are all smart people who earned their money is disproved by Steyer's mere existence. He is not Soros, who is a legitimately smart man and a thinker.
He is a man so resentful of people who he rightly perceives as more creative than him, that he will attack young people who do not know him out of purely the strength of their reputation as thinkers. He is a disgrace to billionaires. He has 0 charisma, and as much as he is like Trump on paper (thanks to the Chinese) he lacks any useful raw skills and is just running out clock before he's arrested.
His greatest single quality is he is hateful enough to be funded by a foreign govt
1
That’s a mistake. Let’s make a deal! Joe for 4 then pass the baton
2
@nickgregor It is apparent that you have already planned to vote for Trump. That is why you seem to be so fearful of Steyer.
@nickgregor I hate to break it to you, but you're never going to get a Progressive elected as President to 330,000,000 people with as much diversity in ideology as their is in skin color, religion and gender.
The system is simply not set up that way. It's set up so that your party chooses the most liberal candidate who can still charm the rest of the nation. Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg? Aint' it.
Worse..if you think "Democrat Socialism" is in and spend a minute trying to defend it, take that pitch to the miners in the Iron Range of MN, or the auto workers in Flint, MI or the farmers in upstate New York.
Sanders had his moment against Hillary and blew it. He allowed her and the DNC machine to knee-cap him. The good news for him is he didn't win the DNC nomination, because he would have lost 49-1 to Trump.
Not because Trump is better, but because Trump isn't a threat to our system of capitalism and democracy like Sanders and his Marxist Ideology is.
Even listening to Kamala Harris talk about issuing an Executive Order in the first 100 days to take guns away is right up their in Hugo Chavez territory.
Which is a coincidence since it was Chavez' Marxism that first removed guns...then removed any sense of normal in Venezuela.
The good news is they finally have equality in Venezuela.
Everyone suffers.
3
Democrats need to neutralize the immigration issue, and change the subject to other issues -- such as healthcare -- where we can win.
We cannot rightly criticize Mr. Trump for thumbing his nose at the Rule of Law on the one hand, and then discard the Rule of Law regarding immigration on the other hand. If we continue along that path, the Republicans will succeed in pointing out the hypocrisy, and their "open borders" label will stick.
The correct position on immigration is that we must enforce our immigration laws and enforce our borders, but do it in a humane and sensible manner. Democrats are right about the atrocities of children in cages. Democrats are right about the Dreamers. Democrats are right that a 2000-mile wall would be stupid and ineffective. Democrats should be pushing mandatory e-Verify. But Democrats are wrong to advocate for decriminalization and non-enforcement of the borders.
Neutralize the immigration issue, and change the subject.
10
@MidtownATL
Spot on Atlanta! I agree with everything in your post.
1
Amy Klobuchar can unite. She continues to be marginalized
4
Democrats, Republicans, people of the United States should be united by a sense of history, responsibility, decency,dignity and a world view that reflects these values. Trump and his enablers are merely a symptom of a society gone off the rail, a complete loss of moral judgement.
A directionless government is like a car without a driver heading to a crash.
Amy Klobuchar
4
I am not sure that Dems will field an electable person in 2020. I think they have already thrown in th towel. More and more voters are leaving both parties as they are sick of identity, single issue politics. They are distrusting of extremism and the extremists. But the bottom line is that most people are sick of politics as usual and being saddled with do-nothing, know-nothing congress.
9
@skramsv
If you've been watching, Bernie Sanders supports government sponsored Health Care for All, a minimum wage of 15$, free college education as in all other major countries, and restrictions on the big banks, who if you've been reading the papers, were instrumental in bringing about the '08 debacle.
Single issue?
1
@JFP - Yes, but a tax of 150% on all incomes would be required to pay for that....
2
How can Biden present himself as the person who understands the white working class when he has accumulated $16 million in the scant two years that he was out of office? Did it also come from selling access to the rich and famous as HRC did? And what will happen when Trump starts to work on some of the sketchy behavior of Biden's son?
Biden has always been a poor campaigner at the national level as HRC was. Biden looks and acts old.
Biden looks as HRC did to win the primaries in the South with Black Democratic voters. Those victories are meaningless for those states have not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in decades.
Once the DNC gets rid of the awful twenty person debates and after Labor Day when normal people not political junkies like me start to pay attention then we will see what Democratic candidates are the Democratic voters most enthusiastic about.
It is too early for gloom and doom and navel gazing..
@Edward B. Blau
It's not his fault democrats gobble up those books.
Unbelievably, on another thread, the NYT is tackling another forbidden topic, the strain immigration places on schools. Pony up for the schools, middle class!
Trump is prez simply because he bellowed against over immigration. The Dems should take a lesson.
So tack it on, Dems! Go for reparations, go for open borders, go for all manner of presents to be paid for by the middle class. Hey, your kid doesn't need piano lessons and peace in classrooms. Discipline, what's that? We don't need no educayshun.
See you on the sidewalks, folks. Go. Go. GO.
9
AOC is right about the thing. Public sentiment. What she is too ignorant and/or inexperienced to realize is that the only sentiment that matters in the end is the one expressed by a vote. She, herself, had an abysmal turnout in her own election. Clearly, that escapes her. It hasn't escaped Speaker Pelosi.
Like many people today, AOC seeks validation from her Twitter following. Unlike the president -- who had to actually win a national presidential election -- having just a Twitter following is meaningless.
4
There is no doubt that the Republican Party is treasonous!
"Based on my reading of public opinion data,” Drutman continued, “I think the sweet spot in a general election for a Democratic nominee is progressive on economics and moderate on immigration and cultural issues.”
Yep. And who does that most closely translate into in terms of a nominee? Warren or Sanders. Who's got it exactly backwards? Harris.
The likelihood of *any* Democratic candidate winning will be determined by the degree to which they are able to not get sucked into --most notably but not limited to-- Republican traps like "reparations" (the single losingest issue of my lifetime, not withstanding it's ethical justifiability) or busing school children out of their neighborhoods, and quickly return the conversation to helping *all* working and middle-class people --black, white, gay, straight, men, women-- house, feed, clothe, educate, and provide health care for their families.
Those issues have the potential to unite enough of the electorate to win handily. Those perceived or easily distorted to be perceived as "white people are bad" or "men are monsters" do not.
4
Both Biden and the Third Way crew who promote him are history; they just don't know it yet. Nancy is a brilliant politician but she's clinging to yesterday. I trust she will figure that out.
We are witnessing the changing of the guard in the Democratic Party. The centrists are too timid to take on the Republicans and are too like them to stand out. The time for "meh" candidates is over. The Clintonian sun has set.
One candidate has seen the writing on the wall and left the field. I hope that O'Rouke and/or Castro soon does the same to run for the senate seat in Texas where he could do the most good. Flipping a senate seat really is more important than running a good race in the middle of the pact.
It will all come out in the primaries. We aren't anywhere near them at this point. As my old professor used to say, "Don't bleed until you are knifed". Let's not declare defeat before the cars are on the racetrack.
3
@nora m You're having your battle the Republicans fought with from 2010-2018.
When Democrats threw nearly 70 moderate reasonable members of Congress under the bus to coerce their vote on ACA...they were replaced by the Mark Meadows of the world; Tea Parties if you will.
The hearburn that John Boehner and Paul Ryan endured is the same heartburn that Nancy Pelosi now gets to manage; containing the unrealistic expectations of people who will never have to actually implement their radical ideas..against the realities that the nation has serious problems that need serious solutions; not some cut and paste from Karl Marx' greatest hits.
Welcome to the party.
We're grabbing popcorn and watching the fireworks. It's quite entertaining to visit Twitchy and watch as your young rebels start trouble every day with the Wicked Witch of the West.
1
A fractured Democratic Party and elements therein advocating for some things most Americans just don't want will re-elect Donald Trump.
Case in point: I do not see how open borders with healthcare guaranteed for all immigrant newcomers will fly in the heartland. Or with me in Brooklyn, for that matter.
Sometimes Democrats are all feelings and no logic or practicality. Better, of course, than Republicans who have neither. But only marginally. Feelings can be highly overrated -- and mistaken.
14
Could someone at the Times do us all a favor and ask how these polls are conducted? Are they through land lines? If so, then who has land lines - that's a pretty important question. What time of day are these polls conducted? In the middle of the afternoon? Who is home at that time? We read about "polls" all the time and I have yet to see how and what comprises the information in the polls.
4
Slightly off topic, but - in general I despise Nancy Pelosi and her politics. It has been refreshing however to watch a master class in politics as she basically dismantles the noxious AOC and her “squad”. I’ve enjoyed it greatly. Watching the Libs eat their own is ALWAYS big fun
3
@RJ you do realize that by calling the other tribe the "libs" you are proving the author's point that tribalism and moralization have usurped legitimate policy disagreements, right? It's great that you think it's "fun", but these aren't chariot races.
1
Articles like this make me chuckle because they are so trivial. I will vote for ANYONE with a D next to their name. I have lost any respect I once had for conservatives. I do not trust any of them, even the one willing to stand up to trump, Amash. I believe they are all sneaky liars out to destroy America. So keep on complaining about Democrats, NYTimes.I will read your other articles and ignore your hysteria about the Democratic party.
1
Since the argument boiled down to an opinion on immigration I will ask my standard question., Who hires these people? If there was not job on the backside in my opinion the vast majority would stay home. The problem is not the immigrants themselves, it is the titans of industry, who through their Simon Legre straw bosses at the lower levels, hire these people with impunity. ( and immunity from the law) Put a CEO or two in jail and this will no longer be a flood, it will be a trickle.
4
Great analysis. But it’s premature and horribly fatalistic to conclude that tribalism will block the emergence of sensible centrist policies and therefore the only path to Democratic victory is hard left.
It’s true that Democrats’ leading centrist (Biden) is a buffoon. But tribalism is not immutable. You put too little weight on circumstance and charisma. Recession alone would change everything. Add to that a Bill Clinton-like bridge builder and Trump is toast.
3
@Steve
Buttigieg?
1
@Steve are you talking about Howard Schultz?
1
“Do you think the United States is doing too little, too much or about the right amount to keep undocumented immigrants from coming into this country?”
Poll questions should not use euphemisms. I'm willing to bet the answers would change if the pollsters replaced "undocumented" with "illegal", which is the real problem.
Personally I don't care about the illegal immigration. I think fighting the Nazi infestation is more important. During the Superbowl here in Atlanta, they tried to hold another Charlottesville-type Nazi rally but were thwarted by local officials who shut down the Confederate memorial site they were planning to use. This got amazingly little attention in the media.
2
Yes.
Barack and Michelle Obama.
1
@Larry Buchas Hillary tried this bridge. Barrack even said she would be his third term.
A better question at the debates should have been, "which candidate can better serve illegal aliens.".
3
Trump likes winning...Dems like ideological purity...Trump will win 53%-55% of the vote...have a nice day...
4
It's the NYT and mainstream TV news that divides people not Trump. We had a rebellion that elected Trump. The DNC denied it, this paper ignored it, the democrat voter base missed it. Now the democrat voter base has caught up with the program, but the DNC is still in denial and this paper carrying their water.
Good luck with this. The Progressives see what is going on, follow us or enjoy 4 more years.
5
If you are talking about the voter base, yes. Sanders and/or Warren could both unite the Democrats. They're both decent people first, politicians second, and Democrats third. Because of this I expect them to be sabotaged by the DNC.
3
@Jim K what is your definition of decent. I doubt you have any real knowledge that either Sanders or Warren are or are not decent.
It’s clear that the status quo won’t work for either party. It’s key economic and healthcare issues that will mobilize the base. If working families can’t make it at the end of the month working two jobs paying minimum wage, busing issues from 40 years ago won’t cut it. Nor, more promises that the coal industry will come back any second now. Working families are hurting and you don’t need reams of psychologist or sociologist studies to understand this. Just go to your local Home Depot and talk to workers there. The only candidate who seems to have an advantage in this sense is Elizabeth Warren.
3
I don't think anybody, not even Joe Biden, really thinks that the disaffected white working class Dems who voted for Trump will be coming back, not in any large numbers, anyway. In real life, the path forward is the 2018 De Facto Voting Coalition of the 2016 Vote, plus suburban Republican Women who hate Trump, multiplied by increased turnout in the black community.
What could beat us, frankly, is if we go too far left and scare the GOP Republican women back to the GOP. They hate Trump and they loathe the people they see on TV at Trump rallies. However, if we keep doing stupid things like having Kamala Harris reopen mandatory, Court-ordered busing across School and political District lines, then we are asking for trouble and enabling Trump's re-election.
3
@Lefthalfbach
Agree. That suburban female, household income 125-175k... they live there because of the schools, they already are saving for college, they have healthcare through their employer... the promises of bussing, of free college, of government run healthcare... all they’ll hear is my taxes will rise significantly and I’m not targeted to benefit. This is the risk with the Democrats leftward lurch.
2
Trump won on immigration and he will win again on immigration.
4
Diverse thoughts among Democrats give the Democrat Party vitality. Some ideas die out and some survive. For example, two dozen Democrats running for President want to get rid of Obamacare. But so far, there’s no agreement about what to replace it with, whether you can keep your doctor, with and how to pay for it. I wonder what the result will be.
2
Biden should announce his VP candidate early. I'd pick Obama. either one is fine. Once elected, Obama could resign and then Biden can appoint Warren. Problem solved by creativity.
1
And just a few short years from when the members of the Republican Party seemed destined to end that Party’s relevance by nominating Trump. It’s mind blowing.
I see it. I was called a “gullible idiot” by a friend when I questioned her insistence that a woman (and preferably a woman of color) is what it will take to beat Trump.
The fractiousness of the Democratic Party would be comical at this stage if not for the huge implications on so many issues, our way of governance first and foremost. Say what you will about Republicans, but they rarely ‘sit one out’ and pout. In 2020, that is not an option.
3
While pundits and politicos dither and wring their hands, we are holding migrant children in horrible conditions to further a racist immigration policy. This is from an administration that regularly flouts the rule of law and has done so much harm in so many ways. If moderates are going to pout and stay home if they don't get Biden or if progressives do the same if they don't get a sufficiently liberal candidate, then it's game over. Put another way, everyone outside of Cult 45 (who will never abandon Dear Leader) must decide if democracy and decency are more important than their pet issues. It's that simple and that important.
2
"Too spineless for the moment" is an apt description for both parties. Dems led by Nancy Pelosi are too spineless to launch impeachment proceedings. Republicans led by Mitch McConnell are too spineless to stop a president who is, in the words of the British ambassador, inept, incompetent, insecure and, I would add, narcissistic and corrupt.
2
If any American thinks that the worst Democratic candidate for President is NOT better than Trump, then they, and the rest of the world, are lost. Stop pretending this is an ordinary election: you have a madman leading your country.
4
Matthew 12:25 "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Come together...right now...
3
Where is Michael Bloomberg when we need him?
2
@Steve
there you go mate... 😁
2
@Patrick R
Agreed. He would have been the guy!
1
This diision affects everything now... even sports.
Please wake half of the country up when the divisive Megan Rapinoe show, who seems to think she is paid to represent only half of America, is over.
We not asleep either, you woke folk. We are just not impressed that this is the ultimate pinnacle of women in sport... girls "acting out" with their standoutish hair color, their manufactured "oppression", and their inability to see how overpaid entertainers of both sexes really are...
Ticker tape parade, sure.
But let's not pretend these women are role models to all, or even most, and remember how impressive the non-athletic, "thinking" people are... When they worked in a team, we put people on the moon.
Rapinoe is a shooting star. It's almost over, and then the storybook tale of American athletics can put put away in the childish fairytale books. I hope the girls make the complete transition to adulthood though . There is so much growth needed there to round out more fully their lives, I think.
Someday, the medals and money and attention might not be enough. Right now, division is hard work to an awful lot of that "team".
2
Like their Republican colleagues, Democrats are beholden to military contractors, large banks, insurance companies, Wall St, Big Pharma, telecommunications firms, energy firms… 36 Democrats in the Senate supported Trumps $750 billion military budget. Bottom line- Democrats have alienated their ‘base’- working people, people of color, poor people. Case in point being Medicare for All, which is supported circa 80% of Democratic voters and should be a potent campaign issue in the upcoming election cycle. Nancy Pelosi (net worth circa $100 million) has refused to endorse any form of single payer healthcare. Not surprisingly, Pelosi’s major campaign contributors represent a ‘who’s who’ of the healthcare ‘industry’.
Links
1. Top Nancy Pelosi Aide Privately Tells Insurance Executives Not To Worry About Democrats Pushing “Medicare For All” by Ryan Grim Feb 5 2019; Link: theintercept.com/2019/02/05/nancy-pelosi-medicare-for-all
2. Frank Pallone and Nancy Pelosi rein in the left By Heather Caygle 07/09/2019; Link: www.politico.com/story/2019/07/09/pallone-pelosi-progressives-1395931
@Paul
I’m skeptical of widespread public support for M4A. Would involve significant disruptions which necessarily lead to unintended consequences, and the vast majority of the public already is insured through public, private, or hybrid models. We’ll see.
No matter who wins the nomination, she or he would be smart to choose a running mate from a different wing of the party.
A Sanders/Klobuchar, Warren/Bullock, Biden/Harris or Buttigieg/Booker ticket would be stronger than a candidate picking one of her allies as Clinton did in 2016. Had she picked, if not Sanders or Warren, someone like Sharrod Brown she might very well have won those crucial electoral college votes.
Above all the nominee will have to reach out to the losers and their supporters no matter how much it hurts. Snarling “We won, you lost, vote for us is a sure ticket to four more years of Trump.
2
Forgiveness will be a long time coming if the Democrats squabble this election away and let Trump get re-elected. Ditto for the Senate.
3
I fear that Tr%mp will win, barring some legitimate, substantiated scandal that would force impeachment (not the current cries; they just solidify his base). Or, if Weld can develop into a viable third candidate to give the spineless "Republicans" who have reluctantly lined up behind POTUS some cover and hand the election to the Dems.
Anyone using the word "socialism" is doomed to fail, not because their ideas are wrong or untenable, but due to the fact that Tr&mp's base will see the word and stick with him, without actually reading the proposed policies.
At this rate, AOC and her friends will hand the election to the current occupant and we will continue this slow-motion train wreck.
Get out the vote, get out the vote, get out the vote....it's pretty basic. Not easy to accomplish, but what has to happen, regardless of who the opposition candidate is.
6
Is there any way that political scientists and statisticians can explain how it is that the world's richest, most powerful nation, with a population of 330 million, still winds up with such mediocre and uninspiring presidential candidates?
5
Democratic party lost its majority position because it has lied, cheated, and let down the large middle and lower class Americans. Since its base does not trust the party, they do not turn out in large numbers. If the Democratic party doesn't learn then 2020 will be the same as 2016. Most Americans want the Democratic party candidates to be VERY Progressive (BOLD) and not be a faded copy of the Republican party. Joe Biden and all the other "moderates" are really Republican center and we reject them forcefully. We want Sanders, Warren, Harris, AOC, Ro Khanna, and the like.
2
Welcome back! The multiple replies before the first times posts--it's a signature. Looking foward to seeing my comment posted at 1 am, if ever.
Where's the candidate with the vision to put country first over partisan politics? Klobuchar has a great record, but lousy message. ther governors are lost in the mix.
“More moderate Democratic candidates — other than Biden — have not demonstrated strength in polls, including Steve Bullock, John Delaney, John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet.”
Actually, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar is a “more moderate Democratic candidate” who does consistently better in the polls than the four Biden alternatives mentioned in this article.
She is articulate, experienced, accomplished, purple state electable, and even has a sense of humor. She has a lot of the same “folksy” qualities as Biden but appears to lack his vulnerabilities.
I think Amy Klobuchar deserves a lot more coverage than she’s getting.
4
We just lost Ross Perot, a precursor to Trump, but on a different eccentric plane - we just did not know it at the time. He of the clean out the barn and throw out the trash, and deficit warnings, and ... Remember what he did - captured the voting public's imagination to the tune of almost 20%, and some opine cost GHWB a second term and got Bill Clinton elected.
So now we have two dysfunctional parties sparring - Republicans ostensibly run by Mitch McConnell who by his own admission is a 'grim reaper'; Democrats so fractured that their internal differences and circular firing squad approach may very well hand Trump a second term.
As a fiscal conservative and social moderate I find myself in a political no man's land. A Richard Pryor movie of some decades ago had a sub-plot of a political party dubbed "None of the Above". Works for me until someone hopefully rides over the hill to save this country from itself. In my mid 70's, I wonder if I will see that day?
3
Best Duo
Sanders/Biden
or
Biden/Sanders
Prove Partisanship within our party, a party for the people. Not the Corporations, just some of the corporations, medicare for people over 50 years old, community college free, etc.
Announce it now! Not a time for tradition.
There is No doubt we would win. Even though Sanders is hated by Hillary's DNC , Sanders would get half the votes.
And... all women control the rest of the administration.
We all would vote, common sense.
I mean, if you really want to win for the people,
cause corporations aren't "really" people , you know.
Do you really want to win? You can have your cake and eat it to.
1
@s.whether
You, my friend, have hit the winning ticket on the head.
Democrats can win the swing states if they focus on kitchen table issues -- healthcare, the economy, and immigration. They must have a clear message on each.
Healthcare: Trump tried to take away coverage for millions by repealing the ACA and replacing it with garbage. We'll improve the ACA, while adding a public option for all who want one.
Economy: Take away Trump's strength here by pointing out that things haven't truly improved. Job growth has actually slowed slightly, and a huge number of Americans are struggling. Trump's only "plan" has been massive tax cuts that favored millionaires and big corporations, leading to massive deficits and $5 trillion in new debt.
Immigration: Take this issue away from Trump by coming out in favor of strong borders. We can have strong borders, but without the cruelty of family separations. We need smart, targeted solutions -- better technology, better facilities, more asylum courts and judges for faster hearings. No decriminalization, but a path to citizenship for those with a clean criminal history. DACA protections, of course.
3
Thomas, you nailed it!
The regrettable answer is: "No! There is no one."
The "Dums" are beyond uniting, save Joe. Yes, we might do better than this regular joe, but there isn't one.
Elections have now come down to who has the fewest egregious proclamations. That's everyone but Joe.
4
I'm completely in the ABT camp, Anyone But Trump. We all have opinions on who would be the ideal candidate, but to me they are less important than drawing out the poison that is debilitating the body politic. Cast out the Narcissist in Chief; all else is secondary.
3
Nancy Pelosi is right to call out AOC and her posse of ignoramuses . These people have no idea what it takes to govern, or to win a national election. If the Democrats persist in calling for radical disruption of immigration, education and healthcare they will lose the election. Open borders are horrible idea; free education is nice but there's a problem with paying for it which people fail to acknowledge. Universal healthcare is a great ideal, but most people are not going to support calls to get rid of private insurance. We need sober minds and experienced people to run the government not callow idealists who have no conception of the complexity of the issues
7
"Is There Anyone Who Can Unite the Democrats Besides Trump?"
No.
Why? This is "mission impossible" as long as there is no clear and simple common economic policy agreedin the party
There is no common economic policy reached because in any case this would cost a lot of money on the expense of too many in and revolving around the party. No way.
Only identity politics is cheap. All the rest not so much so it´s socialism. Let´s agree to identity politics! This is a good thing for all. Buy it. You have to!!
What can a really intelligent and capable person do in this specific situation? To understand that there is no chance for him as candidate as there is no chance for any capable person and stay away.
So there is none.
2
The idea that the party needs to be 'united' is a lie propagated by corporate Democrats in an attempt to drown out any progressive voices.
Debate is GOOD for a society, and is the only thing that can move the Overton window.
Just look at the GOP. The Tea Party experience was no doubt painful, but it paved the way for their near-total dominance in American electoral politics.
88
@KW
The Republican Party is united now, terrorized into submission by their leader. Surely we can agree that the Democratic Party needs to unite now in order to stop the horrible things that are happening to our country.
We can debate later. Debate is a luxury we simply cannot afford right now.
12
@KW
Not sure the "tea party" is a good example of democracy. It was as more of a corporate / media creation as a grass roots one (look at the difference in the way the media & the government crushed Occupy Wall Street for an instructive contrast). But I wholly agree with your point.
9
@Martin
not to mention that the Teabagger Party was essentially funded by the Koch brothers.
Now that's a fabulous example of democracy.
10
Enough hand wringing over the Democratic nominating process.
If the media will restrain its horserace obsession to crown a winner and let the process work, voters might actually get a chance to see the candidates more in depth and come to a consensus. That would be a good thing.
The chance of a brokered convention in 2020 is more than slim and superdelegates do not get a vote on the first ballot this time. That could also be a good thing.
Before Iowa, we will see the field narrowed to maybe 6 candidates as the money dries up. I think South Carolina's importance has been greatly overblown as Californians will start to vote before that conservative southern state gets to chime in.
Were I running, I would spend my time in California more than Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina combined as better than 1 in 10 Americans lives in the Golden State. To put it bluntly, without California, the Republicans would own the Presidency. South Carolina will be voting for Trump as will Iowa and possible New Hampshire.
2
As a Democrat, I believe in:
- Equal opportunity for all (not equal outcomes).
- Infrastructure and Education.
I believe that the private sector provides for most of our wants and needs, including essentials such as food and housing. But there a few sectors where the markets and competition do not work properly, and government can play a positive role. These sectors include: infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
I believe in a social safety net. I believe the government can and should provide a hand up, not a handout.
Thirty years ago, there were some Republicans, such as Jack Kemp, who would agree with much of what I wrote. Those Republicans are almost all gone. (Perhaps John Kasich is left today.)
Meanwhile, the modern-day Republicans have basically become the Tory party. They believe in preservation of family wealth: I got mine; now I'm pulling up the rope ladder. The new Feudalism. MAGA = Modern American Gilded Age.
Today's Republicans would call Dwight Eisenhower a socialist. (With his big-government interstate highway system.)
The Republicans have lost their claim to be:
- The Party of Fiscal Responsibility
- The Party of Law and Order (Rule of Law)
- The Defenders of the Constitution
And the Democrats can and should now claim all three of those positions.
15
@MidtownATL:"- Equal opportunity for all (not equal outcomes)."
Good luck with that. Wait until the equality versus equity topic reaches the forefront of political discussion. It'll make your position moot.
1
@MidtownATL Yes. But claiming to be the party of “law and order” is difficult without advocating for the enforcement of strong border security/immigration laws. And not one of the Democratic candidates has done this.
1
@Wan
I agree with you.
Please see my other comment about immigration.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/opinion/pelosi-ocasio-cortez-trump.html#commentsContainer&permid=101378961:101378961
"The correct position on immigration is that we must enforce our immigration laws and enforce our borders, but do it in a humane and sensible manner."
"We cannot rightly criticize Mr. Trump for thumbing his nose at the Rule of Law on the one hand, and then discard the Rule of Law regarding immigration on the other hand."
3
Any of our candidates can. The one who emerges from the convention will be enthusiastically supported. We love them ALL. They are all decent, intelligent human beings, in contrast to the thing illegitimately occupying the white house currently.
8
150 years ago the majority of Americans weren’t in favor of women’s suffrage. 100 years ago the majority of Americans weren’t in favor of ending segregation. 15 years ago the majority of Americans weren’t in favor of gay marriage.
Democracy is currently withering on the vine in many developed nations, and if politicians in both parties in America don’t lead citizens and do things which need to be done instead of basing all of their decisions on opinion polls we will very soon live in a country where the vine of democracy has completely died - a country that any thinking person will want to leave.
5
@Hubert Nash
Agreed! But where shall we go?
Human beings are tribal. The form groups. It starts in pre-school. It is in our DNA because to be a part of a group meant safety, and those who had the strongest desires for this group-ness reproduced more.
That's why surveys have little use. People aren't really responding to the content of issues identified in surveys, even though they think they are. Instead they are answering depending on which group they want to or don't want to be affiliated with.
And, today, as a result, what passes for liberalism is really nothing more than conservatism. You have to adhere to certain tribal customs to be a liberal or a conservative. Liberalism used to mean valuing independence in thought--the ability to evaluate all issues independently, according to rules of facts and arguments. No longer. It's now us or them, with the "us" having a component of moral superiority, just like for conservatism.
And currently, even more sadly, the liberal "wing" in politics has become tribal. That's why so many Sanders' supporters voted for Trump or third party candidates. They think it was because of issues, but really it was because they were invalidated as people, or, rather, felt invalidated as people. So they struck a blow for their tribe, and it got us Trump.
It is going to happen again. Four more years of Trump. What a world. What a world.
7
@Travelers
hope you're wrong. You seem to be discounting the
anti-trump/GOP mood of most of this country.
There are so (too) many D candidates= some hacking at each other- that the press over plays.
Early in the season. Most likely, the bulk of the country
with support the D candidate against trump/McConnell.
The likely Nominees, Biden and Kamala Harris, draw together a strong, overwhelming base. The should
win big. And the Senate may become D.
@IndeyPea
You could be right or you could be seeing politics through your liberal lenses and a big dose of confirmation bias. The most disgruntled panicked people are the loudest but it doesn’t mean there are many of them.
Seems to me that the “progressive liberal left” have become the reactionaries of late.
Hoping Elizabeth Warren will push her economic views to the forefront in Debate #2 and not let CNN stir the immigration/busing-integration/elimination of private health insurance pot. But there are answers:
The immigration we're seeing on the southern border is not from Mexico, its from three Central American nations. The lines of people you see are Central Americans seeking asylum - they are LEGAL immigrants. The undocumented ones that are here are not coming over the border illegally; they are overstaying tourist visas. Why are they coming and not Mexicans? Because Mexico is a stable democracy knocking on the door of the First World. Our money is wasted on walls, and should be directed to helping Central America achieve what Mexico has that keeps their people at home.
Busing works to achieve integration, but almost no one wants it (even black support is under 10%). We're not going back there, but we will end the rigged system that still discriminates against people of color in housing oportunities. And we will push hard for equity in education so there are no more underprivileged students.
Private insurers have rigged the power of the insurers against the patients: they inflate the cost, they ration care, and they soak you on drug prices, all the things they say single-payer will bring. I favor M4A, but at the very least, we need a public option and cheaper prescription drugs. If they can't compete fairly, we'll have Medicare.
5
The general election choice between right-radical and left-radical is leading to the dispiriting see-saw as each fringe claims a "mandate" and tries to cram through as much of their agenda as they can after the electorate rejects the extremity of their predecessor. The election night electoral college map turns red or blue, but the actual vote numbers aren't as distinct. Believe it or not, there are blue voters in "red states" and red voters in "blue states." Better to have the electoral college reflect proportionate voting so tamp down this mistaken idea of a mandate for radicalism. Clinton-Trump was a "least bad" election, not a 'we support this agenda' election.
1
@Seethegrey
This "blue" and "red" state stuff is silly. The real split is urban-rural. The only reason that they classify by states is because of the Electoral College. Analyzing in terms of the "color" of the state will lead to distorted impressions of what is really going on.
I think public opinion is fluid for most or many issues. It moves according to public debates and elite opinions. A candidate who can effectively communicate with audiences will on a national stage be able to sway or move public opinion in his or her direction.
If one looks at the history of abolitionism in the pre-Civil War United States, it took an organized movement of committed abolitionists to push the political agenda to end slavery. Finally, the Civil War enabled radical Republicans to win political power and briefly, ideological supremacy. A country that originally protected slavery as a fundamental civil right of slaveowners banned slavery and conferred citizenship and the right to vote to all former slaves (see the Reconstruction amendments).
What the Democrats need is a leader that has ability to respond with empathy to multiple constitutencies. That will be the way to victory in 2020.
2
@Yankelnevich
Part of increasing opposition to slavery was due to Southern thugs invading free states under the Fugitive Slave Act. As long as slave conditions were hidden in the South, in an era where there was no mass communications, free Americans could ignore it, but now they were seeing the barbarians close up.
Trump is the glue that holds the democrats together. The common enemy unites the party. Without him, they splinter into conflicted groups.
Dems are hurt by polls showing that almost any of the democrats can beat Trump. That's encouraged them all to run, and to be ever more strident on their issues.
But the choice is never between any candidate against Trump, but only one candidate instead. One flawed candidate, as they all are, because they can't be all the things that a field of candidates can be.
As for the polls. Don't believe them. The election is the only poll that matters. And that poll is conducted in the privacy of a voting booth. Not many Trump supporters want to publicly identify themselves because they don't want the inevitable shaming they get from the indignant. And that's particularly true of his on-the-margin supporters.
That most recent poll showing Trump's support at 44%. Dollars to donuts, that number is actually much higher. And the polls showing any democrats can win. Correspondingly lower. At this point in time, candidates are mostly bank slates that voters can project their hopes on. The reality of one-on-one will settle in eventually.
Leading to this Reaganesque question: Am I better off now than I was 4 years ago? If asked that question today, most Americans will answer yes.
7
@Dred
" Am I better off now than I was 4 years ago? If asked that question today, most Americans will answer yes."
I would anwser no. Not because of the economy, but reading our idiot president's pronouncements in the newspaper every day drives up my blood pressure.
1
It is so profoundly dispiriting to read a well researched op-ed making such a very good case that policy facts don't matter. Only transient perceptions and emotional preferences. Nowhere in all the post-mortem election statistics is anything to do with specific policy goals. Vote for the best entertainer, I guess.
13
@ddbbuu
The single issue that will bury Dems is Immigration.
Dems must clearly state opposition to "Open Borders".
Dems must clearly support "Legal Immigration"
with specific targeted number limitations and a well defined challenging pathway to citizenship.
Dems must clearly support increase border security, necessary fencing and most importantly work with the home countries to inform and dissuade fleeing migrants from traveling long distances only to be rejected at the border.
Dems must acknowledge and address this current border emergency of massive numbers of "asylum seeking" migrants. They must not just condemn the policy of family separation and children in cages, but come up with a specific plan to resolve, reunite and most importantly, a detail plan to control this immediate border emergency.
Dems must drop all support for the ridiculous reparations for black descendants, healthcare for illegal immigrants, and free college tuition for all.
The vast majority of voters, republicans and democrats absolutely do not support Dems turning America into a giant socialistic welfare state!
4
The Democratic Party is a "big tent" party, unlike the Republicans. It includes conservatives (perhaps 1/3), centrists (perhaps 1/3), and progressives (perhaps 1/3). Unity and turn out have always been big issues. The Democratic party is certainly more progressive than the Republican party that is adamantly NOT progressive, but they are not very progressive on balance. For example, gun control is blocked by the Republicans, right? Well ask Connor Lamb or Bernie Sanders about gun control - it's not just the Republicans. Why a progressive Democratic activist should work hard, or contribute, to get a conservative Democrat elected is not clear. Conversely, why a conservative Dem should do anything to support progressive Dem candidates or causes is not clear. Dem's in the middle do nothing - they often don't even vote. The Republican small tent model seems to work better - unity is good, turn out is assured, and they have discipline. Democrats don't even pretend to have party discipline. The rash of Dem presidential candidates that appear progressive can be traced right back to Sander's successes in the last election , and HRCs failures, the candidates have seen what works. If elected I expect all but Sanders and Warren to become centerests or conservative - that's where the money is.
1
The new squad of 4 will do more to fracture the Democrats and reelect Trump than anything he could do on his behalf. Will the Squad support the nominee who will undoubtedly not reflect their ideology? Unlikely. So the Squad is a gift to the Republicans that is not about to stop giving.
23
All the Democrats raised their hands approving medicare, or similar care for all immigrants yet some said no to medicare for all. Now in my family when I say eat all your vegetables and the kids say only the french fries, I say this isn't working. All the vegetables make you stronger, therefore make this family stronger. The french fries will make the Idaho farmers richer, we want to make all the farmers richer. Most importantly, we want a healthier family.
Reminds me a little of the book "Animal Farm"
As you still cannot judge a book by it's cover, you cannot judge a candidate by their words.
3
This is simple. Most people don't care 'how the party does'.
Anyone focussed primarily on the outcome of either of our 2 corrupt parties is hopelessly sidetracked.
Neither party serves the people well. The candidates that focus on fixing our problems will send the company in the right direction, and the parties will change in response, and perhaps new parties will sprout.
If Biden wins the nominiation, he'll probably lose the election. If he wins the election, he'll be a one term flop, and then somebody worse than Trump will win.
If the Democratic party can't muster major change at this juncture, it is nearly worthless.
5
@DudeNumber42
"Most people don't care 'how the party does'"
I'm an independent voter who thinks both parties are a corrupt mess, and I agree wholeheartedly. I intend to vote Democrat in 2020 because the Republican leader is an idiot surrounded by mindless worshippers, not because I particularly like Democrats.
117
@Charlesbalpha: The whole rotten to the core US political process is a fundraising contest where definitively solving any problems wipes out its utility for fundraising.
Your last sentence says it all:
"... there may also be such a thing as too spineless for the moment, too frightened, too noncombative...."
One American political party proudly embraces mendacity and superstition, cheers American cruelty toward foreigners and the less fortunate, and denigrates any deviation from a mélange nationalism and Christian orthodoxy.
The other party consistently wonders what it can do to pick off strays from the edge of that pack.
Same as it ever was. Will Rogers said, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
So, our party is made up of people who would like to do the right thing, but what if we offend Uncle George, who would like to run over immigrants in his Chevy Suburban?
Heavens.
It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that if one has demography on one's side, the only way to blow that advantage is to put forth candidates who are so milquetoast that the base stays home. What are the voting numbers of citizens under 30?
Every generation has to dig itself out from myths created by previous generations. In 1980, Arthur Laffer produced a cocktail napkin with the solution to the nation's problems: Lower taxes on the rich, and the economy will so boom that those rich people will end up paying more taxes!
Now, anyone with a brain saw this and laughed. But then the guy who endorsed the plan talked up states' rights in Philadelphia, Miss. and got elected.
One side understands how to rev the base. The other not so much.
5
@Jack Mahoney Well said. I wish I didn't agree with your comments, but you nailed it.
2
The problem for Democrats like myself as I see it as that the party and its candidates have lied to us for a long time to get our votes.
Bill Clinton followed the Republican Party to the right, and the result for the Democrats is that our party became "Republican Lite". Obama, who had a chance to be truly transformative, ran as a progressive, but governed as a moderate Republican. I always wondered why, and then he cheerfully self-identified as "a moderate Republican from the 1980s" in a radio interview in 2012 and that mystery was solved.
The Democrats used to represent working people and labor unions, and then they decided they could take those people for granted while they chased after richer constituencies on Wall Street, and in Hollywood and Silicon Valley. We saw how that worked out in 2016.
If the Democrats want my vote, they need to define themselves as once more representing regular people. They also need to let me know what they stand for. The only ones willing to do that at the moment seem to be AOC, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Presley, and Rashida Tlaib.
3
@Vesuviano
There’s a significant difference between Trump and the moderate Democrats, wouldn’t you agree?
I understand that the moderate Dems have disappointed you. However, in this particular election, getting rid of Trump should be sufficiently important to “earn your vote.”
2
@Ryan
I'm in California, so my vote is wasted anyway. However, your response pretty much sums up what the Democrats have done in the last few election cycles. Their message, which I find less than inspiring, is "Vote Democratic, because we're not as bad as the Republicans."
Not any more. I'll go third party before I'll support another phony Democrat. It the Democrats think I don't need to be taken seriously, I'll go elsewhere.
Mind you, if I lived in Ohio, or Pennsylvania, or another battleground state, I'd have to hold my nose and vote for even Joe Biden. As it is, I simply don't have to, and I won't.
The Dems need to unite behind someone to defeat Trump. I have been paying no attention to the primary races because it does not matter to me whom the Dems nominate. I have two qualifications for the candidate: the ability to defeat Trump and a pulse. Nothing else matters to me. Nothing. I will be in complete despair if the Dems fragment over policy. The first priority of us all must be to win. Nothing else should matter until we do.
33
@Barbara8101
Trump is probably going to win the 2020 presidential election. Progressive and younger voters are not going to take too kindly to having Joe Biden shoved down their throats by the Democratic Party establishment.
Moderate voters are scared of bold initiatives by progressives.
The party is split and there is nobody that can truly unite it.
12
@Barbara8101 Quick question. Why is it so critically important that Trump be defeated? Do you hate the tax cuts? The growing economy? The respect we've gained back from Mexico, China and Europe? The fact the free loaders are no longer able to free load without being called out on it? Are you angry about the record low unemployment for women of color?
If you could look beyond your disgust at the personal quirks Trump has and simply look at the policies, you might not be so eager to replace him with people promising to raise your taxes, bus your kids 30 miles away to another school, give back all our gains to China, North Korea, Iran and Mexico...and open up the borders completely for all 3 billion people worldwide who'd rather be here than where they are.
I get it that Trump is a disgusting figure, but do you really care if the policies are driving the power in this country back to the people? Do you really want a huge central federal government that dictates and mandates everything you do in your life? CAn't you figure that out with your neighbors in Philly without calling the US Government?
1
@Barbara8101
If your priority is to beat Trump, then you should be paying attention to the primary race. If an electable candidate doesn’t win the Democratic primary, then Trump will win.
1
Let's get this straight: moderate vs. progressive is a made up issue that only serves to normalizes America's lurch to the extreme right and gives the press something to chomp on.
Moderate today is yesterday's conservative. Progressive in America's current environment is Republican moderate before the gold ol' boys of of the South took over Congress with its politics of the wealthy under Bush Jr.
When will Dems ever step up and own the conversation instead of letting the right and the press define it for us?
17
@RMS A good point about the Democrats' need to frame the issues, instead of allowing the GOP and the media to frame them. I cannot agree with your definitions of "moderate" and "progressive," though. The Democratic Party moved in a more conservative direction in the 1980s and especially during the Clinton presidency. In recent years, some voters, especially younger voters, have become more progressive or left-leaning on issues of economic inequality, race, immigration, the environment, etc. The split between moderates and progressives is real.
2
@RMS That's funny. You have Presidential candidates pledging to throw 150 million people off the insurance they like, open up the borders unconditionally, increase taxes on the middle class, end the use of cars, ...and you think Republicans are owning the conversation?
We learned a long time ago that when the CrazyTown Express comes by...don't get in its way.
The floor..is all yours. You're doing a bang up job. Keep it up.
(Hint..when you're a hammer...everything looks like a nail).
1
Arguing a point of concern on the basis of percentage data as frequently done in this piece, apparently to be “scientific” and impartial about an issue being addressed, is highly questionable as means to get to factual truth. It’s simply, to say the least, un-thorough. Far beyond that, how any asked survey question was specifically formulated to be unambiguous in the first place for yielding information on a question of interest, is entirely unknown here. One matter for sure does fall out from this article, however ... and that is that steadfast loyalty to partisan label as a determinant for functional identity, is a sure way to the loss of reason and freedom of choice. The greater outcome of this would be a polarized society, the sides of which refuse passionately to get along for the sake of the common good. This seems to be what we largely have presently in this nation ... if not within the Democratic Party.
The vast majority of Americans want healthcare for all, not outlawing private insurance; attention to the environmental crisis, not outlawing meat consumption and government jobs for all; improve the economic situation for low and middle income workers without government take over of private enterprise; better access to good education without a promise of Harvard for all; sanity and compassion at the border not eliminating the border.
The "progressive" candidates like Harris and Sanders are not in touch with economic reality. Many of their plans have some merit, but are not practical.
I will vote for the Democratic nominee because Trump is a danger to both democracy and the safety of the world. If the progressive wing of the Party does not support the Democratic nominee (as many did not in 2016, thus giving us Trump instead of boring Hillary) then they will have a hand in destroying all of their own hopes and dreams. The phrase, "cut off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.
18
@Maureen Steffek
Don't worry, private health insurance will never be outlawed even if the Senate outlawed it overwhelmingly because the SCOTUS is ever ready to come to the rescue of the almighty Corporations. Remember FDR's progressive era and the SCOTUS blocking it?
1
One might take a poll on the response to the word liberal. Thirty years ago the response would have been largely favorable; today, largely negative. It became a maligned word during the Reagan administration.
2
@Alan J. Shaw
I don't know which universe you are on but people don't think as liberal or conservative. Universal health care, affordable education, family leave, functional mass transportation, clean water, and environment, etc are what MOST Americans want.
1
@Alan J. Shaw Actually the word liberal still applies to Classic Liberalism.
The problem is the Democrat Party jumped the shark and went to Progressive Populist Marxism rather quickly.
AOC, Ilhan Omar and others aren't elected because they're liberal. They get elected because of their belief in Marxism.
1
@Subhash Don't take for granted that everyone or even most want to achieve the laudable goals you mention or agree as to how they should be effected. What is it so-called conservatives want other than to conserve their own wealth, status and privilege? There are those in the Republican party and in the Trump administration who would like to abolish the ACA , the EPA, and public education and see no role for government in regulating private industry. Even within the Democratic Party there are disputes about the meaning of universal health care, as to whether it should include coverage for undocumented immigrants or whether there should be a "public option" complementing private insurance. I'm a lifelong Democrat, a liberal and a progressive and will vote for any one of the Democrats who is the nominee. I hope, whatever universe you inhabit, you will do the same.
The hysteria has long ago reached the point where it is all about Trump, or the Republican, or the Republican voters... The obvious solution is to get somebody else into power –– Candidate X, the Democrats, more Democratic voters...
But Trump and the Republicans are really changing very little in this country, they are pretty useless when it comes to legislating or leading or governing. All they do is give tax gifts to the rich.
What I see is the same old statistic where the top 10% of the wealthy still own and control 75% of everything. They don't really care about who's in office as long as their winning streak continues. Right now, corporations are going their merry way with raking in the money, enjoying their tax benefits, and telling the government (Dems and Republicans) what they want for Christmas.
If the serfs...excuse me, the voters... can't figure out that the system is rigged, we'll what can you do?
4
@Al Mostonest Democrats aren't changing very fast either, despite the numbers in recent years for some on the Left side of the party. The DNC is still trying to squelch any progressive progress. They would rather have Trump remain in office (job security) than face the purge that will come when the Sanders/Warren wing mobilizes enough voters to oust them, that is, when more serfs start to figure it out!
5
@Al Mostonest
"If the serfs...excuse me, the voters... can't figure out that the system is rigged, we'll what can you do?"
E X A C T L Y !!!!!!
1
If trump and the republicans succeed in destroying the federal government there won’t be a United States anymore. The federal government is the only thing that unites the red and blue states.
If the voters continue to send republicans to the house, senate and presidency no shots will be fired and it will be the end of the US.
1
The most recent issue to unite Democrats was opposition to George Bush’s Iraq War. And post-election analysis shows that Trump was able to flip those crucial heartland states by winning areas that had suffered the highest casualty rates in the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. So it follows that a candidate who questions “regime change” wars while maintaining military superiority to any potential adversary is the person to beat Trump. The only candidate who meets that criterion is Tulsi Gabbard, a “war on terror” veteran who still serves in the National Guard (no bone spurs here).
5
Spineless and moderate are not the same thing. I would bet that the most electable candidate would be a fighter, but moderate on policy. Remember that according to polls, Trump was seen as more moderate than Clinton in policy, yet he was not spineless. And in all the elections in Europe since 2016, the candidate that most clearly defeated the far-right was France’s Macron, who was moderate on policy but obviously not spineless.
4
@Aoy
Consider this latest report by Reuters:
Macron has the lowest approval ratings even with a recent upswing from 23% to 28%. France wasn't ecstatic to elect Macron. It grudgingly chose him.
"People surveyed by Ifop gave Macron the most credit for defending France’s interest overseas, but only 19 percent said they believed he understood voters’ concerns. Thirty percent gave the thumbs up to his economic policies."
1
Democrats must not simply put forward broad new progressive/liberal positions without first demonstrating they understand the primary concerns and fears of voters. For example, regarding liberalizing immigration, the candidate's first sentence should not be: "Crossing the border illegally should be a civil crime, not a criminal offense." Instead their first sentence should be: "Of course we can't have completely open borders, but we do have to have a more rational and effective immigration policy. One that first and foremost makes sure that unregulated immigration does not jeopardize the jobs of existing Americans."
Democrats need to put issues in a such a framework, and not allow the Republican to frame the debate with their tactics of exploitation of voters prejudices and fears, misdirecting voter anger to turn voter against voter, the disingenuous use of market-tested sound bites, e.g., "liberal elites," etc.
5
@ELB
Your emphasis on semantics will not help. Almost nobody in America really is unemployed because an "illegal" immigrant has stolen his/her job. It is the "Intolerance" that convinces the Americans that their miserable financial status is caused by "illegal" immigrants. If the Americans think sensibly they will understand that their misery is caused by the 1%, the Corporations, and the Wall Street, and their enablers (Republicans and to to an extent even the Democratic elected representatives). They should smart up and demand their elected representatives to enact universal health care, living wages, affordable education, clean environment, etc. That's what is needed.
@Subhash
Whether or not the loss of decent jobs for white non-college degreed males is caused by immigration, they apparently feel it does, and if acknowledging their fears gets them to vote Democrat that is helpful, no?
@ELB
You guys are both off the mark here completely! White male Trump supporters are not fruit pickers or construction workers. This is not about losing a job to undocumented workers it is completely about security, protection and sovereignty of the national borders. It’s about knowing who is going in and out of your country. Even Beto didn’t want to decriminalize border crossings because of the drug cartels that proliferate in Central America and Mexico. I am amazed at how liberal media grab on to talking points and stick with them through thick and thin. It’s beginning to sound like left version of Fox News.
It seems like the rush to the left by the candidates will not end well. Ideological purity should be replaced by informed discussion of policy options and their real life consequences.
Let’s not be part of a post truth, information free society.
12
Moderate Democrats and progressives have far more in common with each other than collectively they do with Trump supporters. The question posed by the headline implies that Trump just might be the only one who can unite us. Even typing that sentence makes my stomach churn—in fact, the ONLY thing Trump may have in common with Lincoln is that he presides over a divided country.
4
Many people who regard themselves as liberal, or as ABR, like myself, seem to be in an identity conflict over just how progressive they are or want to be. Most, if not all, support some form of universal healthcare measure, protecting Social Security, and tuition assistance in higher education. Their real conflict, at least for those I know, revolves around Immigration, specifically, illegal immigration and how it should best be handled.
"...Drutman continued, “I think the sweet spot in a general election for a Democratic nominee is progressive on economics and moderate on immigration and cultural issues.” Americans are typically focused on "fairness". In the case of immigration, how can potential immigrants be welcomed into our country, in a systematic manner which adheres to one of the Country's fundamental ideals while respecting the rules of law? It's a process that has been conveniently ignored by both parties for the last many years leading to the current division in opinion among American citizens. If the Dems keep their focus on economic assistance for the middle class but also present a solid plan on immigration which lives up to the American ideal, but reassures the electorate illegals will gain no undue advantage, they have a decent chance of unseating Trump. Without such a plan, I'm afraid their ship will sink again.
5
""In partisan terms, this means that “people like a maverick of the other party more than a party line guy, but like a maverick of their own party less than a party line guy.”"
Of course! Each side wishes the other side would adopt their views.
I'm less optimistic about the Democrats' chances against Trump given these deep splits in the party and how they stack up against general public opinion.
To me, the evil genius of Trump was to coopt the entire party, making it his party warts and all, particularly when so many of his positions go totally against the grain of t raditional conservatism.
The Democrats don't have a unifier, and that's troubling. While I like Bennet for precisely his moderation coupled with strong emotion, he's not well known and got into the race late. Of all the progressives, I like Warren best, but fear she might not be quick enough against Trump on the stage.
And now we have these gadflies--Steyer and possibily Shultz--to enter the fray.
When these things happpen I can just see Trump and McConnell laughing. Somehow, Republicans get away with murder more than Democrats.
18
Warren can whale the tar out of Trump if fired up, gut and fillet him so finely he doesn’t realize her knife has touched him until he falls apart. He thinks he can “Pocahontas” her into stammering confusion but she is now way past that and he’s the one who inoculated her. She’s spent months going from one town hall and rally and speaking engagement to the next, she has a vision for what needs doing and how to do it, and has the common sense to pick a running mate to cover her weaknesses in foreign policy and other areas.
2
Given Trump’s disdain for the rule of law—and his destructive and divisive behavior toward voting rights, a free press, the Constitution, and the fundamental standards of decency required to sustain a functioning American democracy—the most important issue of the 2020 election is whether The United States will remain a democracy.
The Democratic candidate who can win is the one who can effectively communicate to the American people that the main issue of of the 2020 election is the same as it was in 1860—can the United States, with all its flaws, survive as a government “of the people, by the people and for the people?”
4
I think some definitions need clarification. "Elite" means something completely different to liberals and conservatives. To liberals elite means wealth, the 1% or 0.1%, the oligarchy that runs the country. To conservatives elite means cultural, the professionals, professors, writers who " want to tell us what to do". This is why a billionaire like Trump can be "anti elite" and AOC is part of the "elite", at least to conservatives.
Next I'm not sure what the cultural right, middle or left is anymore. I used to think of myself as culturally liberal because is was pro choice, pro gay marriage and thought diversity of culture, ethnicity or religion was a good thing. But those positions may have shifted more to the middle as the liberal wing gone farther out. If reparations, drag queen story hour and open borders/abolish ICE is the new cultural liberal, it may be a tougher sell to the vast majority of voters.
109
@Bob
But even from a cultural perspective, it’s hard to fathom what definition of elite would include AOC but not Trump. Trump was a celebrity with his own TV show watched by millions of Americans, AOC was unknown until she ran for Congress. Surely Trump has had much more cultural influence than AOC. AOC also was not a professor, writer, or professional—she went to an undistinguished college and was a bartender. She does to some extent want to tell people what to do, but that’s practically the definition of being a legislator. “Elite” is just becoming a general purpose slur, like how “bourgeois,” “landlord”, etc. became slurs in communist countries used to describe anyone the regime didn’t like and maybe owned a little bit of money or land.
1
@Bob
It is tough to make a call on issues. I consider the abolition of ICE a conservative position since it's existence was a result of 9/11 panic and clearly is no longer working. It's not about open borders. But that distinction will never get made.
I think everything you point out are conflations of the media. I don't think anyone can tell where anyone is because the media is playing us along with everyone else. It's in their interest and you see it everyday in these pages.
Never forget Judith Miller.
2
@Benjy Chord
Please explain Miller's significance....
There he goes again, Mr. Edsall, the writer who made his name on the great conservative backlash against the 1960's. In the start of this article, he lists the issues on which the Democratic party leans liberal...it's a list of about ten issues...nowhere on that list is climate/environment nor economic inequality. Of course, no mention of the Green New Deal.
I get tired of Edsall doing, via quoted experts the "on the one hand," but "on the other" dance on what drives voting: cultural identity or issues. He and the writers side with cultural identities.
Does it ever bother Mr. Edsall that a once great country cannot accomplish anything large or great anymore, in the way China is currently doing by reshaping the globe's infrastructure to its advantage, and cannot do so because it cannot address the issues he leaves out so prominently here?
It is the failures of our economic system, and the lack of debate on Modern Monetary Theory and Ellen Brown's public banks proposals, that are crippling the party, and the nation.
Mr. Edsall silently sides with the Neoliberal status quo, and I'm sick of him and it. It has wrecked this country and its time to think big again, in open defiance of Bill Clinton's greatest intellectual lapse, he of Georgetown, Yale Law School and Oxford: he said the era of big government was over in 1996, siding with Reagan, not FDR and the New Deal: but he couldn't see the big problems on the horizon, which he helped create.
11
Whomever takes a real stance on climate change, not a status quo stance, but an actual bold call to action will get my support. Every other issue is secondary to that as far as I'm concerned.
5
Hillary was not a strong candidate because many viewed her as being dishonest; they believed that her excessive fees (e.g., the $600,000 fee for her never openly revealed speech to Goldman Sachs ) were no more than bribes. That she and Bill quickly garnered millions after leaving the White House "dead broke" suggested skulduggery in their global connections.
Today, the Democrats cannot expect that candidates should all be clones of one another. What we should expect is honesty (lacking in Mr.Trump) and an adherence to basic rules that the party accepts, albeit with differences so that we have some candidates who want more of a social net and some accepting less--but all must agree to accept a social net. All Democrats must agree to increase regulation of corporations, increase taxes on the wealthy, attack climate change, strengthen alliances with other democratic countries (especially strong past allies such as Britain) and weaken attachments to brutal and inhumane leaders, calling them out for human rights violations---but all candidates can disagree as to how to implement these policies and the degree to which they be implemented.
10
Not to diminish the importance of these issues, but none of this really matters. Because of Trump. Democrats and independents will turn out in droves to drive him from office. We’ll vote enthusiastically for whomever emerges from the primaries. And whoever that is, they’ll be a thousand percent better than Trump. That’s all that matters.
21
The answer is no, no one can or should unite the democrats except Trump. Republicans are united because their only principle has become winning at any cost. Democrats, like the heroes of Stranger Things or any adventure film, are motley group of opposing personalities who seek to destroy evil. They put their individual ego or predilections aside for the greater good. The ideological battles can wait until the higher cause is achieved.
5
@DO5
Perhaps someone will take your advice and stop the hit pieces against Joe Biden, the only Democrat who has been beating Trump by a wide margin in every poll for months.
And for those who say this is name recognition- Bernie and Warren, by this point, are very well known, and neither can seem to break 15%.
1
@DO5 The Dems will discover that diversity is not a strength; Strength lies in those homogeneous little white countries they so admire.
The focus on "anyone" ignores that there will be two people on the Democratic ticket. For the party to achieve any semblance of balance, it must learn from the failed lesson of Hillary Clinton and return to the time-honored strategy of selecting a running mate that will produce the unity and the excitement they'll need to achieve for a massive, blue wave turnout. Based on a previous column, a minority candidate on the ticket will help do that. That means that a Warren-Castro ticket composed of the two stars of the first night's debate could achieve the balance and unity the party must have. Similarly, a Harris-Buttigieg ticket with the two stars of the second night's debate could also be very potent with Buttigieg posing a direct challenge to Vice President Pence and the evangelical Christians who are a key part of the Trump base. The guiding principles essential for Democrats to defeat Trump are balance, diversity, excitement, and unity. These two tickets, at this point, are the most promising and solve many of the issues raised by focusing on just one candidate.
6
“Choosing a Presidential nominee that is not sufficiently loyal to the party’s base can risk lower voter turnout,” Stein pointed out. “This is what undermined Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in 2016, especially in urban centers of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan and Ohio.”
A thousand times yes. Democrats should not fruitlessly pursue rural white people that are unlikely to support the nominee. Dems need to re- engage the voters who came out for Obama and not for Clinton. Those folks are more likely to respond to a progressive message.
15
@Cousy No, the voters who came out for Obama and not for Clinton need to wake up and understand that if they do the same thing again, they'll cause yet another term of Trump.
Right now the Democrats lack an identity. Obama Care is too expensive and inadequate but that was their signature accomplishment.
School and housing desegregation are non-issues. The basic civil rights laws are in place and their are no new legislation on the horizon.
Affirmative action is a dead issue. It has been replaced by diversity and there the Democrats have an advantage, mostly because of gay rights and women.
On voting rights, the Dem's are on the right side, but this is mostly an issue in states they are unlikely to carry anyway. Georgia and Texas might be exceptions, but we'll see.
Criminal justice reform is a Democratic advantage issue but they have been slow to do anything about it.
Taxes are a toss up. The middle class did get a slight reduction from Trump's tax plan and at least for now they lean in his direction because something is better than nothing, especially on bread and butter issues.
The Dem's have the advantage on guns but congress is deadlocked.
The Dem's really need to lead on economic issues. While the economy looks strong on the surface, all the professionals say get ready for a recession.
The Dem's need to come clean and say in 2008 we saved the banks, this time we're going to save the middle class. But only Bernie has that message and the media has been beating him like an old drum.
The real issue is voter turn out, especially young voters. Advantage Dem's, if they know how to take care of business. So far they seem clueless.
2
@Drspock
Funny how you left out immigration.
How are Democrats doing on that issue?
Open borders, sanctuary cities, "protections" from being deported, amnesty, drivers licenses and free healthcare for illegals??
Think thats an issue Americans care about?
Nothing to see here, right?
3
@Drspock
I think Anti-White is the current look of the Democratic party, as far as I can tell...
2
Hillary lost in 2016 not because of the Republicans who voted for Trump but because of the Democrats who didn’t vote or who voted for a third-party candidate.
What the Democrats need is a candidate who can get all wings of the party to show up and vote Democratic. Forget converting the Trump voters, they are gone for good. Just don’t go so far to the left that you cause the moderates to stay home (they won’t vote GOP). In purple states, have the local elected officials take the lead in campaigning. And be sure to visit any state that isn’t very deep red or very deep blue, and visit the non-urban areas of those states. Finally, no Hollywood fund raisers or speeches to Wall Street firms.
On the issues, be economically progressive, socially liberal, and moderate on immigration.
And remember that the only goal is to win. And to consign the Donald to the dustbin of history.
27
@John Graybeard no John. It's well past the time where the middle needs to hold their noses and vote for a candidate a little further left than they are comfortable with just as those on the the left have had to hold their noses and vote for a candidate further right than they're comfortable with. Why should the leftmost wing of the party always have to be the ones to sacrifice, it's your turn. The issues we face need bold action, not status quote incrementalism.
The middle has had it's day and it didn't work out.
3
@Jon Q
"Why should the leftmost wing of the party always have to be the ones to sacrifice"...
Because, like it or not, voters in swing states that are absolutely necessary for the Democrats to win, will not vote for the leftmost. Some of them may reluctantly vote for Trump or will not vote at all...followed by 4 more years of Trump and 4 more years of damage to human rights and the environment.
3
@Jon Q As of October 2017, 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent. You do not win elections without considering what voters who do not consider themselves Democrats want. This has more to do with identity than policy proposals, although the two are inter-related. Sherrod Brown is fairly progressive and runs well in Ohio, but the candidates from the progressive wing are generally not getting elected in the heartland.
3
Democrats "have a much bigger tent". That's usually thought of as a feature, not a bug.
But it does cause problems getting them to coalesce around a single candidate.
And it does mean a candidate that appeals more to one faction than another tends to cause those that support a different faction to protest vote or stay home.
Republicans don't seem to have this problem. In 2016, many Republicans despised Trump and thought him unelectable, but generally closed ranks around him and voted for him anyway. There were Republican defections, but these were limited to a small cadre of well-known pundits; a tiny number compared to those on the Dem side who voted Stein or stayed home.
So the big question as always, is turnout. And, unfortunately, turnout is still to a great extent tribal. Hillary lost because young people sat out--more went to vote for Obama--and especially because, as Edsall mentions quoting Stein, African American males in urban areas of FL, MI, PA, WI, NC did not come out for her as they did for Barack (all due respect voter suppression tactics and social media garbage).
So, the Dem brain trust has to be working on the ground game, not just the candidate. True, some white Obama voters went to Trump because he fooled them into thinking he was to the left of Hillary on trade and "entitlements". (Hopefully they know better now.) But now's the time to set up phone trees, carpools, text chains--Dems have to get youth and "minorities" to turn out.
20
@Glenn Ribotsky
If you really need to send an army out there to compel your constituents to vote, youre going to lose.
Trump didnt need that. His campaign spent a fraction of what Hillarys spent.
Why cant Democrats come up with one candidate that would compel the masses to come out on their own?
You could come up with 100 excuses, but when you go through their positions, you may not admit it, but they are all too extreme, too socialist.
Liberal governance doesnt work. Never did, never will. There's always that disastrous, but all too predictable consequence.
2
@Glenn Ribotsky
That big tent image is seriously flawed. There's a group in there chasing out anyone who doesn't pay fealty to its thinking.
Democrats have a problem with the intolerance of its leftwing. Those outside the Democratic Party have always noticed the intolerance of the left. It's only now that the leftwing has turned on its own that democrats see what the rest of us have always known.
3
We need vision. And staying out of the boxes by avoiding the mindless hand raising, box checking and group think. In this, some of those candidates in the second tier are more impressive than those with early rises in the polls and early "wins" in the first "debates". The Democrats will mess up greatly if they do not give some of these candidates strong second looks.
6
@vole
Actually, the hand raising was quite revealing.
And thats the problem, isnt it?
Dont let the public know youre real intentions until AFTER the election.
The deception is quite evident, thats why they will lose, Doesnt matter who gets the nomination.
6
@Sports Medicine
Quite revealing of the giving in to the pressure of debate moderator to force a simple answer of yes or no to a very difficult and complex question.
Everyone of those candidates who raised their hands have much more nuanced policies on legal and illegal immigration than what their show of hands revealed. But, unfortunately this is not what the media circuses reveal.
And Trump displays how much power the media has in selecting for simple and stupid and facilitating authoritarian follower rule.
@vole
Maybe some of them but Castro is quit frank and open. He’s for straight up decriminalization of unauthorized border crossings and wants to abolish ICE. He’s not saying the wording but that’s pretty open borders.
It’s just semantics at this point.
So the new Democratic "center" is Warren-Harris (I am not sure about Sanders and, he has an age issue for attracting voters). That is excellent news.
Warren-Harris should start testing who would be the best new Democratic "conservative" to run as any of the two VP. e.g. Hickenlooper would be Pence-like figure. Hoping the first woman president lots of health for 2 terms.
3
@Aurace Rengifo. It’s bizarre that anyone would think Warren/Harris is the “center”. Have you listened to the free stuff they’re promising? Wealth tax? Reparations?
2
@Aurace Rengifo
Harris needs to never step foot out of Calif again, she’s horrible and the black silent majority doesn’t support her. Elizabeth Warren is fantastic and best of all she embraces market capitalism. Unlike Bernie “socialist” Sanders and the flock of DSA birds in congress. If the Identity crew doesn’t pin her down to denounce the white working class she could have a real shot.
The question is not necessarily if democrats will be unified. The core group will be for the elected candidate during our primaries. The question is if Bernie Sanders’ voters will unified to vote democrat or will they repeat the victimization of 2016 if Sanders is not on the ballot?
5
@DREU💤
The question is whether progressives can behave rationally and vote for whoever is nominated by the Democratic Party. They should learn from Evangelicals, who keep their eye on the prize and don't get caught up in ideological purity tests, etc. They don't need to be told what they want to hear. They focus on results.
27
@DREU💤
The overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters voted for Clinton in the general election. Yes, there were some who did not and in close races they had an effect but Blaming this group and this group alone for her defeat ignores the fact that African Americans in those crucial mid-western states also failed to turn out for her.
3
@DREU💤 I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils or another corporate hack like Clinton, the reason Democrats keep losing is because they run horrible candidates, not because of Bernie Sanders.
"When it comes to looking out for the middle class which party do you think would do a better job"...."The Democrats were still favored at 39-31, but by a much smaller margin"
- October, 2018
That's with a booming economy. And the Democrats are still ahead. The three polls mentioned demonstrate that the middle class support the Democrats through thick or thin.
Being too far left is not the issue. It's how you explain it, detail how it's funded, and how the low and middle income earners will benefit. Elizabeth Warren has the best track record doing that to date.
It's all in the details. Now all those candidates have to do is get the American Citizenry to listen.
4
@cherrylog754 They support the Dems until they're living on the sidewalk wondering what happened.
1
We will lose the election on immigration. It's Trump's strength and with the number of border crossers exploding and detention centers plastered across our monitors it's a great big boogie man that we are on the wrong side of. Talk to someone who just lost their lifetime job at the GM plant in Ohio about open borders, and I've yet to hear one candidate offer any other solution than de facto open borders. Perot was right about NAFTA.
148
@somsai
Cheaper parts from Mexico kept several of those GM plants operating long past their days of reckoning with globalization and foreign competitors offering higher quality, better efficiency and prices.
No one is for open borders. Period.
44
@vole "No one is for open borders" is only a correct statement if you define "open borders" to mean the elimination of any visa requirement whatsoever.
When you abolish enforcement, or severely restrict enforcement, you prioritize the rule breakers over the rule followers.
Democrats are "not for open borders" the same way that Republicans are "opposed to fraud on Wall Street." Define the position very narrowly, but never enforce the rules.
34
@somsai: You' partially right. Immigration will play a part in the Democrats losing in 2020, but the real cause will be the majority of white women continuing to support the GOP unconditionally.
12
The immigration policies of the Democratic Party are insane and unworkable. They are more dangerous to the future well-being of the nation than ten Trump's would be. No thank you. I'll be voting for someone else.
President of the World? Most of the Democratic candidates would be better suited to that re as they are more concerned with everyone outside of the US than citizens within. 144000 people per month forever. We would have to make 30000 houses a month just to keep up. We would have to train 300 new doctors, a mo the, just to keep up. We would have to make three or four large schools, a month, just to keep up.
81
@willt26 and remember, those schools that we build need to be bigger because we are now going to provide universal pre-k and kindergarten (in addition to healthcare and housing).
13
@willt26
Manufacturers cannot legally hire undocumented workers, and they can't find citizens who either want the jobs or have the skills. They want a solution to immigration so they can hire.
The average age of a farmer is 55. Most of them have no one who will follow them because their children don't want to farm.
Crops will rot in the fields (those that got planted) because there will be no one to harvest them. It is work Americans will not do.
All of those problems are serious and need to be addressed. All them would benefit from more immigration, not less.
There is work the rest of us will not do, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done. Where do suggest the labor come from?
Immigration has always driven economic growth. That is not a wish; it is a fact.
11
Sorry Wilt, but that’s patently untrue. Democrats care far more about the average American than anyone in the GOP. We just realize that we live in a fully interconnected world and that non-Americans also deserve to be treated humanely. Instead of spewing unfounded anger, why don’t you reach out to some of your local elected Democratic officials. I think you might be very surprised at how much more you agree with Democratic positions than those of other parties and persuasions.
Hope you’ll consider it.
8
If the democrats were interested in American citizens well-being they would find a candidate that would expel illegal immigrants and significantly reduce the number of legal immigrants so competition for housing, jobs, health care, etc. would be less.
48
@Marigrow Or we can go with a liberal candidate who wants to eliminate competition for housing, jobs, health care, etc. by expanding social safety nets and guaranteeing healthcare for all, a $15 minimum wage, etc.. and deal with the immigrant problem in a humane way.
21
Reducing legal immigration is a sure fire route to a recession. The solution to our immigration problem is MORE legal immigration.
4
@Marigrow
"significantly reduce the number of legal immigrants "
since you are in Florida, here's a question: without immigrants, for example, who will provide devoted low-cost home care to help keep home-bound elderly from being forced into nursing homes?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-immigrants-caregivers/immigrants-play-big-role-in-caring-for-elderly-and-disabled-in-us-idUSKCN1T52KK
5
A very large field of primary candidates presents a challenge for either party. The Republican faced that challenge in 2016. The irony is that Trump resolved that challenge for the Republican Party. Trump focused on the core elements of the identity of conservative, Republican voters. And Trump won without developing any real policies. Build a wall, drain the swamp, repeal Obamacare and end abortion did not express well developed policies. Through the primary and general election debates he never once displayed a command of the facts. He just made stuff up.
The large field of Democratic primary candidates now challenges the Democratic Party. The tale of 2020 is now unfolding. At some point two or three candidates will separate themselves from the pack. It is important to remember that in July 2016, Trump was not favored to win and many Republicans thought Trump was not electable.
8
@OldBoatMan
The problem, of course, is that even though many Republicans despised Trump and thought him unelectable, in November they pretty much in lockstep voted for him anyway; the defectors to Hillary, or to third party candidates, were well-publicized pundits, but they were quite few in number. The overwhelming majority of Republicans and conservative leaning independents fell in line.
The Democrats have a history of NOT doing that; they'll defect at the drop of a hat (see Anderson, Nader, Stein). Part of that is a function of the ems having a bigger, more diverse tent, but part of it is also less respect for authority in general, a distaste for being told who to vote for.
Republicans, in general, seem to be far more amenable to arguments to coalesce for some big goal such as conservative jurists.
35
@Glenn Ribotsky
Yes, exactly right. And in my view Sanders accomplished much the same thing through slightly different methods in 2016, by insisting on pressing on after it became clear he would not be the nominee. (That issue was worsened by Cambridge Analytica efforts to persuade Bernie fans that Hillary was the wicked witch. And Sanders has the money to do exactly the same thing this time.)
Also, R solidarity is aided by the many R voters who think the spewings of Hannity and Limbaugh are akin to utterances from God, while far fewer D voters, if any, really, view more liberal-ish media that way.
2
@ Glenn Ribotsky and RBW
You need to remember that progressives and Democrats do share an identity too. A Democratic nominee benefits from that shared identity. Trump won because he appealed to the identity of Republicans in 2016. A Democratic candidate can win in 2020 by appealing to the Democratic identity.
The challenge that Trump in 2015 and 2016 was a large field of candidates. He met that challenge by positioning himself as the vocal champion of conservatives and Republicans. The Democratic candidate who can position himself or herself as the vocal champion of progressives will win in 2020 if the candidate focuses on specific values rather than specific policies.
It make sense to run on reforming the immigration system and ending the cruelty of separating children from their parents. It make much less sense to run on abolishing ICE, or making unauthorized border crossing a civil offense.
I hope we find a candidate who will define her (or his) identity as the vocal champion of the shared values of progressives and Democrats rather detailed policy paper that appeals to some but not all Democrats, can be picked apart and forces the candidate into defending specific policies rather than championing shared values.
3
The most radical thing in DC or in all of America for that matter is the Constitution. We ought to find candidates that simply wish to make it work in full. For the last several decades politicians have only been in favor of their little pieces of the document.
7
It should be a “back to the basics” conversation based upon what people care about. Healthcare, affordable universal coverage; economy, the Obama recovery without the threat of tariffs and torn up treaties; peace, remaking alliances to regain strength and respect; immigration, control without cruelty.
Emphasis on vision, policies as examples, work in progress, America the great innovator on the constantly changing journey towards freedom and equality (and laugh at anyone who thinks these should not be balanced).
61
@Gerard
During the last midterms Democratic candidates didn't focus on Russia. It wasn't a priority for their constituents. Contrast that with the cohort that is demanding impeachment based on Mueller's report. They might as well be in two separate worlds.
The problem seems to be that the primary is being conducted inside the bubble, while the election will be held outside it.
6
@Gerard i like the "torn up treaties" part of your statement. Presidents can sign everything they want internationally, but until the Senate confirms it - the US did not enter into a treaty. When presidents make agreements that are not treaties - then later presidents can unmake them. Treaties are binding across the ages - non-binding agreements, no so much.
Mr. Edsall, as usual, nails the essence of his topic.
Maybe another column might address whether in the 2020 election the selection of the Dem nominee's VP might have a greater than usual effect on balancing the ticket. Nominees in the past have chosen their VP with this in mind and the success of that strategy has been very limited. But this time, for the Democrats it could be vital. If the nominee is on the centrist side, a more progressive VP choice can help bring out the base. If the nominee is more progressive, a moderate VP choice can help assure moderate and vital swing state swing voters. (Not only that, think of all the fun odd couple cracks on late night TV!) And speaking of balance, a male / female ticket would be "the ticket" IMHO.
E.g., Biden / Warren or Warren/Bloomberg! or Harris/Bennet
(Of course, the nominee must above all have confidence and trust in the VP choice, both on the trail and in the White House.)
8
We’re in the peculiar situation where concrete policy issues overwhelmingly favor the Democrats, while identity politics (including partisan identity) favors the Republicans, at least in a national election. A candidate who can talk above the name-calling & speak in very pragmatic ways about how to fix the economy, fix health care, fix labor, etc can motivate the most people. But it’s hard to do. Obama tried scrupulously—with amazing skill—to eschew identity politics, to speak to everyone & address problems pragmatically; but the Republicans were able to filter their voters’ view of him & create a resent-driven socialist caricature (never enough to defeat him, but enough to paralyze him).
Politics & media, which favor partisanship & labels & identity, are essentially working at odds with democracy, which would focus on concrete problems & solutions. Which leads me to ask: wouldn’t the Democrats be better served by a primary contest that continues, with multiple candidates, to the convention? The less time the political & media machines have to focus on one candidate, the better the chances of an election decided on issues.
9
@Martin
Policy issues like immigration? Prison reform? Jobs and the economy? Trade and Chinese espionage? It's a myth that Americans don't support Trump's policies.
12
@AACNY
Depends on how define the issues. If you cast immigration as a political identity issue, as us vs. them, then it favors Trump. But if you look at it realistically, large majorities are in favor of paths to citizenship for the undocumented, better border security, more humane & efficient asylum process, etc—which favors almost anyone (Republican or Democrat) over Trump. If you look at jobs as a partisan weapon (there are more jobs & Trump is president end of discussion), then it helps him. But if you look at it practically, and ask why people have jobs but not enough to live on, it does not.
1
"Spineless" is the resonant point here. As much as culture wars, it's the reason "D" next to a name is a tombstone in red states.
Much of the credit for that goes to the effective PR of Murdoch, Kochs, and the oligarch gang.
Dems have to recapture the feeling of the guy who said of FDR, "I didn't know him but he knew me."
Average Joe needs to believe the D means he has a champion against the world.
210
@br Warren does an excellent job of connecting her life with people out there. She may be a professor and a Senator, but she's also the woman who grew up in Oklahoma and can talk about seeing her parents struggle with hardships and unemployment, her own struggles to get an education and raise her own family - and how she can draw on that experience to find a way forward for everyone.
19
@Larry Roth
That's a made up narrative. She got a full debate scholarship to George Washington University straight out of high school. She quit after two years to marry her high school sweetheart and moved to Houston. She was never a struggling single mom - she divorced her first husband and remarried within six months to her current husband who was a well known and much published law professor at the best universities on the east coast.
4
@Mimi I'm not sure how you think that those facts imply that Roth's post about Warren is a "made up narrative". Obviously it doesn't refute the fact that she grew up among hardship in Oklahoma. She got a scholarship because she works hard and was and is very smart. She was vulnerable enough at a young age to quit college and get married because of values she was raised with, which ultimately are not in totality her values today. Raising a family and completing an education is definitely a struggle for women, married or not.
19
How can the Democrat Party pick a candidate who can win despite promoting policies that are unpopular in states that President Trump won in 2016? They can't.
39
@Hank
May I remind you that Bernie Sanders won some of those states in the primary, which should have been a wake-up call to Hillary but wasn't. He out polls Trump well outside the margin of error and has since 2016. He is well liked among the working class, young voters (he got more of their votes than Hillary and Trump combined), and Independents.
Biden has many problems but they boil down to the fact that he is the ultimate insider in a Congress that the most insider organization in the country. Bernie is an outsider who pragmatically works with the insiders. His "outsider" status is probably a good part of the appeal for people fed-up with the status quo.
He is an FDR Democrat, far less radical than the frightened Third Way will admit. It is really pretty simple why they - and the media who is also at the Billionaire's Banquet - malign him. If he wins, they lose influence. That is why they make him the boogieman.
Think about it.
The unfortunate thing in the whole situation will not hinge on total number of votes as was the case in 2016. It will depend on who will have the sufficient "marketability" to swing those traditionally blue states that went Trump in 2016. Those states, despite the performance of Trump at this point, are still on the "knifes edge" and can easily slide Trump if the wrong candidate gets nominated.
12
We are hopelessly divided, hopelessly misunderstood, and hopelessly misinformed. What is the percentage of the population that keeps up with the news, the real news like this paper? I'll bet it is less than 20%. Most people only know what hits their Facebook page. They are not consumers of information, they are targets of information.
How many people intentionally isolate themselves from the news? It's a shocking amount, and that amount includes college educated people. I'm dumbfounded by how many I meet that refuse to engage.
What I'm driving at is that these questions being asked here are questions that many, if not most, people don't know anything about. That's why the center has collapsed. Only those highly motivated are engaged and they occupy the extremes.
The extremes are tribal and they are dug in. Identity politics rules. On the right it's still guns, gays and God, traditional but discriminatory, self reliant themes. On the left, it's daycare, healthcare, gaycare, minority care, all kinds of care. The issue isn't the merits of either side's ideals, it's who identifies with them. Votes are cast by, I believe this or that, or I am this or that.
Boil it all down and it comes to turnout to win elections. Liberals don't bother to turn out and conservatives vote without fail. Hate and fear is a great motivator to get people to the poles.
If the Democrats want to win, they have to pick someone who will drive turnout. Nothing else really matters.
363
@Bruce Rozenblit
Mr. Rozenblit's comment is a practical and accurate description of the current political situation in our country.
Two important questions for Democrats are:
How to proceed?
Who is electable?
31
@Bruce Rozenblit
"If the Democrats want to win, they have to pick someone who will drive turnout. Nothing else really matters."
Democrats will be driven to the polls at this point to vote for anyone other than Trump. That is, if they are at all rational.
Democrats suffer from fundamental structural problems in their party. They must please many factions. And they actually try to solve important problems.
On the other hand, when we reduce to fascism (Trump), things become much easier. Once the candidate whips up enough fear, the voting base will follow. Current GOP means to that end are immigration and probably Iran.
Next year will tell us if our better angels can prevail.
76
Andrew Yang has supporters from both parties, many of them previous Trump voters. It is not hopeless. If mainstream media gave his messages half coverage as they had given to Trump in 2016, he would beat Trump.
15
The arguments about progressive versus more centrist policy positions of Democratic presidential candidates will be irrelevant unless Democrats also recapture the Senate. The long-term future of the Democratic Party will continue to be in jeopardy unless they gain control of the state legislatures and governorships that control re-districting after the 2020 census. Retaking the Senate and capturing state governorships and legislatures will depend on connecting with both the Democratic base and independents. Pelosi crafted the strategy that resulted in retaking the House, with large gains in Congressional Districts held by Republicans. I would like to see evidence that Progressives can compete in areas that have not been solidly Democratic for decades before we bet the farm on them in 2020. There is too much emphasis on the Presidential ticket, and not enough emphasis on retaking the Senate, holding the House, and making large gains in Governorships and state legislatures. Ideological litmus tests by people residing in solidly blue districts are not helpful. We should be looking for common ground that will energize both progressives and independents, and focusing more on getting out the vote than policy proposals that will be meaningless without recapturing the Senate at a minimum. People vote identity more than they vote policy.
25
To me, this shows that Democrats need to understand the field and understand the electorate. One of the key reasons, other than the blatant racism and sexism, that I don't vote Republican for national office is that the party does not follow policies that have any basis in facts. But, for the vast majority of Americans, the evidence does not matter. This has always been hard for the Democrats to grasp. Essentially, a general election is a race to the bottom. So, how can an honest Democrat get elected and still focus on facts? They need to focus on the economy in the four important states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida). A Dem candidate can still use evidence-based policies to win the electoral college in those states as long as it is broken down in basic terms for the average voter to understand.
8
Biden is the only candidate who strikes fear into Trump. Trump would look like the fool he is on a debate stage versus Biden. Because AOC is having a powerful influence on the direction of the Democratic party, Biden would have to appeal to progressives and women by selecting a progressive woman, particularly a progressive woman of color. Stacy Abrams checks all those boxes and a Biden-Abrams ticket is the best chance to make Trump a deserving one term president.
2
@nzierler
I would argue that Biden doesn't strike fear but rather comfort. Biden's been beaten before. I suspect Trump feels confident he can do what other less capable career politicians have done.
1
@nzierler Stacy is in the death zone of fat and will be found dead in her chair just like several people I have known.
1
@nzierler
President Trump was "terrified" of Jeb Bush. What is Jeb Bush doing now?
Focusing on abstract survey answers makes this seem more complicated and contentious than it is.
When you ask the voters about specific pocketbook policy issues -- from ACA to green jobs to fair taxation -- the vast majority of voters prefer policies of the D's, including every candidate for nomination. This includes more progressive candidates and policies than the abstract results described here.
As for Who Can Unite the Democrats, I would be satisfied with a salamander from a Mar a Lago water hazard if it can get elected in 2020.
30
@Michael
True. When various policies are presented with no political affiliation a large percentage support the policies. Tribalism only comes into play when they learn who's behind the policy.
The best thing, and yes wishful thinking, would be to rid ourselves of political parties. Elected officials should be elected on their policies not on which tribe they belong to.
Sadly we'll never see this happen, at least not in my lifetime, but it would eliminate a lot of problems if the elected officials were doing the job they were elected to do: providing for the welfare of the people they govern.
2
Republicans will call ANY Democrat a socialist, far left, blah blah. Democrats need to nominate someone who is authentic, speaks truth to power, and inspires. Biden is a nice enough guy, but a vision of "I'm not Trump" and a return to normalcy won't cut it.
156
@LFK - With Trump, we're discovering what "normal" is I'm afraid.
2
@LFK
I like Elizabeth Warren, she speaks truth to power.
4
@Ted Morton
She's my pick too.
There doesn't seem to be any sensible way to reconcile or compromise on many of the issues dividing the Democrats. It seems they must inevitably split.
As reported yesterday, raising the minimum wage will benefit many workers but will throw many others out of work.
Similarly, feminists can't support transgender males since transgenders assume that sex/identity is an artificial construct while feminists believe that women have a unique perspective.
6
@Amy
Why would people lose their jobs by raising the minimum wage? Employers employ the amount of people necessary for peak efficiency, no more, no less. I worked as a cashier when Massachusetts raised the minimum wage from $5.25 to around $7.00. Not one person lost his/her job and no-ones hours were cut. Price increases were negligible to non-existent. The anti worker crowd always scream the sky will fall if workers are better compensated but this somehow never seems to happen.
If employers could prove a financial hardship in meeting the increased minimum wage I wouldn't have a problem with the federal government offering assistance but the need would have to be proven beyond doubt and meet established criteria. This would still cost us far less than having a large percentage of the working poor being subsidized with food stamps, public housing assistance, Medicaid and other expensive social programs. If people earn more they'll spend more. How does this not help the economy?
3
That’s why we need Yang’s universal basic income
1
Too much bothsideism in this opinion piece, and too much focus on the presidency. We ate facing authoritarianism vs. democracy in the upcoming elections. For the presidency: Anyone but Trump, even Steyer will do! For the focus: Win the Senate, Democrats (and keep the House)!
78
@Anna
“Too much bothsideism in this opinion piece,”
Excellent point. And a serious flaw, not only in the NYT, that contributed to trump’s election.
6
"While there is such a thing as too far left, there may also be such a thing as too spineless for the moment, too frightened, too noncombative and too associated with the past."
That sums up the problem with the Democratic Party in my forty years as a voter. Frightened of its own shadow, unwilling to defend its principles, forever chasing accommodation to Republicans, who long ago perfected the bipartisanship of the shiv. The inevitable result is aggressive, emboldened Republicans and dispirited Democrats. 2016.
Yes, it's a center-right country, and so progress is thus fitful and often strongly resisted. The way of the liberal/progressive in this country is hard. But two-term president Bill Clinton is on point.
"When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right."
6
My younger son just gave my husband a T-shift for his birthday. It says: 2020 Literally Anyone Else.
116
@Ellen Freilich
And this makes the most sense at this point. We can work out the minor details after we win the election but we need to WIN THE ELECTION first and arguably even more important, take back the senate. In fact taking back the senate is more important than taking back the presidency. Ideally we should work fervently to do both but trump could be easily emasculated if the senate is in the hands of Dems. Work or donate to campaigns to Ditch Mitch, defeat Collins, elect Mark Kelly in AZ, defeat Ernst and any republican vulnerable senators. Winning back the senate is paramount. Taking back the presidency is the icing on the cake.
13
The blow-up between "The Squad" and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is just a microcosm of the disease that is infecting the Democrats. Going into 2020, the candidates, en masse, are seen as unstable or hesitant or fearful, always looking over their shoulders at their pursuers. The gains made by the party in the 2018 mid-terms may have turned into a Pyrrhic victory. Some gains but much more lost.
Since Ms. Pelosi returned to her place as the leader of the people's house, she has been be-set by "The Squad." They are insistent upon making the loudest noise at the community banquet and are shouting down more established folks--people who have been there before. This does not bode well as the consequential election of our time looms on the horizon.
Yes, Joe Biden entered the fray as the sheriff at the end of the street, star badge on chest, looking down at Donald Trump with all the townspeople clustered on both sides of the street. However, Biden appears to have chosen the wrong side of the street because the sun's shining in his eyes. He can't see his opponent. Call the president what you will, but he was savvy enough to choose the street, the time of day and all things necessary to his success than Mr. Biden.
The crowded Democratic field also does the party no good. Having two-score people vie for one nomination was like auditioning people for spouses. There are differences between them, certainly, but sometimes, too much is too much.
Who stands out? No one, yet, unfortunately.
66
It’s very early yet. Give it another 3-6 months and you’ll see at least a few of the candidates begin to stand out. The situation is little different than ‘92, when a little known Governor of Arkansas won.
3
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
Who stands out? Easy. Senator Elizabeth Warren. Nearly 75 years later, we have our next FDR. Just in the nick of time.
10
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
Your posts are always thoughtful and interesting. But 2016 when the party had two candidates, essentially, didn’t do us any good either.
I’m optimistic. I look forward to seeing the process play out. The person with the most votes a year from now will have earned it.
We may not win in 2020, but it won’t be because there are now 22 people jockeying for position. It will be due to our eventual nominee being unable to convince a sliver of swing state voters to pull the lever for our side’s candidate.
If our nominee can’t rally the troops after four years of the Trump abomination, do we really deserve to win?
7
A Biden/Warren ticket would be intriguing. Then Warren might run for president in 2024.
Biden and Hillary have something important in common. They both understand that they need the banks and Wall Street to win. Warren is a tectonic shift for the banks; it's probably too much.
Hillary should have won in 2016. She did win the popular vote. If Biden had been the nominee then, he very well may have won.
Hillary lacked charisma, did not talk to workers, campaigned poorly (e.g., those states she didn't visit and narrowly lost), appeared unhealthy (e.g., fainting at the 9/11 memorial), was not effective in the debates against Trump, and had immense baggage (including her husband; many voters did not want to see him in the White House again).
Biden is better on all these fronts (including baggage). Based on the results from 2016, Trump has very good reason to fear Biden. That's assuming Democrats allow Biden to survive his own party in the primaries!
We need to learn from 2016 and Hillary. Hillary was really close last time. Biden absolutely can get it done this time -- he can win -- if Democrats just let him do it.
And Biden should be let loose on Trump. People are scaring Biden into not being able to talk tough. So many Democratic factions are pulling him in all directions. He is being torn apart. What a disaster.
41
@Blue Moon
" If Biden had been the nominee then, he very well may have won."
You've ignored Bernie in this equation. Every poll preceding the vote stated Hillary would lose but Bernie would win against Trump. Unfortunately, Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, AIPAC and the other lobbies backed the wrong horse.
Naturally, the lobbies rejoiced when their true candidate won the electoral college. So in the end the Adelson-Netanyahu strategy prevailed.
With Bernie Sanders as president, none of the chaos of the past 3 years would have occurred.
43
@Hamid Varzi
I won't go into all the details right now, but I don't see Sanders, Harris, or Buttgieg as viable contenders in the general election. But they all could play prominent roles in a Biden/Warren administration. If Biden is the Democratic nominee, the Obamas will endorse him. That brings in the black vote. Warren brings in the #MeToo vote. Latinos should just vote Democratic down the line (maybe Puerto Ricans will help convince that bloc).
Democrats are still giddy from winning the House in 2018. They seem to be playing it as though they won in 2016 as well. But they didn't win then: in fact, they lost. And they lost BIG. So there's no springboard from 2016 into 2020.
Some will argue that Democrats need to do things very differently from 2016, because Hillary lost. Go further left and more progressive: that's the answer now. After all, when will we ever have an election where we should do that, if we're always trying to "play it safe" worrying about an "electable" candidate? But this strategy is not our answer. The answer is that Trump and his GOP minions must be vanquished. They truly represent an existential threat to American democracy, and to world peace by extension.
"Is There Anyone Who Can Unite Democrats Besides Trump?" Biden (moderate)/Warren (progressive) can. It may seem a little boring. But boring can get the job done.
13
@Blue Moon The Republican wing of the Democratic party, Schumer, Pelosi, et alia, would like nothing better than a Biden/Warren ticket. It would relegate Warren and her ideas to a political blackhole, never to be seen again. They could then get on with the business of jogging in place, building bridges to the past and retaining their power. Good for them--for the American middle-class, not so much.
6