How about starting with is she honest, and who is funding her campaign?
8
That the positions among the candidates are not very big: good news. (They're good policies, and more loyal to the traditional democratic philosophy which used to be popular.)
That there is a crying need for electibility: Good news. (Positions, pragmatic or idealistic, aren't worth a fig if the former candidate is off in the Caribbean marlin fishing.)
Brown can take Ohio. Good news. Democrats will need it - badly.
Klobuchar can take Minnesota. Dems will need it badly, too since we can't quite trust it.
But (in this scenario) Brown has to be at the top of the ticket. The sexism that led to Hillary's loss will be, ahem, emasculated, with someone like Brown in the lead. Similar whispering and nastiness directed at Klobuchar, Harris, as VP candidate etc. will be marginal at best.
But remember the two rules of running mates. 1. They can't hurt you, and 2. they have to win a state you might not otherwise win. That's why it makes no sense to pick a VP from Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, or California because those are in the bank already.
Big question: are democrats *really* willing to have a white male at the top of the ticket? Howabout both? I fear the answer to both questions is No because they're so wound up about making an identity group statement, they can't focus on Job One - toppling the incumbent from his throne. If they don't: trxmp 2020, Pence 2024, Pence 2028, SC 9-0.
10
I never cease to be amazed by the cowardice of so many Democrats. There's so much fear of putting forth a candidate who actually stands for something and wants to put forth bold ideas that people can get excited about. There's so much hand-wringing and arrogance about what "other people" will accept in a candidate. Of course, "I" am smart enough to see what's best but those (rust belt people/moderates/swing voters/Reagan democrats/centrist Republicans) will need someone bland and moderate in order to give us their votes, so we have to go in that direction. What utter nonsense!
Trump has handed us the greatest opportunity in decades to go fully back to our FDR roots and run on a platform that swings government back to of the people, by the people, and for the people. Those things are popular with the American public. But no, we can't push for things we want because it might offend some mythical sliver of the voting population pie.
For god's sakes, people, grow a backbone. And please stop worrying about what Republicans will think and do with a particular candidate. Who cares? They're Republicans. That's what they do. Get this into your heads: they're not going to vote for a Democrat, no matter how bland and centrist they are. Let's move on from shivering in the corner and lead!
11
Why isn't Elizabeth Warren a middle class fighter?
9
All the Democratic candidates support illegal immigration and totalitarian political correctness, as in the current purge of the impure in Virginia. These positions are unpopular with the majority of voters. And the Dems continue to commit political suicide in flyover country with their demands for more gun control, apparently unaware of the Electoral College. This is a party more interested in parading its virtuous ideology than in winning the White House.
3
Klobuchar being cruel to her staff people is an issue that will sink her. We already have an authoritarian bully in the white house, anybody who admires that sort of thing is more likely to vote for Trump.
10
Someone needs to come out as the Anti-Trump candidate and the Democratic campaign slogan should be, AMERICA DESERVES BETTER.
4
I like Klobuchar a lot. She is a complete antidote to Trump. She is smart, capable, hardworking and you get the sense that she won’t put up with any nonsense. We need someone like her to clean up the muck the current administration is creating both at home and abroad.
6
Once the country gets to know John Hickenlooper (former Govenor of Colorado) he will be a very stong candidate.
2
Now it would be interesting to learn how many Democrats may lose interest in the election or turn away from the Democratic Party in disgust if the nominee is not the kind they prefer.
I'm thinking especially of those who would be "my ideology" respondents to the survey you cited but whose specific focus is on identity representation -- or non-representation. In these comments sections, pleas for consideration of candidates regardless of identity always bring adverse replies from people explicitly intent on deposing white males from positions of power.
Given the stakes in the upcoming election, it's appalling to think anyone who is basically Democratic would not support the party's nominee, but I have real misgivings.
4
@Longestaffe -
--- "...how many Democrats may lose interest in the election..."
So long as Trump runs again in 2020 I doubt there will be very many who lose interest.
---"I'm thinking especially of those who would be "my ideology" respondents to the survey you cited but whose specific focus is on identity representation"
Even if some in these groups should lose interest I doubt it would make much difference in the outcome of an election. The reason is that presidential elections really hinge on who captures swing votes in swing states such as PA and OH. This is due to Electoral College math. And in the states that matter, the "identity politics" contingent of the Left are not a significant force. In states were you find more "identity politics" voters, states like NY and CA, the DEM party is strong enough to achieve a majority vote even with relatively low voter turnout.
DEM party leaders, when choosing a nominee, would do well to remember that. It's more important to get swing voters in PA than to achieve 100% turnout in CA or NY.
2
@J Jencks
Thanks. Point taken, and it's a good one.
1
Trumps’s election changed that type of thinking. Making assumptions and narrow thinking are now ‘Trumped’ out of fashion.
1
I'm still waiting for the NY Times editors to acknowledge the existence of Pete Buttigieg, who announced his interest in the candidacy about 2 weeks back.
They are sidelining him, not even including his name in some of the lists of candidates.
https://www.peteforamerica.com/
4
Please, stupid NYTimes, shut up with your stupid trolling of the mem that Amy Klobochar treats her staff badly! She has been enormously successful as a manager. That's why she's so popular. Most of her staff have worked for her for years!
Quit picking up (inyour deperate pursuit of "fairness" the negative comments of some misceant or a deliberately planted piece of misinformation to discredit good Democratic candidates. That's how we got Donald Trump! Times, the Media, and most mainstream media TV outlets couldn'lt quit talking about Hillary's emails! Nothing ever happened because of the leaks of Hillary's emails - nothing ! except the election of Donald J. Trump.
Don't be so stupid with Amy Klobochar. She's a prosecutor who has won every election she ever ran in because people who know her from Minnesota know how smart and fair she is!
Pay attention to what's important to voters - not the mem implants from fake news!!!!!! I'm sick of the waste of the news floosies who pick on the most trivial bit of nonsense and misinformation to discredit fabulous women candidates! Notice that it never happens with Republicans - just Democrats. Why do you think that is?
20
Hooray! Finally a moderate has joined the race. Here's hoping those of us with special interests don't shoot ourselves and by extension the party in the foot.
4
"When Republicans can paint a Democrat as an out-of-touch elitist — like they did Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore or Michael Dukakis — the Republican candidate often wins these voters. When Democrats can instead come off as middle-class fighters, they tend to win."
Klobuchar and Brown are near the top of my list of all the names currently being mentioned.
This article has a good analysis of who the "swing voters" are. Sanders already showed that he can persuade them as a "middle-class fighter". This is attested by polling that was done at the height of the primaries, in Spring 2016. Quinnipiac compared a Sanders/Trump contest to a Clinton/Trump contest and Sanders had a larger winning margin in every swing state polled.
Swing state voters are not put off by Sanders' "socialist" message because his "populist" message appeals to them more.
If Klobuchar or Brown (or a Klobuchar/Brown ticket?) can tap into that same dynamic, they could beat Trump where it matters, in states like PA, OH, WI, etc.
Quinnipiac 2016 polls:
https://poll.qu.edu/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?releaseid=2345
3
Signing up on the Green Deal will take lot of political capital explaining.
3
@Just Saying - Have you read the actual proposal present to Congress by AOC? A lot of the media's descriptions of it bear very little resemblance to what it actually says.
I encourage you to read it. She doesn't propose anything that isn't already being done in other wealthy, industrialized countries.
I'm a great believer in going to first sources when possible. Here it is:
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf
1
Not JOE BIDEN! He is too old, too banked up, too corporate and tone deaf- and that Anita Hill lie-fest! The young voters and some older ones like me do not want a party hack shoved down our throats like Hillary was. I stumped for Bernie in working class neighborhoods in Rhode Island. I saw none, not one Hillary sign in my town and only one in Rhode Island. Trump signs were everywhere, big custom signs paid for by the homeowners. Every person who I talked too told me that they either wanted Bernie or Trump.
I was not surprised when Trump won.
The Democratic Party supports him at their and the country's peril.
3
You should speak to more people. Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Sanders couldn’t beat Clinton.
2
@John - During the Spring 2016 primaries, Quinnipiac polled swing states, comparing a Sanders/Trump race to a Clinton/Trump race. Sanders had a wider winning margin in EVERY state polled. That is a very suggestive result, given that those were the states that Clinton lost to Trump and precisely the states she needed to win the Electoral College.
https://poll.qu.edu/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?releaseid=2345
8
"She is battling accusations of having been a harsh boss"
It's absurd we worry about this when Trump is far worse.
8
Maybe it's me but I hardly ever see stories about men being tough bosses.
Give me Amy's velvet glove and calm, progressive stance on the things that matter...and her obvious elect ability over warm and fuzzy anytime.
Now Amy, pick Cory or Beto as a running mate
3
@Bob Gorman
She's not a tough boss, she's a bad boss. There's a difference. There are stories all the time about men being bad bosses, which is why this newspaper is constantly running pieces about why men in the boardroom and the executive suite should be replaced by women.
What her staff describes is harassment, plain and simple. Just because it's not sexual harassment doesn't mean it doesn't count. When you throw things at people and berate them, keeping them in tears and in fear of you and in a constant stressed state, I can't trust you to be an advocate for employee rights and labor unions, among other things. I'd say the same if she were a man. Sorry, but no.
20
@Bob Gorman
There has been no shortage of discussion, including several recent books, about Trump's inadequacies as a boss.
2
In 2020, there will be candidate competing against Trump. It is very likely this candidate:
1) Isn't your first choice
2) Isn't 100% ideologically pure
3) Has made mistakes in their life
4) Might not really excite you all that much
5) Has ideas you are uncomfortable with
Please start the process of getting over this NOW, instead of waiting until 2020!
9
Do you know who the best candidate is for the Democrats is in 2020? Whoever wins the nomination.
The followers of the Vichy GOP have always understood US Elections are binary choices and you are voting for the PARTY, not the PERSON. They don't have to be "motivated" to go out and vote because they know if they didn't vote for their party - even if they didn't vote - they voted for the Democrat.
Because they know you have to WIN in order to govern, Evangelists voted for the most non-Christ like candidate to every run for office and free trade Republicans voted for a protectionist.
Democrats should fight for their candidate and their positions, argue with their friends but once the dust is settled, make sure they don't "hold your nose" or "sit it out" or God forbid make a "protest vote".
If their preference doesn't win the primary, they need to vow to work harder and be more persuasive for your views next time, try to register more voters, then shut the up and go in the booth and vote for everyone with a D by their name.
This election is too important to let ANY of the treasonous Vichy GOP or the grifter in chief win.
8
A Klobuchar/Brown or Brown/Klobuchar ticket?
2
@Stacy DeKeyser - I'd love to see that. In fact, I was having fantasies about them announcing a ticket in which they promise to switch places after the first 4 years.
2
Klobuchar/Abrams
The NYT believes any candidate is the President's "nightmare."
5
So Amy Klobuchar is known to be a strict - even "mean" - boss?
A couple of questions:
1) Are these allegations true? Is her public persona of nice completely at odds with her private image of The Boss from Hell?
2) If so, is this type of behavior typical among members of the Senate/Congress?
3) Are those of us who want Trump OUT going to have to find a PERFECT candidate to run against the MOST IMPERFECT candidate ever?
The irony is overwhelming...
10
@Marie S - If she were "nice" she would be criticized for being weak.
4
Why are all the democratic candidates so similar (and progressive) on policy issues? Because Bernie Sanders made them that way. Maybe historians will look back on his primary campaign as the real winner that changed the game.
9
Trump himself is a major issue, overriding many others that go away when he is ejected from office. Is it really any surprise that most of us would prefer that if he runs in 2020, he face someone who can defeat him? Not to diminish Klobuchar's and Brown's intrinsic and considerable strengths, most of us would rather vote for anyone not part of Trump's evil empire than for anyone who is.
2
Middle of the road is safe, but not the way to go right now. There is too much at stake to take a safe path. I only want to know about issues, not personalities. If Brown is boring so what. We have had enough of drama. If Klobuchar is harsh, she certainly does not come close to Trump and his outright hatred of anyone not like him. His staff turnover has to be the highest of any President to ever serve.
5
The only two nightmare candidates for Trump are Schultz and Bloomberg. Either paired with Klobuchar would win.
@JDL
I'm pretty sure people are done with billionaire businessmen for president. We're looking for an alternative and antidote to that, not more of the same.
9
@JDL - The only way to win the presidency is through the Electoral College and the only way to win that is to win key swing states like PA, OH, WI and a few others.
Another New York City billionaire is not the answer.
1
"Brown, as a middle-aged white guy not known for rhetorical greatness, will have to show he isn’t too boring..."
Because white people are boring? I find that phrasing pretty disrespectful, and borderline racist. Could you even imagine writing "Harris, as a middle-aged black lady not known for rhetorical greatness, will have to show she isn’t too boring..."
6
@Samuel Russell - Brown probably can't jump either.
I have said repeatedly for two years, "If Hillary Clinton had chosen Sherrod Brown as her running mate, we wouldn't be in the mess we currently find ourselves."
The Dems wouldn't have lost Ohio or Michigan. Senator Brown speaks plainly and clearly to hard working Democrats-you know, the ones who "took a chance" on Trump. The ones who are shaking their heads at their tax refunds. The ones whose steel mills or coal mines haven't reopened. and insult to injury aren't being given training opportunities for twenty first century jobs, and are still in danger of losing health care.
Other Democrats who enter the race may have a compelling economic message, but similar to Joe Biden, Sherrod Brown can speak to the part of the Democratic party who have been forgotten. I would love to see a Brown-Klobachar ticket. Another intriguing matchup might be Brown with a young, dynamic progressive who can keep a young voter momentum going- Beto "O"Rourke comes to mind. And as much as I adore Joe Biden, I hope that he and Bernie sit this one out!
6
I agree. I've been saying for awhile that a ticket of Klobachar/Brown or vice versa would work well for the Dems. And I'm no middle of the road Fem. I'm a Dem/Socialist. But a public Medicare for all universal healthcare plan won't happen without a 60 vote majority in the Senate.,But moving forward is a real possibility.
5
It's very simple what the Democrats need - somebody who will win in Rust Belt states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Frankly, I'd say nothing else matters. The other normally blue states will support whoever the candidate is. Don't make the mistake Hillary made, and do whatever it takes to win those key states. Only candidates who poll well in the Rust Belt should be seriously considered.
6
The reality is that Democrats can't act and govern the way they have for the last decade, then suddenly "tack" back to the center to recapture the voters they have literally shunned. What is Amy's position on the "Green New Deal"? Racial issues? Does she believe in white privilege? How about "believe all women" no matter what? The left fringe will eat her alive, and the right will see right through her. All while Trump is trending upward and somehow managing to look like the only adult in the room amid the chaos in Virginia, etc.
2
You want to know a person? Look at how they treat their subordinates.
I wouldn't trust Klobuchar to run this country, even for a good cause. People with abrasive personalities like that can rot an organization away from the top-down, as we've seen from this administration. They also generate scandal. As disgruntled staffers leave, they seek out the first reporter they find and dish out all the dirt.
We can't have that kind of drama going on regularly, either on the campaign trail or post-election as we try to rebuild the country.
8
@AJ Garcia - What actual proof is there of terrible behavior on her part? If she were "nice" I'm sure she would be criticized as too weak to be "presidential".
3
I don't think we've seen such a zoo of Democrat candidates since 1968. Of course, that worked out real well for the party.
3
If you think The Senators from Ohio or Minnesota would be a solid candidate you are sorely mistaken. They are not Presidential caliber.
This obsession national media has with pushing “centrists” and disparaging, directly or indirectly, anyone who represents the Progressive movement is getting tiresome.
4
Bloomberg as a resident of nyc once decried burden of high taxes there and said the rich (he?)had enough. Cuomo says don't talk about taxing the rich they're already responsible for 46% of nys's tax revenues. They'll leave. Pelosoi doesn't want to upset the insurance companies with talk of single payer. Since it's hard to find a good candidate in afield of plenty, let's not call it a Clown Car, that's reserved for the Republicans.
Let's call it the Magic Bus after Furthur of the Merry Band of Pranksters fame. The Democrats with they're identy politics have forgotten an important demographic nationally: Pot heads. Legalized marijuana has to be on the New Green Deal. Free Medical Marijuana for all.
Glad I could be a help.
1
So let's talk electability. If you want to play hardball political psychology, here's the story. It's not fair. It's sexist. It's potentially racist. But it's, unfortunately, true.
The choices look like some combo of
(Brown|Biden)/(Klobuchar|Harris)
Warren, who I respect for her policy positions and analytic sharpness, alas, is mortally wounded.
Trump, lord know why, represents a "strong" man to his followers, although he is clearly a weakling, super-empowered by an inheritance he neither earned (nor, as it seems legally passed on). But, it is what it is.
So the Democrats need a male on the top of ticket.
Biden/Harris works, as Biden neutralizes the working class issue. Harris works because virtually every black person in American will turnout for her. Flip it and you've got a loss. The left, to the extent that they come to grips with the rather messy track record of Harris, get the hope that Biden will die in office. Actuarially, without a good look at his medical history, it's more than possible.
Brown/Klobuchar also deals with the downsides of the sexual politics. Brown's politics might excite the Democratic base that's been pushing the Overton Window, Klobuchar's centrism provides some reassurance.
This is the sad state of our "democracy" when identity game playing (which the right, by the way, has been playing since before the Civil War) is central. But unfortunately, that's the deal.
2
Bernie Sanders will make a great President . You apparently don’t have any idea about the destruction of the American Middle class. In addition ,the naked racism of this Administration has made life even more difficult for immigrants and people of color. Their moronic attitude about the disabled and other devalued groups has been hurtful . Note: it’s not 1988 anymore-we’re well past Willie Horton .
4
Some commenters have already stated parts of what I am going to say, but I think that in order to beat Trump in 2020 (assuming he is not impeached, or resigns, because of findings by the Mueller investigation) the Democrats need to run a moderate, White, Christian male, preferably from either a mid-western state or a swing state. They absolutely should not run a woman or racial / ethnic minority candidate at the top of the ticket. Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Julián Castro and Elizabeth Warren would be the kiss of death, and they would all lose to Trump. I say this a Democrat and a Liberal, who hates Trump. After Obama, and now Trump, I think it's been shown that a large percentage of the electorate is simply just too racist and misogynistic to ever vote for another Black, or the first female President. It's sad, and pains me to say that, because I agree with all of the Democrats listed above, in terms of policy. Sherrod Brown would be one of the best candidates that the Democrats could run, but he may have a hard time making it through the primaries, competing against more famous, higher profile politicians, in order to get the nomination. I also really like Beto O'Rourke a lot too. The two of them running together would be a great ticket, regardless of who is at the top of the ticket.
4
Perhaps this isn't progressive enough for some, but a ticket of Brown as President and a woman (Klobuchar?) as VP is electable. (I realize that both are mid-Western.) In a later election, assuming all goes well during their terms, that woman will be elected President.
1
So here's the play: A gaggle of Democratic candidates all claiming to be "progressives" during the primaries yielding a nominee that runs to "the center" in the general election in 2020, and then if elected governs to "the center" in office. Don't get your hopes up for significant structural reforms, even if the Democrats take back the Senate. No "taxing the rich", no "Medicare for All", no "Green New Deal." As Obama demonstrated, Democrats in office, as opposed to those out of office, always find reasons they simply can't carry out their campaign promises even with a majority in Congress and a President in the White House. The real "fever dream" is the naive hope that the Democratic leadership cares more about "the middle class" than it does about Wall Street, insurance companies, and real estate developers.
@john riehle
And remember.....when a truly progressive idea like Obamacare was passed by a White House and both Houses of Congress-all of which were Democratically controlled-the voters quickly changed the dynamics of political control.
Slow change from the 'center' may work without punishment.
Radical hard left change will result in voters repeating what they had through the Obama years; a loss of many seats at both the Federal and State levels.
2
@Louis
Democrats lost voters after Johnson passed civil rights, voter rights, and economics rights acts. Was that the wrong thing to do? Would you have undone those things in order to get those voters back?
We don't have the luxury to stay in the safe, plodding middle and make slow change. Polls show the public doesn't want that anyway.
2
brown and klobuchar are our main choices for a democratic ticket.
please stop using labels, though, which tend to mislead and distort positions.
and please stop falling for "hit jobs", that are everywhere.
2
Leonhardt is spot on! Democrats, it is time to wise up, lay off distractions, and get to the business of winning. Policies are fine; however, without an Electable candidate amount to nothing.
Consider this simple equation: P(OLICIES) x E(LECTABILITY) = W(INNING)
Democrats must be CALCULATING! Policies and Electability are equally weighted in this equation. As such, Polices are of NO consequence without Electability.
Regardless of investigative findings, the Republican base approval is not going to change. Democrats must focus time and energy on identifying an Electable nominee poised enough to stay out of the POTUS mud hole...and WIN
1
Smarts, guts, integrity. Klobuchar has all the "right stuff".
1
I don't know you bother. With all of the Republican Governors, the election will be decided in the Electoral College. And, with all of the Republican vote fraud, Trump or some other Republican will be the next president.
I love these articles on the 'polls.
If one person has defied all logic when it comes to the "polling experts" it is Trump.
I now read articles about "polls" more as comic relief than fact.
Whom did Monmouth say would win the 2016 election?
I dare bet it wasn't Trump.
1
@Louis - Not just Monmouth, but the NYT's very own Upshot as well.
A big part of the problem is that many pollsters weren't polling the right thing. It doesn't matter what the national majority thinks. It's got to be done state by state, to account for the Electoral College. Also, probably due to budget and time constraints, a lot of polls have too small of sample groups, and therefore a wide margin of error.
One complaint: you used Florida as an example of moderates out-polling progressives. But the fact of the matter was that progressive Gilliam lost by only a fraction of a percent more than moderate Nelson (and Nelson was even an incumbent). It may mean nothing more than Florida is strange, but doesn't strike me as a warning against running progressives.
1
Great piece - the Republicans should not fear Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who appeals to a media savvy demographic on the coasts, but rather the Democrats who want to see substantive upward change in middle class incomes while maintaining the dignity and sanctity of work. I think Klobuchar is a force to be reckoned with.
@Mark Arizmendi
I'm getting tired of hearing this myth that progressive politics only plays well on the coasts. Bernie Sanders won most of his primaries in the middle of the country, not the coasts. How do you explain that? AOC is popular here too.
4
The Republicans absolutely need to deal with AOC, as she pulls the Overton Window left -- which also pulls the Center to left. She makes centrist position more viable.
"Many think of themselves as moderate and, strange as it may sound, many thought of Trump as moderate in 2016. "
This does not speak well of their cognitive capabilities. Apparently they can be taken in by a sufficiently skilled pitchman. Sad.
Excellent column. Both Klobuchar and Brown would be very strong Democratic candidates - smart, intuitively connective, consistent in their humanity and non-elitist (though Brown went to Yale). It's easy to forget that one of the things that made Bill Clinton such a popular president, despite his manifest failings, was his way of conveying that he truly cared about people, that underneath his slickness was a mensch. For these two midwestern senators, caring seems to come as naturally as breathing. And that's why they keep getting re-elected.
2
maybe, maybe not. wide swaths of the country (read middle) are not likely to support a woman, let's face it. The GOP is already starting its nonsense machine against Warren and Harris. "She's shrill!" sounds like a redux to me. Brown is good, but dull. Plus, we have an extreme left wing that won't support a centrist and would just as soon vote 3rd party, to its own demise (see 2000 and 2016). Dems need to rally around a good, left of center (not leftist) candidate and turn out the vote. But, I am not optimistic
I will never vote for a candidate who accepts/supports US regime change policies such as Venezuela, Iraq, Libya, Syria.
I will vote for Senator Bernie Sanders, assuming he runs. And I hope his Vice President is Congressman Ro Khanna CA
The women candidates are inclined to support military action, perhaps feeling that being strong means being very willing to use military force. Some new women in Congress know strength differently and will be wonderful future candidates.
I haven't forgotten Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright saying "...we think the price its worth it.", answering a question from CBS's Lesley Stahl referring to the five hundred thousand Iraqi children who died because of US sponsored sanctions.
I haven't forgotten Hillary's debate statement about the US Libya "intervention", "being Smart Power at its Best", and which left Libya a totally broken country.
I did not vote for Hillary, and I was relieved when Trump was elected, because the Democratic Party was in desperate need of creative destruction. Some good in Democratic Party potential has come from reaction to the Hillary debacle and the unpleasantness of Trump.
I refuse to vote for a President who may make US life better, but who does so with the cost being the wrecking of countries and being responsible for the deaths and misery of millions
3
@Lucy Cooke
We don't need Trump voters like you concern trolling the Democratic party and primaries.
Bernie lost, and will not be running on the Democratic ticket again. Good luck finding him on the third or fourth column of your ballot.
1
Sherrod Brown is no big thing, but Amy Klobuchar could be—maybe. What anyone has to explain to American voters is how they plan to deliver on what they promise—through the Congress, the states, the courts, the bureaucracy. (You all may get your chuckles from Trump, but he’s a fighter.)
Trump will be in prison before 2020.
As for Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown, they are Hillary Clinton 2.0. They are also the Democrat's nightmare. We don't need old fashioned Republicans in Democrat's clothing. We need what that bastion of liberalism, Germany has. We need Universal single payer health care and free University education. That conservative puppets call this a radical policy, and the media lets them get away with it, is amazing. One wonders if we have reporters or stenographers.
5
“They all favor policies to lift incomes and reduce living costs for the middle class and poor. They all favor tax increases on the rich. They all favor climate action, voting rights and expanded Medicare.”
News flash: that is exactly the choice that faced voters in 2016 too. But the smear campaign conducted by Bernie Sanders was very effective in painting Hillary Clinton as a corrupt tool. Result: 12% of his adoring minions voted for Trump. Another large cohort voted for Jill Stein.
And he’ll do it again, helped along by groups like “justice democrats.”
2
@Lisa
Hillary Clinton IS a corrupt tool. That has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.
2
I offer my voting strategy for 2020, for what it's worth. In the terms of this piece, my vote in the primary is determined by ideology (I vote for the candidate whose views most reflect my own, reasoning that how can I hope to see my agenda adopted otherwise), and I vote for electability in the general election (a D next to the candidate's name; if my primary choice wasn't shared by a plurality of voters in my party's primary, then how can I hope for progress at all, rather than regress? If they have chosen someone else, I can argue for a better choice next time, but anyone chosen to face Trump is a better choice this time).
1
I hope that Democrats learned a lot from the 2016 election. Because of her historical baggage and vulnerabilities, and the utter contempt with which she was viewed by Republicans, Hillary Clinton was not a strong candidate. Even people who disagreed with her centrist politics championed her because she would have made great history had she won the election. So yes, this time I want a strong candidate who will win and help rid this country of the hypocrites who run it now. And because things are not normal today, it is not surprising that the Monmouth University poll turned out the way it did.
@EMiller
Yes, Hillary was such a weak candidate that she got 3 million more votes than Trump, and would have been president if not for Russian interference and Comey's last minute re-opening of the endless, pointless emails investigation.
2
I think a ticket of Amy Klochubar and Sherrod Brown, or the other way around, aide by enthusiastic support from people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Barack and Michelle Obama and Joe Biden would be hard to beat. Reactionary conservatives have always embraced people like Trump because their fearmongering unsettled people who love Social Security but fear Socialism; love Medicare but fear "Socialized" medicine; love and value families but fear families who need help to survive.
Klochubar and Brown have managed to explain their values and virtues to a broad range of voters and that has rewarded them again and again.
It would help all the Democratic candidates if they consistently reminder folks that Social Security and Medicare were resisted by reactionary conservatives and the Republicans they financed, many of whom wouldn't dream of faulting them or calling them socialist with a capital "S" today.
Sherrod and Amy could do that better than all the rest. Medicare for All and Free College for All are nonstarters for most voters. Means testing (like making under $60,000 a year) to be eligible for Medicare and free tuition to a public college would make much more sense to a vast majority of voters: And few would dare call it Socialism.
1
So far, there isn't a single declared Democratic candidate for president who isn't qualified and able.
And so far, every news outlet has focused entirely on propaganda, Trump's and other GOPers' insults of these candidates (without any pushback at all by the reporters/stenographers/talking head entertainers), and polls. The 2016 horse race model of political reporting is in full throated shallowness.
When news coverage drops this failed and dangerous process and product and instead investigates the candidates' policy positions along with the strength of their arguments for those (the evidence and facts to support their positions), then I'll be interested.
Until then, we are on our own. Journalism is failing the citizenry and is arguable endangering our form of government.
6
I agree with Mr. Leonhardt that since the differences on the issues among the Democratic candidates are a matter of degree not kind, electability is the key distinguishing factor. Where I disagree is that anyone is now in a position to evaluate the electability of any of the candidates. What is clear is that the political views and allegiances of Americans are changing rapidly and in ways that were unanticipated even a few months ago. Consider current polling data on healthcare, taxes, inequality or guns. Scientists and engineers understand that future predictions based on observed data are only reliable when the variables involved have similar values as they did when the data were measured. Predicting likely future political behavior from past election data only works so long as most Americans world views and allegiances are stable. I don't think that's true any longer. The right-wing extremism of Trump and the Republicans have changed so many Americans views on so many issues that I think it's not at all clear who is or is not likely to be electable. Instead of pretending that we can predict Americans response a priori, let's instead do something truly radical and wait and listen to what Americans have to say and how they feel about the various candidates. We have a year to determine the best and most electable candidate.
1
During the Kavanaugh Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings, among the committee’s Democratic senators thought to be possible 2020 presidential contenders (we know who they are), there were grandstanders and there was a serious person. Senator Klobacher was the serious person.
8
Hillary would have won had she put Brown on her ticket, as she was urged to do. But no, too populist for Hillary and she would beat Trump anyway, right?
3
Some Republican party leaders have branded Brown as having a "fake-populist agenda." I hope they keep repeating that line. Sherrod Brown's record of support for workers and working families is strong and ong and they will soon see the error of this statement--as Brown turns it against Trump, the actual "fake-populist."
4
I want to hear less about lower health care costs and more about LOWER Heath Care PROFITS. Much like the incarceration industry, big Pharma, health insurers and hospital conglomerations seem to be able to write their own tickets with little oversight and no repercussions for exorbitant increases. It's not a fever dream. Medicare for all would be possible if a months worth of medications didn't charge the patient $1,000 and up, if a doctors appointment didn't incur a $300 bill for a 15 minute visit and if a hospital bed was not priced like the presidential suite at a five star hotel. I get it. There are overhead costs to run a business and maintain the edifice of medical corporations but maybe that's the problem.
2
@RT1 Health “insurers” (in quotation for a reason—Health Plans now assume the risk for significantly less than 50% of their members) do not make meaningful profits on medical benefit plans. These companies earn their money from other products and services, including, notably, their data warehouses. The government regulates margin on insured business and the market regulates (through competition) profit on administrative fees for self-insured business. Fact.
1
A surfeit of fine choices for the Democrats; a nice problem to have for sure. Honestly, you can put all their names in a hat and draw any two for a good ticket.
But, as Mr. Leonhart correctly describes, focus must be on who can beat trump and, at this point, a Brown/Klobuchar (in that order, sadly) ticket is probably the way to go.
As Al Davis said, "just win, baby". That must be the Democratic mantra. We've no time for ideological purity.
4
Elizabeth Warren. Sanders is over and Sherrod and Klobuchar are Republican lite.
That's why the Establishment Democrats and the Establishment New York Times are pushing them.
Elizabeth Warren terrifies them...and Trump,too.
3
Cute. Both are middle-of-the roaders that will have an awful time getting out of the primary battles.
Interesting that the author avoids the flock of loons who will de running the moderates into the ground and of course the abortion and Green plan may have torpedoes any Dem nominee from winning.
Show me a Dem candidate who will reject the far left categorically and still pull votes and I will take a look but until then President Trump looks to be a lock for a second term...
Good column, but you left out Senator Elizabeth Warren!
“In the 2020 field, two Democrats have the strongest track record of running as middle-class fighters: Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown.”
Let's fix that for you!
“In the 2020 field, three Democrats have the strongest track record of running as middle-class fighters: Amy Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown, AND Elizabeth Warren.”
3
I've got one question for the Democratic contestants -- how do you plan to take back the Senate in 2022? What are you going to do to ensure we win PA, MI, IO, FL, NC and FL?
Without those wins all else is pie-in-the-sky.
P.S. We don't need one more narcissist in the Oval Office (I'm looking at you Obama).
Right on, David.
The key to a Democratic victory in 2020 is a centrist, middle and working class economic message. This would de-emphasize the social stuff and focus on the economic stuff that matters to the middle class and the working class. It's the economy for the working class, stupid. Health care and working wages and benefits. It's NOT whether transgender can serve in the military, Nancy. Get out of your NARROW home district self interest and look at the national picture. You are flawed if, as a NATIONAL leader, you cannot do that. Nancy, you could set us back another 4 years if you are not careful.
1
Thanks for the article on these two candidates. I do take exception to your characterization of a candidate's support for Medicare for All as, "like the fever dream of eliminating private health insurance." You include a link to a previous op ed piece with the headline The Medicare-for-All Trap with a subheading note about taking away people's health insurance.
Please note that Medicare for All does not take away people's health insurance. It is a plan to cover all Americans with Health Insurance. Some versions of proposed bills . e.g., the former HR676 - Expanded and Improved Medicare for All, do have a plan to eliminate private health insurance through phasing the private insurance out. It would be replaced with other health insurance coming from a single payer, the federal government. This would cover everyone in the US without exception, and end up costing less than the inefficient patchwork that we currently have in place through the multitude of private, for-profit insurers.
"Get more for your money," sounds like a popular selling point if you look at Medicare for All through the eyes of the consumer rather than through the lens of the private health insurance lobbyists.
3
The insight here is that swing voters are most likely to be economically liberal but social, if not conservatives, then moderates. This helps to explain why economically moderate/conservative but socially liberal candidates like Bloomberg and Howard Schultz aren't getting any traction (to my dismay as that is where I stand).
I do think that the candidate who runs against the corruption of Washington by lobbyists and corporations will do well, and rightly so. The system is rotten to the core.
1
The "awfulness" of the Trump presidency?
Is it "awful" that the economy is growing at 3%? Is it "awful" that the minority unemployment rate is at all time lows?
Is it "awful" that NATO members are now beginning to pay their fair share?
Is it "awful" that South Korea is now paying a larger share for defense?
Is it "awful" that people are now keeping more of the money they earn?
5
What’s awful is that as a blue collar household, we’re paying thousands more in federal taxes in California, and million and billionaires are paying millions less.
What’s awful, is that dairy farmers in the Midwest are going bankrupt over a tariff policy that should have been “easy to win”.
What’s awful, is that the kids in my family can’t afford to go to college without signing up for the military and the possibility of going to war in Venezuela or guarding our southern border in a “Trumped up” emergency. While doing that, they cannot go to class and finish their degrees.
What’s awful is that the infrastructure of our country continues to fall apart while Trump continues to spend his time watching coverage of himself on TV in the White House and not studying the problems in front of the citizens of this country. Problems like lack of access to healthcare, climate change, lack of and a place to live, clean water and access to education. He and his cabinet members don’t care because they have no idea what that experience is like.
What’s awful is our president cares more about his hair and makeup than he does about you and me.
9
@N Riano
But, but he's soooo mean...
It's definitely awful that the labor participation rate is increasing under Trump (currently at 63.2% from about 62.5% when he started).
It's definitely awful that wage growth came in at over 3% January.
Definitely awful that our President is ACTUALLY dealing with the Chinese trade deficient and intellectual property theft.
Definitely awful that the US is now a net energy exporter, much to the detriment of Russia (primary export is oil/NG).
Definitely awful that someone is trying to control illegal migration.
The list goes on and on.
There is such hypocrisy when the left accuses Trump of authoritarianism then comes out with this Green New Deal idea (endorsed by at least 3 Democratic Presidential candidates) that advocated for Soviet-style governmental control of business and individual freedoms.
But, but, his attacks on the press are stifling free speech! Hmmm, not really seeing any news outlets getting shutdown or moderating their criticism of Trump. What I do see are leftists shouting down opposing conservative speakers and rioting in the name of anti-fascism.
Do the leftist journalists and politicians really think their hard turn to the left, even with supposed moderates line Amy Klobucher and Sherrod Brown, will win back Midwest states. Heck, Trump brought back 600,000 manufacturing jobs that Obama thought were lost forever.
Good luck with selling your story.
is it awful to have a President who favors Putin over his own intelligence community? Is it awful that when Putin exerts his influence again in Eastern Europe , an impotent Nato cannot be counted on because "they haven't paid their fair share"?
Is it awful that our President skipped the draft and dissed a real hero in John Mcain?
2
The poll on electability asked Democratic voters, "Which type of candidate would you prefer if you had to make a choice between: a Democrat you agree with on most issues but would have a hard time beating Donald Trump or a Democrat you do NOT agree with on most issues but would be a stronger candidate against Donald Trump?" If you think that the Democrats' best chance of winning involves a candidate who most Democrats do not agree with on most issues, please do not offer Democrats any advice leading up to 2020.
4
@NoahZ
I think you stopped reading too soon. He goes on to say that the differences between the actual Democratic candidates are small.
But yes, the poll asks a good question. My answer is that I would vote for a potted plant if I were convinced that it could beat Trump.
Elect a Democrat first. Any Democrat. And then petition him or her to adopt the policies you prefer. If Trump wins this election, there may never be another.
1
There is one question every Democratic primary voter should ask the candidate:
Is health care in this wealthy Republic a basic human right, or not?
If so, what are you going to do to ensure that right is protected?
5
Politicians need to win voters not states!! Unless we are going to continue to support the archaic, elitist, undemocratic, and totally absurd Electoral College. In that case, you are correct. States are more important than people.
2
@Joseph Thomas
You do remember that Hillary had a pretty big Electoral College advantage going into the last election right? Everyone was saying how Trump had to 'thread the needle' to be able to get to 270. I personally believe it was that strong Electoral College advantage held by Clinton that convinced Paul Ryan, the ultimate Political Calculator, to calculate he did not have a chance to beat her. Rachel Maddow could not contain her glee when she opined about the 'landslide' that Clinton would see in the Electoral College. Yet your Candidate still lost. And instead of asking yourself why you insisted on that particular Candidate, you blame the Electoral College? Not a good sign for your prospects in 2020. Electoral College is going NOWHERE without a Constitutional Amendment.
5
@Joseph Thomas
The Founding Fathers that drafted the Constitution were brilliant in the development of the electoral college. How to get smaller states to agree to join the Union and not get dominated by the larger states? First set up 2 houses of Congress, one based on population the other giving each state equal representation. Next, set up an election system that ensured that large population centers do not ALWAYS determine national leaders. Do we really think California values play well in Kansas? Of course not.
This system forces leaders to represent the entire country not just the big population centers.
Sorry for the Civics lesson, but you seem unclear as to the why's and how's of the Constitution.
3
@GregP
1. Doesn't it bother you that two of our last three Presidents were chosen by the Electoral College but received fewer votes than another candidate?
2. I know how the Constitution is amended.
And you're correct that the Electoral college isn't going anywhere.
3. I never said who my candidate was but for the record, it wasn't Trump.
Amy Klobachar is the real deal. Midwestern roots and values. will not sink the economy by racking up debt but also recognizing that the working class, including the middle class is being left behind.
FreeFreeMarkets wrote about her during the election cycle in which Trump was elected. Her moderation is what the country needs. ... lstrn.us/2E2QBTz
4
@sbanicki
What exactly are these famous midwestern values you speak about?
Paul Ryan’s? Mitch McConnell’s?
Or that enemy of the people ex-governor of Wisconsin whom I don’t even want to name?
The niceties of such terms are well over-worn their welcomes.
We need progressive fighters: I couldn’t care less if they come from The Bronx, Kalamazoo, Honolulu or Burlington.
4
One of the main reasons for opposing Trump is to reject his cruelty and bullying.
If Klobuchar is the nightmare boss that is portrayed in recent articles, I certainly don't want her as our standard bearer.
It has nothing to do with gender. Cruelty and mistreatment of workers is a non-starter for me MALE or FEMALE!
1
I disagree with one sentence, the races in Georgia, Florida and Texas. The first two had to do with voting problems. If Beto said what the Senator from Co. said after the elections He might of won. What Texan would vote for someone who was for the Federal Gov't taking their land. Rember that going forward.
1
Ed, you are right! The progressive Democrats nearly won in Florida and Georgia, and had there not been electoral shenanigan, racial discrimination, and voter suppression, they would have won. Beto nearly won, too, in Texas.
The issue is combining improved turnout with economic, progressive populism to appeal to the independents and working class. The Democrats have a number of progressive candidates who can do just that!
1
If progressives and young folks had turned out to vote, you mean. Because if they had, the Right’s rotten behavior wouldn’t have mattered.
As a liberal, I am not voting for a white democrat. They have done ZERO things for me as a minority. ZERO votes for these candidates.
1
Consider the last 50 years of American history: if you have ANY health insurance, public education, and environmental protection, it’s because white Democrats worked for them.
4
@Robert Schnelle unless as black people they work. They owe everything they have to you.
How racist.
With perhaps a stable of narcissists reaching forty plus, preening weekly for the cameras from an increasingly radicalized Democratic Party, so detached from polls not conducted by themselves, what are the odds on either Klobuchar or Brown, if foolish enough to enter this circus, making it past the first act. Absolutely zero David Leonhardt is your answer. Calling for moderation in an echo chamber of shrill leftism becoming amplified daily by a compliant never questioning media is an absurdist dream knowing full well the nightmare that approaches.
You and your media cohorts have unleashed a parade of excess that is bound to continue by not castigating the obvious while encouraging excess compounded by intellectual sloth. Neither Klobuchar nor Brown are in any way qualified to be elected President of their local PTA let alone a U.S. President. We don’t need more opportunists, but instead proven leaders with international acumen and pragmatism as a mantra, not ideologues and sycophants preaching to others equally inept and uniformed.
2
Grant, not sure what you are railing about!
First off, you're obviously not following the news as Klobuchar declared her candidacy yesterday!
Second, sweeping ad hominem attacks, such as not qua,ivied to be president of a PTA, tell us far more about your lack of rational thinking than co tribute to the discussion!
Third, attacking the media in such fashion, too, is ridiculous — this is one columnist expressing his opinion about the need for a candidate who can appeal on progressive economic grounds. Not sure what you're going on about given that most of the candidates who have announced or might (well under 20, not over 40 as you blithely assert) are pragmatists and have intellectual,and international bonafides.
You know full well that Trump has none of their qualifications and is making a mess of things, domestically and internationally!
3
Wikipedia is our bestet buddy. It telleth us that Sherrod Brown has a BA from Yale in Russian studies, an MA and MPA from Ohio State in education and public admin, a couple terms as a State rep, a couple terms as Ohio’s Secretary of State, six terms as a Congressman, and now two or three terms as a senator.
I bet if you look, Klobuchar’s not far behind.
I mean, of course they’ve not got Trump’s sterling credentials, but still...
2
Speaking of knowing absolutely zero, do you have the slightest idea about the people you’re howling at?
2
Who keeps Trump up all night tossing and turning in his bed? Right now, it is Elizabeth Warren. He is so obsessed with her that it is almost criminal. What is it about Elizabeth’s message and persona that threatens him so much? Bernie Sanders also makes Trump very nervous. What is consistent is that Trump will relentlessly attack the candidate who can do the most damage to his campaign. If Trump ignores a candidate, it is because they have no chance of flipping his voters.
8
Drop the abolish ICE/Open Borders, drop the mandatory medicare for all and some of the other strong solcialist fads and you may just get enough moderates back.
Few Democrats and none of the presidential candidates have called for abolishing ICE, although anyone who has read about its creation and its role understands that it is not needed. It has gone its mandate. Note: ICE is different from Border Control.
Not a single Democrat has called for “open borders”. You're just spewing rightwing radio and rightwing media (Fox Fake News) talking points.
Medicare for All is an idea whose time has come. You may like private, for-profit, greed based health insurance, but it has proven inefficient, ineffective, costly, and inegalitarian. Every single other advanced Western democracy has some form of universal public health insurance or health care. It's well past time that we do, too!
2
Here we go again with the NY Times putting their fingers on the scale for a "moderate" who won't address the real issue: wealth inequality. Fix that and you fix the rest.
4
I like a Biden Klobuchar combination. I really think that combination in some form would be an absolute winner. I just don't think that Biden would do another stint as VP, and not sure if Klobuchar would play number 2.
1
I once fielded fifty ponies to challenge the defending champion, and when I did the math I figured I outweighed him 25 to one. The rascal still managed to beat me, because so many of my stiles took off sideways, and I later discovered some of them to be mules, and one donkey that just sat there. The bookies even gave me fifty to one odds, and later encouraged me to try again. Upon reflection, I concluded the race must have been rigged. I mean, come on, 50 to 1.
I love all Democrats. Joe Biden is too old. Kirsten Gillibrand
and Beto O'Rourke.
1
If the Democrats somehow, someway nominate a dead squirrel in 2020, I'll canvas, contribute to, and vote for the dead squirrel with all my heart!
A dead squirrel won't undermine our nation with Putin. A dead squirrel won't hand the treasury over to 500 billionaires. A dead squirrel won't foul our public land and water. A dead squirrel won't take healthcare away from millions of Americans. A dead squirrel won't lie and babble incoherently.
The worst thing the dead squirrel will do is rot and stink. We can then bury the the squirrel in the Rose Garden to solve that problem.
Anyone or anything other than Trump in 2020!!!
4
I find it almost impossible to wrap my head around the fact that anybody who voted for Obama could also cast a vote for Donald Trump - his antagonist and polar opposite.
Let's face it, many people vote based on charisma and charm. It's not any specific policy, or even personality trait.
Elizabeth Warren has demonstrable charisma - by all accounts she was a stellar teacher. She has made a huge impact on Democrats, even before she was elected - SHE gave us the Consumer Financial Protection bureau - SHE, not Obama, was it's chief promoter and advocate. She's smart, and she listens, and is not afraid to fight for what she believes in and to call out Trump in the way he so richly deserves. Her passion, sincerity, working class Oklahoma roots and gift for education will all resonate with the public.
Her identification with her native American roots is a non-issue and can easily be neutralized in any debate with Trump by pointing out that he assumes the worst motives in everybody else because that is how he has operated his whole life. I can't wait for somebody to point out the fact that Trump was a "landlord" at age 3 earning 200K a year. There is NOBODY phonier than Donald Trump and I can't wait for him to be put in his place by someone who's not afraid to irritate him.
6
And to bring up his racist housing policies and failure to live up to TWO court ordered and agreed to settlements!
His racism is palpable. Sure, it would be better if Warren hadn't tried to game the system in some fashion by claiming Native American lineage — writing in that she was Native American or American Indian was a mistake, but it amounts to very little arrayed against Trump's racism, Daddy support, his own affirmative action in getting into Wharton, his misuse of bankruptcy, stiffing working people, illegally hiring foreign workers, stiffing contractors, violating laws on campaign funds, illegal PERSONAL use of his foundation's donation, his fake Trump University, etc.
She didn't try to game the system. For one, she didnt need to. And everyone who hired her said it wasnt an issue.
1
Klobuchar is more than just electable. She is eminently qualified. She is one of the most productive members of the senate in terms of bills introduced and passed. She has political gravitas on both sides of the aisle. And anyone who listens to her speak regularly understands that she grasps the common sense of issues that affect most Americans.
Beyond all this, she is a much more likable and personable candidate than Hillary Clinton (a criticism I thought was unfair, but proved to be very real on election day). Her message is hopeful and positive - something we lose sight of nowadays but is essential to getting people to vote.
Klobuchar's difficulty will be winning the primaries against a stacked field of qualified candidates. But if she finds a way to navigate that gauntlet, it will mean that she has captured millions of hearts and minds along the way. She has my vote.
2
Much of Canada is cheering for the Democrats, not that we can do anything.
I think you can win on economic issues but race is the hidden elephant in the room. I read a superbly written article in the Atlantic magazine about a year and a half ago analysing how racism helped swing the vote to Trump. I know the Republicans have been using this strategy for years but it was critical two years ago.
2
@Scott Not this Canadian who has seen his wealth almost double under Trump! We just elected a provincial premier who makes Trump look like Lamar Alexander ! And yes, he (Doug Ford) got a lot of his votes from conservative "new" Canadians !
I like both candidates, but unfortunately, if Sherrod Brown leaves the Senate, we will never get that seat back, which means we won’t get to 50-51 Democratic senators in 2020. Based on that alone, Klobuchar is the better choice.
2
I get very upset with terms like "fever dream" with Medicare for All. Ten years ago, no one was talking about Medicare for All. Now everyone is. It's called the Overton Window - you have ideals, and you move the discourse and the narrative toward those ideals. Nothing in a true democracy is ever a fever dream. Was civil rights in the South in the 1920s a "fever dream"?
Perhaps, but it was worth fighting for. Saying fever dream is the language of reactionaries.
6
Then there are no true democracies.
By the way...you might find finding out what separates a “representative,” from a “direct,” democracy to be of help.
I agree that an authentic fighter for middle (and working) class voters is the best recipe for defeating Trump. Strange then, that the one (likely) candidate who has best demonstrated the ability to fight for workers, was absent from the story- that being Senator Bernie Sanders.
3
Can we ask our questions a little deeper and with more conviction?
What is it that Brown and Klobuchar stand for besides generic categories of working place and lowering healthcare costs? Who doesn’t want that? Bloomberg? Harris?Booker? Not to mention Bernie and Liz.
Bernie stands for redistribution and Liz stand for predestribution. Both are theoretically and practically defensible (Scandinavia, Canada are excellent social democracy examples).
They both have actual economic plans to pay for what they are asking for. Backed up by Saez, Zucman and Reich. All superb academics.
The problem again is that David is paid by the Times which is center right and always has been.
By the way, first time I heard of the Monmouth University and it’s poll.
4
I agree with you that it’s important to ask deeper questions. However, your criticism is somewhat beside the topic of this piece. If you think he should write a different piece then fair enough. But by criticizing The NY Times for having a political stance (as debatable as that may be) you open yourself up to the same sort of dismissal. I’ve been hearing about Monmouth University polls for years. They’re rated A by FiveThirtyEight.com.
3
Then you need to get out more.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-pollsters-to-trust-in-2018/
1
@Robert
Ha ha. Nate Silver, an undergrad statistics major who failed so miserably in 2016.
I better stay indoors then!
2
Nearly half of Democratic voters are “people of color” and here we have a white writer using his white privilege and position of power to pick a dream team consisting of no people of color.
I’m not sure that’s going to go over well.
Oh really, Nate Silver said so? Isn't he the guy who had us all gaping and gasping for words when DT pulled the rug out from under Hillary?
1
No, he’s the guy who kept wearily trying to explain to people that polls do not predict a blessed thing, but merely state probabilities. Also that “highly probable,” does not mean, “fer sure,” and that Trump’s final 23% polling meant that he had a little better than one chance in five.
1
Sherrod Brown, maybe.
"The Senator Next Door" (title of her memoir, gag), only as a last resort.
“[Amy Klobuchar] is battling accusations of having been a harsh boss...”
Really? Characteristics that are admired in men are disapproved of in women. A man is an assertive go getter who takes charge. While a woman is an aggressive and bossy shrew. In addition to all else Amy Klobuchar must battle sexism.
I suspect many of the staffers who are complaining are of the generation when everyone received participation awards in school. True achievers had their success downplayed so feelings wouldn’t be hurt. In Klobuchar’s generation only producers were rewarded, everyone else was told to work harder if they wanted recognition.
1
"The actual swing voter leans decidedly left on economics, in favor of tax increases on the rich, opposed to Medicare cuts and skeptical of big business. Still, these swing voters don’t think of themselves as radical. They are typically patriotic and religious. "
And this points to the Dems' biggest obstacle to the White House: that their message of liberal economic reform will be drowned out by the authoritarian left's race-gender-sexuality-ethnicity obsessions which currently dominate public life.
Of course, conservatives engage in identity politics. But the left's form of identity politics is so aggressive, pervasive, punitive and impossible to navigate, that everyone feels like they are one misstep from being ruined as Bigot.
The vast majority of Americans *hate* living under this kind of social-cultural tyranny, and fairly or unfairly, it is associated with Democrats.
Liberals often wonder why traditional, conservative Americans would vote Republican, and therefore against their economic interests. That's like wondering why a black man would not vote for Bull Connor just because he offered a better tax break.
"It's the social justice warriors, stupid."
3
You really think leftists have forced Americans to live under “tyranny.”
Well, my gosh. Huh. Lookit that.
Hey, where WAS this, exactly? Did we get to goosestep and have gulags and stuff?
@Robert
It was next to where the “fascists” are rounding people up in Trump Country..
1
@Robert
Not all tyranny is at the hands of government. People lose their jobs and reputations for being "unwoke." This is not news.
I think Sherrod Brown would be the smartest choice for Democrats. His record, his policies and his demeanor would help put America back on track after the debacle of the current administration.
1
Swing voters did not switch from Obama to Trump to the Democrats. The Democrats won all three of those elections resoundingly. Only our stupid electoral college fouled things up by awarding the presidency to a man who didn't win the popular vote--AGAIN.
The key, therefore, is not to find some centrist who straddles all three of these elections, but rather to find a candidate who can win battleground states rich in electoral votes: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin for starters.
Klobuchar and Brown are good midwesterners, but there's no reason somebody like Elizabeth warren or even Beto O'Rourke can't speak to middle class voters in those states who've been left behind in the new economy.
1
Brown doesn’t have a chance at the nomination the left will only accept a woman or minority. My bet is senator Harris ,gender and race with one stone.
The only DEM who can win is the one who can beat Trump. Neither one of these can do that without being bullied and crushed like a gnat. Maybe Bernie, maybe Di Blasio, maybe Warren, we'll have to see. It sure isn't going to be either of these two.
Sherrod Brown is the real deal. He would make an excellent president. He is smart and rational, an antidote to trumpism.
What if Putin doesn't run Trump for reelection?
Sherrod Brown is the man. Check out his YouTube videos. And his wife is extraordinary. They both need a “makeover “ but that shouldn’t be a big deal.
The Democrats' 2016 Presidential nominee won the popular vote by more than 3,000,000 votes, on a centrist/rightward leaning platform. The key to victory for Democrats in 2020, is the same centrist 'steady as she goes' approach, but this time with a nominee that is a natural politician (i.e. an Obama, not a Hillary), ideally from a red state, and ideally with executive (i.e. governor) experience. The key to a humiliating Democratic loss in 2020, a la McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis, is to go hard left, threaten to take away private/employer-provided healthcare (that 8 or 10 voters depend on), focus on new and better taxes, taxes, taxes (which start with the 'rich' but always have a sneaky way of moving down the income scale) etc. etc. If the Democrats can be effectively portrayed as the party of AOC, Warren and Sanders, the election is already lost. Your typical NYT commentator sincerely believes the entire USA is yearning for a Marx+Lenin ticket, but there are not, and never will be, 270+ electoral votes in that approach. Get real or go home early.
1
Breaking news: voters, for the most part, haven't cared a whole lot about competency, experience or the candidate's platform. If they did, Hillary would have won -- twice. All voters want is someone who appears to be a leader. Obama captured the general public's imagination for a better future. Trump captured the imagination of racists, isolationists, misogynists, xenophobes and the Russians. Will 2020 be any different? Will voters stop looking for "likability"? I sure hope so.
Since when is being a tough boss (e.g., Amy) a negative for being President? Tough but fair is a plus. Brown is also a serious contender. Nice column. From your lips to God's ears... moderation is not a sin, and if recent election outcomes are any indication the "hard left" option is not a winner.
1
Women are driving the Democrat resurgence, so while Brown may speak to the working class; Klobuchar ultimately will speak to working women at every level. Trump will not know how to address a female, former prosecutor, who will hold him accountable to all of his incompetence and cruelty.
Americans are tired of the chaos. Amy appears to bring a quiet strength to her candidacy which may be the perfect Trump antidote.
112
@BryanWhat proof do you have of any chaos or that Americans are tired of it?
1
@Bryan Klobuchar has already spoken too loudly AT her staff. If we want the most electable candidate it won't be another woman. We tried that and it failed. However, if a woman wins the nomination I will vote for. In fact, I will vote for anyone over Trump.
2
@Sady Try watching any news organization other than Fox and InfoWars. Chaos in the West Wing. Chaos at the Southern Border. Chaos with NATO, China, and Russia. Not to mention N Korea, Syria, and Afghanistan.
12
I love it when pundits attempt to ascribe rationality to emotional choices. Good stuff!
The author did something I find very troubling; he cited a poll on Medicare for All that was conducted by a private insurance company.
That is de facto conflict of interest and the poll should be viewed with skepticism. I will never, ever support Kobluchar in the primary. She is a corporatist.
2
Kaiser Family Foundation is pretty much the gold standard for health studies, along with CDC, and as independent as it gets. I recommend reading their excellent primers and surveys; at least you’d know what single-payer is, and what kind of public support it has.
Here’s a hint: depends what questions you ask. And I don’t find seeing lefties cherry-pick numbers one bit more enticing than seeing Trumpists do it.
In fact, it’s worse. We’re spozed to be the good guys.
1
@David
Unfortunately, your stance can be interpreted as de facto Trumpist.
1
It’s quite possible HRC would have won in 2016 if she had picked Sherrod Brown as VP. Or if Comey had simply kept his mouth shut.
I doubt Bernie will overplay his hand again, or that there will be a meaningful third party candidacy from the left. Russian trolling will be more obvious and less effective in the next election. Thus, any competent Dem should be able to win in 2020.
But, as others have noted, we need a blue wave capable of getting 60 Democratic Senate seats and enough state governments to reverse the majority of Republican gerrymandering. The right team at the top of the ticket facing off against Trump and Pence (or probably Pence with anybody else) at the top should win easily and hopefully accomplish important secondary goals.
1
It is painful for me to say this, but I wonder if the most electable Democrat this time would be a white male, considering the importance of swing voters, disaffected Republicans, etc. This is going to be no ordinary election. The future of American democracy, world peace and fundamental human decency is at stake.
2
You lost me at swing voters. Last time I checked Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by MILLIONS and only the previous REPUBLICAN FBI director, old comey, and our enemy vladimir putin were truly trying to swing voters for trump.
If you want to reverse the damage of these past two years, and we certainly do, then you don't put a moderate in charge, you put as radical of a leftist as can get elected on the ticket.
You can see the tactic already. A lot of Democratic women are going to announce. Then gradually they will fold along the way and their supporters will continue to coalesce along the way. It will be a funnel down effect with the last Democrat woman standing winding up being the Democrat nominee.
It is sort of a Hillary process without the Hillary and instead of it being all Hillary all the time many other Democrat will get to participate along the way. They will try to whittle it down to the best all-around Democrat woman candidate to take on President Trump.
President Trump must attack each and every one of these Democrat women from the moment they announce as Presidential Candidates. As they fold, he can concentrate on the ones that are left, but always keep his eye on the ones that have folded and always be ready to fight a rear guard action against them. In essence President Trump will be running against a composite 2020 version of Hillary.
The only chance the Democrat men have may be Joe Biden who is sort of the male Hillary in the 2020 race for the Democrats. Joe has a lot going for him and also just as much if not more going against him. He will get the sympathy vote because he was hung out to dry and thrown under the bus by the corrupt Barack and people will sympathize with Joe. But the Democrat women will once again rise up with this "metoo" business or this "don't leave me out" business and claim that it is "their turn."
We must have more Trump!
1
Sherrod Brown has been a great senator for Ohio; I know far less about Amy Klobuchar (but I will be researching her). Sherrod has been a real populist (as opposed to the fake one currently in office): he has aligned his policies with the middle and poor working class populations since he's been in office. His Republican opponent, Jim Renace, tried to trump up charges of spousal abuse which his ex-wife disavowed. If he is the Democratic nominee expect more of that type of mud-slinging.
1
If the American public wasn't disgusted by the total lack of kindness and compassion with Mr. "You're Fired" Trump, I don't think Klobuchar's history will phase them.
David, love your writing, but if rational left-leaning commentators like you continue to highlight Sen. Harris' rhetorical mistake, which she promptly walked back in a clear sign of an ability and wllingness to admit mistakes and learn from them (think the anti-Trump), she's got little chance to advance in the all-impotant 2020 nomination race. Then again perhaps you don't want her to?
I like Sen. Klobachar too - anyone for a Harris/Klobachar ticket - especially based on her Kavanaugh hearing performance and her announcement speech yesterday! I would just ask you and your colleagues in the press to stop making her one early faux pas not be her only defining trait.
May the best woman win and may Donald Trump tremble in fear.
I agree that the important thing is for the Democrats to put forth the candidate with the best chance of beating Don the Traitor. But what you're essentially saying is to avoid candidates who think big and have dreams of societal change that will improve life in America. I'd prefer to take a great leap forward to eliminate the stumbles of the Trump era.
So the worst scandal they could dig up on Klobuchar was that some of her staff found her difficult to work for . . . and some didn't.
Sorry Mr. Leohardt, those two (especially since Brown has rejected Medicare for All) would help to re-elect Trump.
Actually, Brown’s supported single-payer for years. He just enjoys some sense of political and economic reality, and thinks we need to move towards it gradually, starting with lowering the age for Medicare eligibility.
By the way, single-payer doesn’t matter as such. What matters is getting everybody covered affordably, which is called, “universal,” coverage.
2
@Robert:
Actually Brown came out against it in 2019. As you sort of start to admit.
The economic reality is that it's cheaper and better.
"By the way, single-payer doesn’t matter as such. What matters is getting everybody covered affordably, which is called, “universal,” coverage. "
That is a sad excuse for horrible and expensive ACA coverage. Go back to campaign Hillary2016.
You've just told people to "vote Trump in 2020", much like Leonhardt.
And Rattner here at the NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/opinion/debt-tax-democrats-presidential-elections.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
The Dems' candidates don't mount to a hill of beans for energizing sufficient votes to defeat Trump and Trump derangement is not enough on its own. Mueller and Comey protected Hil, whatever happened to all those missing emails, no Clinton pays a price for that or any investigation into possible pay to play foundation charity fraud. Despite all their undercover agents trying to cause a compromised President, they've failed, a big nothing burger for the CIA, FBI, Special Counsel, MSM, the anti-Trumpistas, the fixers who failed to put Hil on top of an election rigged for her not to lose! The search for a crime to pin on target Trump must end. What's needed is the search for a real opponent to Trump based on a policy of actual troop withdrawals back home now from Syria and Afghanistan and non-intervention in Venezuela.
1
@So logical How did Mueller protect Hillary?
2
Trump Inc. will use the word, “Socialist” to death in the 2020 campaign. The younger progressives will be slimed by this accusation, while most voters will parrot the words without an understanding of their meaning. Amy Klobuchar and Sherwood Brown will never be accused of being socialists, so for what its worth, two solid Midwesterners may be something to consider.
2
I don't care one whit that she is a tough boss. Perhaps that fact is why she is such an effective senator. She demands excellence.
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar ranks first on a list of all 100 senators with the most bills that have been enacted into law during the current Congress.
Unless she sexually or physically harassing someone, it's a non issue.
3
If Sherrod can address automation as *at least* as great a job destroyer as NAFTA and "free trade," he'll continue to get my vote here in Ohio. Trump promised to save jobs in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, but the auto plants continue to shutter up and close down. Lordstown! And not a peep from the president. Now even white collar workers are losing their jobs. I like Old Joe, but I think Sherrod may have a shot! Just get a fire-brand as a running mate...
1
Elizabeth Warren seems to be the Democratic candidate Mr. Trump fears the most.
3
Let’s face it , everyone’s afraid. Before Reagan and his voodoo economics baloney , if a Republican was elected at least they believed in the basics ; environmental protections , helping the middle class , taxes set to provide the services needed for the public good . At the very least a Republican President would protect our allies and have NATO’s back. We don’t even have that now so everything is totally out the window with Trump. The stakes are incredibly high right now with Trump basically doing Russia’s bidding and giving away everything to the ultra rich that he said he would give to the middle class . It’s pure insanity.
So because the stakes are so high everyone wants to be able to identify who they think can win to save the country . Frankly, I don’t know. I’m just keeping my fingers crossed and hoping for the best.
I like Kamala Harris and I think that if she were actually president she’d be sounding a lot more like Klaubachar than AOC.
What also complicates things is the ridiculously outdated and unfair electoral college process which regardless of the various reasons why it was initiated, it now has become a system whereby five or 6 states determine the president. Is that democracy? Not in my book.
1
Just favoring progressive policies is necessary but not sufficient. Lip service is not enough. It's how important are they in your list of priorities and how much time, energy, and political capital are you willing to expend on them. In short, we don't need candidates who we strongly sense will do the talk, but not the walk, all talk and little action and follow thru.
1
The President of OUR United States is not a "star". He or she is OUR hired/elected manger and they need the right tools and personality to do the job well.
My questions of every candidate are, "What have you done in the past to make things better for 99.9% of us? What do you plan to do to get things back on track for us and how will you do it?"
Talk is cheap. Canned talk is even cheaper. It's like participants in the Miss Universe contest saying they want "world peace". I'm sure they do but what will they do to make it so?
There is plenty of time for reporters and others to dig into the backgrounds of candidates to learn and report clearly as to what their past actions and behavior show about their character and core values.
Please, members of the media, do that for WE THE PEOPLE. Don't be lazy and just spread gossip. Help US preserve/restore sanity and true democracy in OUR United States of America.
We sink or swim together.
4
And will you pay attention when they do, or just complain about neo-liberalism?
"Many think of themselves as moderate and, strange as it may sound, many thought of Trump as moderate in 2016. "
Hey, guess what? Prior to the election, his positions on many issues had at one time or another been fairly moderate. Pro-abortion, certainly unable to put on a believable fake piety, etc. Then he took all that money from the same people who bought the rest of the GOP leadership, realized he'd be able to collect lots of $$$ in his 2020 fund by agreeing with the money, and started pretending to be "a baby Christian" as one of the fake Christian leaders dubbed him.
I'm not saying voting for him made sense, just that there was enough there to differentiate him from the "rigid conservatives" like Mitt (who, of course, instituted Romneycare in Massachusetts).
If the democrats are going to win back the traditional blue collar working vote, they will have to quit advocating a free lunch for people that through their own actions and inactions do not deserve a free lunch. Advocating a fair shake for people that make an effort to improve themselves, work hard and try to be good citizens will get universal support. But too many democrats have turned off the blue collar workers by constantly acting as if bad situations are always the result of prejudice or being downtrodden. Those blue collar voters actually know the "downtrodden" by name and often know in detail the decisions and lifestyle that got them into their currently sad state of affairs. Those voters really don't feel obligated to bail them out over and over.
3
Funny; you sure get upset when anybody mentions just how much Kentucky grabs by way of Federal dollars.
@Robert
Folks in Kentucky just can't stand to face the fact that they are on the dole...big time. 2 federal dollars back for every one paid in...same for MS,AL.LA.....nobody wants to be known as a freeloader. But, lets face it. There are segments of our population that quit school, have kids they can not support, spend the down payment on a house on sports and concert tickets, etc etc etc. Lots of voters know it is not their fault, and they won't vote to bail them out.
Except the white ones. Sorry, but not buying it.
The fundamental group of issues we should be concerned about are: those that directly relate to securing the expansion of meaningful ballot access to all adult citizens. Every other issue is levered positively or negatively by addressing or failing to address that as a foundational matter.
@Karl
Voting accessibility is certainly an issue. But in my opinion, voter apathy and ignorance are the greater concerns. Families, churches, and schools must do a better job of preparing students for the responsibilities of citizenship, and that includes not only critical thinking skills, but respect for science, factual knowledge with a global scope, and the democratic process.
And even more important than these is campaign finance reform. We must overturn Citizen's United and get big money out of politics. I hope the Free and Fair Elections Resolution gains traction.
@earthtrembles
Overcoming Citizens United - and antigerrymandering - were intended to be covered by my adjective "meaningful". It's a larger agenda. Ideally, get rid of the Electoral College. Senate can't be addressed except by unanimity of all states - or creating more of them.
Real person here. And I liked Klobuchar's speech a great deal. I'm a moderate (I used to be known as a liberal....my views haven't changed but the party moved away from me) and i'm happy to have a smart, bland, dedicated, hard-working candidate on the ticket.
I reject what I see as the false either/or ideological choices that define modern politics and i'm looking for a candidate like her.
4
The press and pundit alike continue to make the same mistake over, and over and over. It is to think that the electorate (now) is wanting another republican lite candidate.
Even if the candidate is some type of ''centrist'' or ''moderate'' with Progressive tendencies, they are still too close to those ''swing'' voters and right of center. (being that the political spectrum has been pulled so far extreme right for decades)
There are 100,000,000 potential voters (along with the base of the Democratic party). These numbers FAR outweigh the ever shrinking base of the republican party, AND those supposed swing voters. They are irrelevant and are not going to decide anymore elections going forward.
What was shown in the midterms (where historically there are very low numbers) is that true Progressive candidates can win anywhere (especially in deep red districts) and in particular women and minorities are going to be the standard bearers for the party.
Senators Klobucher and Brown are WILDLY Progressive compared to the President and all republicans, but are decisively right of center compared to many other candidates.
Things like Peace, Single Payer, Environmental protections and green strategies, a living wage, union promotion, following the rule of law, and many other things are required NOW! - not incrementally down the road.
We need people that are going to wake up that 100M, and are going to get it done now. Take your pick.
3
Sherrod BROWN is to the right of center now? Boy, I am tired of la résistance, and “NOW, or I open fire,” politics.
Tell me what Bernie’s legislative accomplishments are. I know Warren’s (CPB, pretty darn good), but tell me why I should vote for somebody who’s answered questions so badly, and can’t get elected outside Mass. Jill “Bound to Run, I Didn’t Do Enough Damage Last Time,” Stein? Bad joke.
Tell me how you plan to elect a Congress that’ll pass single-payer NOW, and then get half of America to cheer for giving up their employer bennies and paying higher taxes. For that matter, tell me what you think the phrase “single payer,” means, and name three countries that use it.
Tell me what a “truly progressive,” candidate is, and I’ll ask you to ‘splain precisely where St. Bernie and Evil Hillary diverged in 2016.
In other words, let’s not re-elect The Thing.
3
What Trump has done is highlight what is wrong with America, which is being met by candidates that highlight what is right with America. What we must understand is that every Democratic candidate has something valid to add to the discussion and whoever comes out on top will likely represent the rest. This is not about one person versus all, it's about one person representing all.
1
It wasn't that long ago that candidates were picked by them being from different areas of the country and I don't think that picking two Midwesterners or 2 minorities or two women to run with each other is a good idea. The voters would never be doubled for any candidates in these scenarios and some may be lost.
1
I think that Democrats who claim that universal healthcare and free college will "never happen" are part of the problem, or that the country will "never" vote for progressive candidates are part of the problem. 2016 showed us that anything can happen. If Trump was able to win against huge odds - which steadily ranged from 75 to 85 percent against him - then it is also just as likely that a truly progressive candidate can win in 2020. With the Great Economic Divide splitting political pundits from voters, I don't think the pundits are in touch with what is going on with the millions of struggling Americans.
2
I think Klobuchar/Brown would be an ideal ticket. Brown would give Klobuchar ideological balance while doubling down on the midwest and hopefully carrying his home state.
But I do think the democrats will lose a lot of enthusiasm if they don't nominate a woman at the top of the ticket. Klobuchar is clearly the most electable candidate against Trump on paper.
4
@Sparky
I agree with you about a woman, but I think an even bigger risk is not having a person “of color” on the ticket.
That’s half of all Democratic voters.
Trump's approval is at 52%. I don't think he is the one having nightmares.
And, might it be higher than 52%? The left would be extremely demoralized if it were 60%.
2
Perhaps in Texas or other red states, but the office of the Presidency is a national one and he’s barely at 40% there.
Mike
52% ?Where are you getting that number? Every poll except Rasmussen has him between 37 and maybe 42% on a good day .
Rasmussen is notorious for being wayyyy off.
1
52% of what?
Is everyone of the opinion that Mr. Trump will or can seek re-election? If not Trump for whatever reason, who and what political philosophy will offer the most appeal over someone other than Trump? Who might that someone be? I believe the traditional Democratic appeal focusing on healthcare, jobs, education and leveling the economic playing field all focused on the personal benefit to individuals will be successful against any opponent.
2
I wonder about predictions of voting based on Trump voters. Clinton got millions more votes than Trump but Trump is thr President. Voting matters, I guess, but it seems like it matters more where you live than who you vote for.
3
@Robert McKee If everyone in California voted for Hillary and Trump won by 1 vote in every county (less California), Hillary would have had 15 million more votes and would have lost the Electoral College 509 to 30.
Numbers like that, might seem like an easy lift to amend the US Constitution and eliminate the Electoral College. But, this is the exact reason the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College.
2
@Robert McKee
It’s only been that way forever.
@Mike
And those slave owning founding fathers (more like founding or original sinners) were wrong.
1
I would be happy with either Klobuchar or brown, but in this crowded field I believe my early support goes to Sherrod Brown, who has succeeded by being a true and steadfast friend of the working man.
2
I still think Senators Warren and Sanders, as well as Mr. Biden and Mr. Bloomberg, should step down and put their authority and influence behind younger candidates like Amy Clobuchar or Kamala Harris, maybe as running mates.
If the young who were galvanized into voting last November are to be kept interested in voting for the right thing, the candidates have to be people who have something to lose from climate change when it really begins to hurt - and not candidates who look like grandparents of the young.
By that time - in ten or twenty years' time - Warren and Sanders, Mr. Biden and Mr. Bloomberg will probably all be dead.
Don't mistake me - I think they are all doing great jobs in their present positions.
But it is about defeating Trump and the Goplings!
2
As a progressive who feels like I've been living in some dsytopian horror show, I want to see Trump and his band of sychophants sent packing. I would also like to see a woman and/or a person of color who believes in policies that frankly, a majority of Americans believe in, to replace him. However, I will not sacrifice the good for the perfect.
I remember those who supported Nader in 2000 insist there was no difference between Gore and Bush and handed a number of states to Bush (including Florida). I'll never forget what a collossal mess that resulted in. Risk 4 more years of Trump in order to vote for an unelectable candidate who touches all my buttons is not going to happen.
6
@Eddie
The Gore/Bush debacle in 2000 - not to mention Trump's 2016 razor-thin wins in a few midwestern states in 2016 - would not have happened under the voting system used in the state of Maine. Nor could Eddie's concern above happen in 2020. Ranked choice voting - look it up if you need to. It will not be widespread any time soon, but it's worth keeping in mind.
1
@John I agree! If we can justify the electoral college, we can have ranked choice voting.
1
Populism can be practical for winning elections (as it mostly plays to peoples' limited understanding of root cause of issues), however it is always mired in half-truths, oversimplification and less than empirical analyses of issues.
Most "elitists" are actually right about what they talk about. Politically however, they tend to lack the appropriate emotional intelligence to realize that making good policy arguments (if only supported by dry facts), is not enough to convince the average voter (most of whom either don't read much or lack intellectual curiosity). Voting is an emotional action for most people. Populist arguments will win them over every time, no matter how misguided most of them are.
The good policy wonks need to learn to hire a good populist campaign manager, get elected, then do the "real" work behind the scenes.
4
Ah yes, populist folksiness..... Both of these candidates have that quality, as well as a real force of personality.
Klobuchar has been my favorite for a while now because she has an inner strength and an honest "niceness" that is very evident. If she was, in some eyes, a "harsh boss" well I've been a boss and sometimes a bit of harshness is necessary. We already have a pushover in the office; a man who can't fire anybody directly to their face; a man who is easily swayed to change his mind; a man who can't honor his word.
Brown seems to have many of the same traits, even if he doesn't seem quite as forceful in his personality.
The more disparate voices we hear in the primary season the more voters will have their chance to question and decide which direction they want the Country to go. Most of US want something very different from what we have now.
Let the deciding begin.
1
Democrats need to raise the bar for their mayors and governors.
Property and sales taxes in the states and cities, as well as the mess with unfunded pensions, are a problem going forward.
It will keep drawing folks to Republicans.
Democratic city mayors are lazy and complacent. Compared to European cities, we keep being stuck with small sidewalks, cars everywhere and lethal painted bike lanes. There is no vision or courage.
2
Liz
When I go to Europe I see cars parked on sidewalks, bike lanes everywhere etc
@Liz: Y'all have sidewalks up north?! Impressive. Republicans down here think pedestrians shouldn't exist. They certainly do their darndest to make walking as difficult as possible. Pedestrians are regularly killed down here, walking along roadways with no sidewalks, because ... well ... freedumb!
1
First let the democrats campaign dogfight move forward.
Hopefully the DNC can keep their thumbs off the scale.
The PEOPLE will choose the best candidate only after we see them fight it out. The clear choice will present itself.
1
Please don't forget what happened to our country in the 2016 presidential election, where 3 million more of us voters voted for Hillary, but the Electoral College "trumped" the people's vote and handed the election to Trump.
So it will be crucial that many more of those in the swing states vote in 2020, especially who don't want another 4 disastrous years of Trumpism.
And is it farfetched to believe that if Trump runs again in 2020 but loses, he will declare the election results "fraudulent" and refuse to leave the White House?
We really need to do something about Citizens United, our terrible campaign finance laws that let rich people buy their politicians, and the Electoral College,, which twice in the 21st century gave the presidency to the person who did not win the popular vote.
2
If he loses in 2020, I can just imagine US Marshalls or even military stepping in to take him away.
Far Fetched? Of course, but think of what we’ve seen past 2 years.
1
Growing up in Minneapolis, the Klobuchar name was well known. Jim, Amy’s father , was an Everyman columnist with opinions on everything from the best fishing to nefarious politicians.
Despite the well known success of the DFL in the 50’s to ‘70’s, Minnesota has always been a bi partisan state. And a fairly tolerant one; we got the celebrity bug out of our systems by electing the WWF guy, Jesse Ventura, to two terms as governor. If you want to know the true Minnesota accent, listen to his conferences.
But it is also the state that elected Paul Wellstone, a thoughtful liberal in the Adlai Stevenson mode. And, recently, several Muslim politicians- which the rest of the country should consider doing rather than trying to bar them at a Wall.
Perhaps Amy can better negotiate the treacherous currents of American politics than more ideologically driven candidates.
4
@Robert Goodell Ventura was only elected to one term as Governor.
I like both candidates. I fully agree that both are solid, middle to progressive candidates with wide experience who come across as honest and more than capable to middle America. I particularly like Sen. Brown. Good luck to both. They certainly offer a drastic contrast to the man in the White House. Swing voters will definitely vote for either of these two.
4
Whoever the Democrats nominate should not only be able to beat Donald Trump in 2020. S/he should also be able to persuade a broad swath of American voters that the Democratic Party is on their side in 2022, 2024, and 2026. We need to build a broad new coalition, not just beat Donald Trump. If Tea Party progressives veto candidates who can appeal to the middle of the country, this will not happen.
I am intrigued by Klobuchar and Brown, but it's still early in the game. At this point in 2008, polls showed that Rudi Guiliani, the Republican front-runner, would trounce both Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, and Barack Obama by more than 10 points. (For those of you who weren't yet reading newspapers in 2008, Obama went on to win both the Democratic nomination and the Presidency. Guiliani was never a factor in the Republican race.)
I agree...and pair the moderate with a progressive as VP would keep the base in the game...I see Joe Biden with Kamala Harris, or Amy Klobuchar with Beto O'Rourke....Sherrod Brown with Cory Booker. Or some other similar mix. Two moderates or two progressive on the same ticket might not be as effective. My backing of Biden has to do with repairing our foreign policy and allies as he has more experience in this area than all the other candidates put together. If he doesn't run, I hope someone has the sense to put him in charge of the State Department.
1
Question to me is how many of these announced candidates are really running for VP?
Amy K for President and Sherrod B for VP could be the winning ticket. I'm a Minnesotan and was pretty excited about Amy's announcement yesterday. I'd love to see the older Dems (I'm looking at you Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden & Bernie Sanders) step back and let the younger candidates run.
4
Agree 100%
Candidates from middle class middle America should makes for a good combination.
I disagree with Leonhardt that there aren’t major differences between the candidates and that they will all fight to address economic inequality. Gillibrand, Booker and Harris are business-friendly Democrats who are fronting a concern on the issue that they have never demonstrated in their voting records.
On the other hand, Sanders and Warren have made sharing wealth and taming corporations central to their political careers. Big differences!
2
There is a difference between intellectual discourse on working people and someone that actually has ideas which solve their problems. At present, Brown is working on a bill to lower Medicare to age 55 . This solution has a chance of at least being reviewed. The "pie in the sky" views of Sanders or the intellectualism of Warren never will. As a professor who faces double insurance deductibles and the inability to pay for asthma medicine, I am rooting for him.
4
My bet is that Brown will get VP. Unsure at this point who will take the presidential nomination -- my guess is Harris, at this point -- but any nominee would be a fool not to look at Brown's ability to snatch up the rust belt and get the "white working class" vote. Klobuchar is powerful, too, and if all the dirt that can be summoned up on her is that she was a harsh boss, well, she's doing pretty well for herself in these times. Godspeed.
4
If Joe Biden runs, my Democratic enthusiasm index drops to 0.01. And, I suspect, so will Anita Hill's.
3
You DO see the irony- both these middle-America “Everyman” ( sic) candidates graduated from Yale.
3
I have followed Sherrod Brown for his entire political career. It's true that he isn't a soaring orator, but he comes across as authentic. But he isn't a boring speaker, he speaks succinctly. More importantly, he is psychologically sound based upon his behavior and framing of issues- "I's" & "me's" aren't first with him in his language usage, nor in his body language.
Contrast Brown's psychological image with Trump's- self-serving,"I" always before "you" and "me" always before "we",a true narcissistic personality.
3
Draw a 1000 mile from Minneapolis to Pittsburgh. Widen it to a 500 mile corridor. Win over this swath of voters and the Electoral College of Mn, Wis, Iowa, Oh, Mich and Pa that comprise it. “That’s the ticket !” to the White House in 2020.
4
It's great to see all the positive comments out of the Mid-West today! I had never heard of these two before today and the primary runs through Cal. ... help us get on board. I'm so excited about 2020 alternatives and I'd definitely like to support the heartland over the swamp monsters that slithered their way to D.C.
1
If Sherrod Brown (undeclared as yet) is dull, no way can he attract voters, especially compared to our fiery Liar in Chief.
I don't know if Klobachar's being a tough boss translates into being a compelling opponent to Trump. That she won in her home state is good. Is she experienced enough, and charismatic enough, to be elected?
On February 8, 2019, the New York Times published "Sanders and O’Rourke Are Way Ahead in Race for Small-Dollar Donors".
The article included a graph indicating that not only were the two ahead in fundraising, but also ahead in potential votes.
Sanders is the architect of the Democrat's move toward progressivity. Beto is an eloquent and charismatic speaker, without Sanders' depth of experience.
I still like Sanders. I would certainly hate to see Democrats desperately trying to elect a woman, instead of the best candidate, as they attempted with Hillary. What a mistake.
Voters have to realize that what's between a candidate's ears is what counts, not what's between their legs.
I don't know if Bernie wants to weather another campaign, but he certainty has Democratic and independent support across all ages. His message is consistent, and he doesn't lie. Maybe a Bernie/Beto ticket?
The 2016 election screamed that the People want real change.
Real change is Bernie Sanders for President and, perhaps, Ro Khanna for Vice President.
Wealth/income inequality and climate change are ticking time bombs that must be addressed.
A candidate with the courage to stop the US participation in endless wars, will free resources to use in beginning to resolve inequality and climate change.
Sanders has crossover appeal with many of the same people who voted for Trump but may now be turned off by his presidency.
A warmongering centrist candidate will not win.
2
I like both of these Senators right where they are. A Democratic President will need a Senate majority to get anything done, and it's hard for Democrats to win seats in the Midwest, especially in Ohio.
In addition, both of them are a little older than the optimum age for winning a presidential race. No non-incumbent Democrat over the age of 56 has won the presidency since the 19th century.
Kamala Harris and Cory Booker are my top two.
1
@njheathen
MANA
Make America like Newark Again!
Said no one ever.
"The problem is, there are virtually no examples of Democrats winning close races without emphasizing persuasion. The 2018 attempts, in Florida, Georgia and Texas, all fell short."
You may be correct about the Democrats' efforts in Florida and Georgia, but here in Texas, Beto O'Rourke obsessively, repeatedly emphasized persuasion rather than demonization. He preached bringing people together, reaching across party lines and seeing each other as fellow Texans, not footsoldiers in some ceaseless culture war. If he had run an "our way or the highway" campaign, he would have lost by 5-10 points.
3
Now more than ever I wish th we Democratic primary had ranked choice voting. We have it in my city, and it lets you pick your top three choices. It essentially lets you vote for the candidate you actually like, then your 2nd and 3rd choices. There are so many great candidates this primary it will be difficult to pick just one. Do I go with my dream candidate? Or the one I think has the best chance of beating Trump?
2
@Heather
Ranked choice voting deserves more exposure, more debate, and serious consideration. Its advantages are more extensive than can be summarized in a short post here, but it's worth fully checking out.
Indeed, there is little doubt had ranked choice voting been used in a few midwestern states in 2016 and in Florida in 2000 all the Presidents this century would have been the candidates who received the largest popular vote (as well as winning the electoral college, which of course is necessary). And there is no doubt we would have a different President now.
Many countries, a number of U.S. local elections, and the state of Maine use it. Thanks for mentioning it, Heather.
1
Amy Klobuchar will soon realize that running for president is not as easy as she thinks. Already they are saying she was a difficult boss and this is just the beginning. Wait until she gets farther into the campaign. They will delve deeply into her past and nothing will be out of bounds to investigate. They will dig deeper and deeper and it will not be pleasant. More Democrats are bound to enter the presidential race and she will have a lot of competition. I would not get too excited about Ms. Klobuchar. More candidates will enter and the competition will be stiff. The person who ends up with the Democratic nomination may even be a relative unknown. President Obama found this to be the case and if it happened once it can happen again.
3
@WPLMMT
Amy Klobuchar will soon realize that running for president is not as easy as she thinks.
It can't be that hard if Trump did it-- we know how lazy he is with his executive time watching TV/Fox and Friends. Her challenge is she is a woman in a country where women don't believe in themselves.
I'm a tough boss. I respect people but I expect them to work. For some, this is at odds with their previous work experience. I'm betting Amy K. would not have a lot of unstructured "executive time."
2
I am afraid even Leonhardt doesn't know what a so-called "electable" candidate is because the last time around considering the fact that both Presidential candidates had the poorest approval ratings in history, the "establishment's" annointment of one of them "Hillary Clinton" lost. Unfortunately, the corporate/establishment/media has still not been able to ween themselves off that political/ideological path of what has been, for the last 10 years, "political destruction" for democrats.
The fact is ideology and policies will very much play the part of the electable candidate simply because up until the last mid-terms the centrist/pragmatic/slow moving "Republican Lite" approach to policy cost the democrats almost 1000 seats at the state and federal levels PLUS loss of ALL THREE BRANCHES of the Executive. It will take very little effort to destroy a Republican Party that has shown that other than lining the pockets of themselves and wealthy donors, they stand for NOTHING. Amy Klobuchar, unfortunately, is surely NOT the answer.
Progressive policy in all polls is overwhelmingly favored by ALL Americans, not just democrats and if a candidate is accepting significant amounts of campaign dollars from lobbyists, they will be unable to act upon the polices that Americans really want, millenials, independents and minorities will stay home and in 2020 Trump will be re-elected for another FOUR years of even greater chaos in America and the world.
4
First let me just make it plain, I will turnout to vote for who ever the democratic candidate is. The lack of turn out for Hillary is why we got Trump. We elected a President who puts our very Republic in danger because Hillary wasn't the perfect candidate, a lot of people did not show up to vote, or voted for a third party candidate. Let's not make that mistake again.
I think Klobuchar or Brown would make good candidates who can beat Trump. I like all the other democratic candidates as well! There are a lot of good choices, so let's not boycott the general election if our favorite isn't picked.
8
It's a bit early to choose among the many Democrats who are announcing a run for the presidential nomination. It looks like there will be a plethora of good choices and that is good for the country as well as for Democrats.
3
As a woman it is very important to me that a candidate treats his/her own staff humanely. How can you claim moral high ground when you are abusive to those around you?
I will listen carefully as these stories about Klobuchar are either substantiated or debunked. Please do more digging.
But don't EVER tell me that if abusive behavior for a man is acceptable, it's also acceptable for a woman.
How we treat others in all situations is a key to our integrity and authenticity, which make up our character.
No exceptions.
7
@TM
Really? Meanwhile, let's make a list of the thousands of tough male bosses who work in D.C. Do you feel the same way about them? Or just Amy Klobuchar?
1
@Madeline Conant
YES, I feel the exact same way toward anyone of any gender who abuses and/or humiliates underlings, period! Please don't conflate discipline and running a tight ship with abusive behavior. Many of us who have a long work history have been subject to the insanity and tantrums of both male and female bosses. You know what? There is NO difference. And spare me the the knee jerk feminist response. I have a long history in the movement and that's where it went wrong.
Meanwhile, let's wait to see if the allegations are substantiated or debunked.
2
I don’t know whom I will vote for, but I will not even consider the issue of Klobuchar’s tough reputation, unless and until her former staffers start speaking for the record. If they think she’s unfit, they’d better locate some moral courage. Enough with the anonymous sources.
I recommend reading Robert Caro’s outstanding biography of LBJ if you want to see what a really tough boss is.
5
I'm tired of clueless pundits telling me who's electable. Hillary was supposed to be the electable Democrat last time around. During the primaries leading up to the 2008 election we were told, over and over, that Obama wasn't electable. More recently the pundits were saying that Pelosi was an albatross around the necks of the Dems, yet she lead their triumphant return to control of the House.
9
@David
Actually, what led to the triumph of democrats in the House this time around was many more women, especially progressives who are taking the initiative and discussing policy and its implementation rather than the usual "non-policy" issues of establishment democrats who only can say their values are different from those of Trump.
Count me in for either. I’m in the “whoever can win” block.
2
Frances,
President Trump won by winning the electoral vote. That is how our election process works. Maybe you should work to overturn this if you are so unhappy with this policy. It is the liberals and Democrats who are fuming about the outcome of the 2016 election. The rest of us are quite content with the election results. We could not be happier.
2
@WPLMMT--I'm not a Trump supporter, but I do agree with what you're saying. Politics is cyclical. Elections swing from right to left and back again. When Obama won the presidency (both times) conservatives were apoplectic, predicting the end of democracy and beside themselves with frustration and anger. Obama Derangment Syndrome reigned, and we had birtherism, the claims that Obama was a Muslim terrorist, Obama t-shirt wearing supporters were attacked, and assaults against minorities rose. Now we're in a time when it's the Democrats that are upset, Trump Derangement Syndrome is in full swing, and voters like you are content. But, not to worry. It will swing back the other way at some point and everyone will switch again. It's the nature of politics.
1
@WPLMMTIt appears more and more that Trump won in 2016 due to the intervention of his friend Vladimir Putin. That sets his so-called victory apart from any other in American history.
Nobody knows the USA better than its northern neighbor. You are a scary view from up here. Your country's descent continues into its greatest political disaster since the Great Depression. Both sides deserve some blame. But if the Republicans had picked a trustworthy and non-traitorous candidate, they'd be seeing more of their legislative dreams coming true. And when Mueller's report does "hit the fan," things will become even worse for the GOP. They are already worried far more about 2020 than the Democrats are.
4
Trump's base doesn't give a toss for midwestern or working class, smart, sane, well-informed, truth-telling or even attractive. Trying to win over people who voted for Trump is futile.
Look who they fell for.
Democratic candidates should figure out what they stand for and stick to it. Trying not to alienate Trump voters by telling the truth about him or being too uppity or too smart or too this or too that is no way to campaign.
6
I disagree. There is a base. But the base alone did not elect Trump. Without ALL the 2016 base and ALL of the 2016 Hillary haters , Trump cannot get re-elected. That is why Trump needs to create a new bogeyman. Today it sounds like ‘socialism’ fear mongering will be a part of it. The wall as a refrain may be heard but it won’t be novel to bring new votes to him. The specter of socialism and the taxes it would require could scare into his camp some of the same 2016 independents and dems that went his way as a device against Beltway and Hilary.
1
@George Dietz Absolutely right! Donnelly in Indiana tried to win Trump voters by says he wanted to "build the wall." As a result he gained ZERO Trump voters and lost enough progressives to lose the race.
2
They figured out they stand for the New Deal generations ago. Now all they need is a party to run New Deal candidates for them to vote for. They have been waiting a long time for the party to come to its senses and it is not there yet. Maybe a few more losses to Trump will do the trick.
It really should be a cakewalk for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2020, given the lazy, inept Mr. Trump who is an embarrassment to this country, a liar, and a downright mean man.
Plus, wait until hardworking Americans do their 2018 tax returns and find out their expected refund has been reduced, nonexistent, or they owe more money--making it quite clear that Trump and the GOP's super tax cut really only benefitted the rich and corporations. We little people are making up the difference.
But the Dems need to be thoughtful and careful about whom they choose. I completely agree that a candidate from the heartland would be a good choice for the Dems.
We moved from central NY to northern UT, and know-it-all, smug coastal types are not popular in the West. Whomever the Democratic candidate is, she/he needs to be perceived as authentic, non-ideological, a problem solver, who is warm and inclusive, and not devoted to identity politics. My choice is Klobuchar but Brown suits the bill as well.
It seems silly that the biggest criticism of Klobuchar is that she is a "harsh" boss. The woman gets things done, and these days that happens only with lots of hard work. Some of the most effective teachers or deans I had were task oriented, demanding, and extracted the best from people (who didn't always appreciate it at the time and grumbled a lot).
There is lot to fix that Trump broke, so many voters will be looking for competence and trustworthiness in the next pres.
4
Klobuchar has shady money problems that will loom bigger than what kind of a boss she is. And Brown is boring even in the Midwest. The voters are going to go for passion or they will go for entertainment. Trump is already the entertainment candidate and there is only one democrat who can produce passion at the national level. He’s the one the polls showed could beat Trump by the largest margin last time. Let’s just run our only winner and get this thing over with.
The voters themselves, many of whom voted for con man Trump, need to be accountable for their own actions. Like Trump, they are silly. selfish people who cling to fear and hate as power. They need to spend some time in their rooms and think about what they have done. Maybe after they get their F150s repossessed by Russia will they realize the grave mistake they made and still chose to make.
4
@Mixiplix
Let us know when Russia starts repossessing F150s.
I’m glad you aren’t “silly”.
As a Democrat, I will support whoever emerges as the nominee. However, as the victim of a bully gym teacher and as a person of conscience, I would have great difficulty supporting someone who has a reputation for bullying their employees. The excuse I have heard is that she "demands excellence." As a voter, I demand kindness, respect and empathy!
2
Amy who? Sherrod what?
They both have a steep hill to climb in terms of name recognition and neither seems to rouse a crowd. Are you entirely sure that you, David, are not one of those socially liberal, economically conservative pundits? We know the NYT is full of them.
6
@Nora m: Yes, I find myself diverging more and more with the Times when it comes to their support for big business candidates. No more corporate centrists! We want someone who is going to tell the business lobbyists, the wealthy aristocrats, and corporate donors to get in line and wait with everyone else. No more government favoritism for the rich!
2
But we all know Bernie. He is almost already elected if he chooses to run. It’s time to pick our only winner for an election that it is inconceivable to lose.
1
We do not need folksy candidates. We need people connected to technology and innovation to be our leaders. That is the future of the world. Not some notion of manufacturing or drilling for oil. We need the smartest person who is willing to listen to other smart people. Not leaders who want to sit in a room with those who have chosen to not get an education and still expect America to produce a "middle class" manufacturing job with a pension. Pensions have been an epic weight on America. We can not keep up with them. We are moving to 401Ks because the system has figured out that they are no sustainable. So, it is time for most Seniors to realize that we can not do any more for them. They have not paid for more entitlements and the younger generations are buried because of these burdens and the knowledge that they will not be able to retire until they are 75.
3
You are absolutely wrong. The social security system has been a deficit reducer for the USA. Demographics have cut into that profit but that can be changed by altering the debt load factors and by taxing all income for social security.
5
@FREDTERR What about Medicare expenses? What about the fact that longevity has increased by 10 years? The plan for Social Security was based on a much shorter life. It is just not sustainable. Younger generations will not be able to retire until they are much older in order to cover these expenses.
You are correct that longevity changes the finances but by increasing the revenue stream by amounts easily affordable by those making well above a living wage both social security and Medicare will work. All of Europe except Switzerland have tax funded retirement and health care systems( whose outcomes are much better than the privately fee for services system of USA). Moreover those better outcomes of a broader based #single payer Medicare will not only bode for better health of the recipients but also return dollars to their pockets from the deep pockets o f the insurance companies (who never pay back their unholy gains).
1
Amy can’t even find people to run her campaign because she is so horrible to her staff.
4
At this point, I’m fine with pretty much any moderate that can beat Trump, Republican or Dem. I’m done with listening to all the red necks talk openly about their racism due to the green light the Trump administration has given society for such language.
3
Klobuchar is the real deal . Brown would be a good VP for her
1
Too bad Amy has to start with news of questionable temperament in dealing with her own staff.
1
The only apparent or announced candidate with even a whisper of a chance of unseating this American President is Mr. Schultz.
Ten seconds of exposing the progressive candidate as a New Green Deal supporter or as a fan of infanticide will end that candidate's chances in most of the country's precincts, leaving the Democrats dependent on fraudulent voting or incompetent elections officials.
1
"She even won in two of the only three House districts nationwide —— that flipped from Democrat to Republican last year. " ???!! Surely you mean House districts in Minnesota, not nationwide. We flipped seven districts in California alone and Klobuchar, as talented as she is, didn't win any of them.
Today, I watched one of those YouTube wildlife videos where a lion took down a water buffalo by biting onto its nostrils for five minutes and suffocating it. I like my politicians to do the same.
1
Have you noticed that as soon as any Democrat announces running for President, there is a hit-piece on them published?
5
@jas2200: Yes, I have noticed. We've heard about Elizabeth Warren's DNA, Bernie Sanders's oversexed male staffers, Cory Booker's cozy relationship with Big Pharma, Beto O'Rourke's identity crisis, Kamila Harris's sexualized social climbing and support of harsh dealings with prisoners, and now Amy Klobuchar's poor treatment of her staff. There's a smorgasbord of imperfections to choose from. What a surprise. I don't really care at all. I will vote for any of them over Trump, Pence, or any other Republican who runs in 2020. We have a roster of excellent potential candidates, and considering that Trump is very likely the worst president of all time, as well as one of the most flawed and selfish human beings ever to walk the planet, any of them on their worst day will do a better job than Trump on his best day.
3
@Allison: I would vote for any of them over Trump, too. But I worry that others may not. We can't afford another divided Democratic Party in 2020.
1
There should be no question that Amy Klobuchar is the strongest candidate & all others should get out of her way. She was outstanding in questioning the sex abuser for the Supreme Court. She got his goat & he proceeded to lose control of his composure.She will appeal to women and Blue Collar Workers of the Mid West. Getting back the Midwest is a must if we are to
win the White House.She a Moderate that will keep people like me in the Party.Go Amy !
4
She is a guaranteed loser who will go down in epic defeat. Not what we need right now.
@Bobotheclown
Let me guess, you would prefer someone from the far left.
Trump would love that !
Amy is Tim Pawlenty in a skirt.
Nothing less...nothing more.
Meh...is the #1 comment you will get in MN about her running.
Because we have only one other termporary Senator..we kind of need one working full time on her job instead of heading to Iowa every other day to share hot dish recipes with the Women's Auxiliary .
1
Given what he has done to America, a pet rock should be able to beat Donald Trump in 2020.
3
That should be true but only if the Dems run somebody better than a rock. So far they can’t find anyone.
Perhaps one remedy th Dems could use whenever - always - th repubs continue quipping about th US becoming a "socialist" nation, would be to remind all that just as Venezuela and Hitler's "National Socialist Republic of Germany," were hardly examples of socialist states, today's version of American capitalism isn't representative at all of Adam Smith's "Classical Capitalism." The USA is now, un-officially, a state of *socialism for only the wealthy.* The more that is emphasized, th sooner most voters will accept social justice and socialistic legislation to level th playing field.
2
Unless Amy K can get Obama ( Michelle or Barack) as a running mate, I favor her as the VP for Biden. Amy is not a household name among African Americans and we need a very large turnout to beat Trump in 2020. Winning is all that matters, as the Senate will not impeach the criminal in chief under any circumstances.
The too numerous to count field for the gop in 16 yiekded a winner
Though he personally is a dumb loser
The wide selrction of sane qualified intelligent prospects bodes well for the country and the Dem party
But not especially well for trump
I am glad this is just your opinion!
1
Efforts to elect black candidates like Stacy Abrams fell short because of a criminal election system.
Democrats lose cuz they are too honest and too nice and defer to the worse angels of our election process.
Let’s cut to the chase:
Progressives want Bernie and or Warren
The NY Times and it’s corporate interests (including Carlos Slim) want status quo.
Your salary is hanging by a thread.
So you don’t seem to have much of a choice.
Grow up. Be a mensch. Speak your mind, if you have one.
The future is Bernie and/or Warren.
3
@Blunt Or Brown. Both Warren and Sanders has described him in their recent books as a staunch progressive.
1
It’s got to be Bernie leading the ticket to win. Almost anyone as a VP will work.
1
The fly-in-the-ointment are the stay-home non-voters. Milktoast won't get them to the polls.
2
I am so tired of "fear." Fear is 80 endangered and protected polar bears rampaging through your island town. Fear is losing my sailboat's rigging 1,200 nautical miles from shore. Fear is having a mugger stick a gun in your stomach. How about "concerned?"
President Trump has nothing to fear from moderate Democrat candidates who will be chewed up and spit out by extreme liberals in Hollywood and the media. There is no room in the Democrat party of 2019 for Moderate Democrats. It's now all about Socialism, post birth abortions and 70% tax rates that now define the party.
2
And let's keep in mind that Sherrod has Connie.
1
I continue to be appalled by how Team New York Times is determined to sandbag progressives in general and Bernie in particular. For Timesmen centrist/corporate Democrats are clearly the wisest choice because those "others" are so obviously extreme. Extreme like Medicare for All? Do you not understand that healthcare is the battleground on which the war for the middle class will be waged? You comfortable NYT's pundits may feel no urgency in regard to the pauperization of America. The rest of us are fighting for survival.
7
Bernie will never win over the NYT. Thank God they know nothing about elections. See their 2016 coverage for examples.
2
The way Trump and his administration is imploding, he won't be running in 2020. He'll more likely be headed for prison.
3
Klobuchar and Brown are solid candidates from the Midwest, each one of who can beat Trump in a national contest. Just imagine if one of them wins the Democratic ticket and asks the other to be his/her Veep ........ there will be dancing in the streets of all cities and towns and villages in the USA.
just get a winner!
1
I know neither much. but that is a cogently argued piece.
David,
Your point of view is the Times’ point of view.
The polls you are quoting are not the only polls out there. There are plenty who say Americans want change.
Change as in Bernie, Warren, AOC.
Not middle of the road, wishy washy stuff of Biden, Klobuchar, Booker or Bloomberg type.
Stop projecting your and masters insecurities onto the progressives.
We had enough of your pushing for Hillary and losing the election.
Be a mensch.
3
Tough boss? Temper? Hey, you'd never catch any male boss like that. At the first hint of toughness or temper - he'd be toast.
Recent reports of Klobuchar's intimidation of her staff are considerable, but overblown. There is an apocryphal quote ascribed to the Great Senator, Dianne Feinstein: "I don't get ulcers. I give them." Whatever.
Does anyone think that the Democrats have the brains to nominate a Klobuchar-Brown ticket?
They will nominate Elizabeth Warren-Julian Castro (with a nod to my Stanford University), win ten states, and lose decorously, in the tradition of Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore (only a technical loss), John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton (again, only a technical loss).
But who's counting? Certainly not the politically-correctitude of the Democratic Party.
2
An opponent who can speak fluent English, would be a nightmare for Trump. His random gibberish belongs anywhere but the White House.
Throw in an educated female who is passionate about our environment, and Trump will resort to his standard response of insults, rather than debate. Is there a slight chance his cult like base will tire of his antics, where insults are rewarded, yet good public policy has been the loser.
There is nothing boring about Sherrod Brown. He will be a wonderful president.
2
One problem is that many people who support candidates that reflect their views also view these people as electable even though they may not be. And then there is the problem of knowing who is really electable. I would think bozo the clown would be electable over tRump but sadly he would not be.
1
Hey! If you call, I'll give you my checking account number. I see no point in you waiting, we can get right to it.
I have worked myself up from low level jobs for pocket money, in a laundry, on a trash truck, a soda jerk, you name it, and finally went to law school. I've saved and done without to attain some level of middle class life. I drive not great cars and live in a not fab neighborhood to put my kids through college. I've saved low 7 figures in an IRA over 35 years from careful reading and investing. and doing without. I am nothing like wealthy.
Yet I know I am to be tagged in this game you play wherein I save, you don't, and I pay you.
2
Has anyone ever thought of Al Gore? Better than Biden. But, I think Klobuchar as VP to either Biden or Gore is a winner. She would pull Trump devotees with no problem. Run Al Run!!!
I dunno, Dave. I've heard Sherrod Brown speak, and I think he's pretty impressive. (Granted, no one beats President Obama for oratorical greatness....well, no one living.) But Sanders won in the midwest for the same reasons Klobuchar and Brown will - and HRC couldn't: they are sincere, ideologically consistent, and on message. They stand for something, and that something is in the interest of the great majority of voters. And you won't hear them refer to constituents as "deplorables", because, unlike HRC, they don't seem to place themselves at a higher station than voters. It's got nothing to do with being a member of the "elite" (don't we want the best at the helm?) - Columbia-Harvard-U. Chicago isn't somehow inferior to Wellesley-Yale on anyone's status chart. But some candidates are entranced by the beauty of their navels, and others direct their gaze outward.
And as much as I admire some folks' capacity for it, ideological purity means nothing if there are 41 Republicans in the Senate. Still, if the Dem's are smart enough to run either of these two candidates, along with Hickenlooper, the Republicans are toast, with only (ONLY!) a reactionary Supreme Court left to remind us that such a cabal of lackeys and fools ever existed.
By the way, I think you're doing a fantastic job on the opinion page - even better than in the Business section, and that's saying a lot!
1
Amy K is hard on her employees? What does that mean behaviorally?
And, if her name was Alan or Andrew or Anyman, would folks see this differently?
1
@Don Her office had the highest turnover in the Senate from 2001-2016, and is now ranked third. That's quite a record and speaks for itself; no need to focus on her gender.
Yes. We need a candidate from the Midwest.
1
There are no middle class fighters in the Democrat vanguard. Perhaps none at all.
1
“They (Klobuchar and Brown) both have a populist folksiness to them. And, no, those aren’t racial code words.”
Yes, they are! Neither of these midwestern senators can motivate and energize the core of the Democratic Party. Black voter turnout was 56.9 percent in 2018, 58.6 percent in 2012 and the record 62.2 percent in 2008. If Black America doesn’t turn out in record numbers as they have done in 2008, 2012 and 2018 suburban women cannot make up that difference. Ask Mitt Romney! He thought he found the electoral pathway to win the 2012 election because in every other demographic group President Obama support had gone down. But alas, Black America showed up hugely!
Be advised ye ole populist dreamers, Black Americans are not going to give away their vote for another moderate. They know that moderates locked them up, allowed the criminalization of drug addicted moms, while today sympathy pours out for opioid addicts, and allowed judges to strip away affirmative action while white privilege thrived.
“Perhaps…the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Is this the same Klobuchar who puts on a folksy smile in public and then screams and abuses her own staff to the point where Senate leadership has to step in? I thought we were trying to improve the character of the occupant of the White House?
3
I am about as liberal as they come. I caucused for Bernie then held my nose and voted for HRC because I know who the Donald is and what he stands for after working for his family in the 80s.
I will support anyone and anything that runs against the unconstitutional, power hungry cheaters that call themselves Republicans, but are as spineless, cowardly, and greedy as their POTUS.
2
Much is made of appealing to middle America white America. To me the idea pushed by pundits and pollsters incessantly is condescending to middle America whites and insulting to every one else. It is like saying one group has special needs and the others have no needs at all. Logically speaking if you tailor a message to Rust belt whites aren’t you taking your base for granted? No matter where you live or what race you are we all have similar dreams and aspirations. People want to be able to raise and educate their children. People want to be safe and want to worship the way they choose. These aren’t issues based on race and its time we said that. It is not rocket science to know if a message is targeted for one group of people it is going to alienate other groups. Wouldn’t it be novel if someone running to come up with a message that appeals to all groups. I doubt if the holder of your mortgage really cares what race you are when it is due. The words of James Carville rings so true to today as when he said it. It’s The Economy Stupid! Progressives ,Sexist, Racist and Conservatives have one thing in common and that is a need to make a living. Trumps real nightmare would be a candidate who can appeal to the pocket book issues of all of the people. Trump promised coal miners jobs and at last count i think i read it was only 5000 more coal miners jobs since Trump took office. How about telling Trump he should build a wall around his properties to keep the undocumented out?
@Steven McCain Sherrod Brown has been winning Ohio (3 times now) with exactly that message. He always emphasizes the common interests of working people of all ethnicities.
1
Oh my goodness. I thought this was going to be an uplifting article but then Leonhardt felt the need to defend Klobuchar through sexism.
Look, women bosses can be just as awful as men. When we stop defending women as "the weaker sex" we can start on the road to equality.
What about having a Klobuchar - Brown ticket?
----------------------------------------------------------
I watched Sen. Amy Klobuchar's announcement speech, Sunday, and tears came to my eyes. She spoke from the heart. She reminds me of the JFK speaking style, but she has more humility.
I wish the Times included portions of this speech for reference...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Anyone who thinks that these Democratic candidates have a chance needs to visit the flyover lands of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and adjoining states. Here the shallow, callow, crass men dominate the political landscape and ensure that their womenfolk follow suit to vote straight Republican. After all, their granddaddies who were members of the American Anti-Immigrant Society and the Ku Klux Klan were right, as it turns out...
1
The bumper sticker I want to see tries to blend Klobuchar with Hickenlooper! No idea what that works out to! Kloop?! Regardless, AK is the real deal. The "Politico" or "Vanity Fair" nonsense about her difficulties with staff is meaningless inside baseball. She is poised, thoughtful, pragmatic, and un-programmed. Combine these attributes with a moral compass and the Democrats can put her on top of the ticket and expect a very good result.
after the non-stop hysterics of our billionaire toddler in chief, a middle-class president "...too boring to stand out.." might be just what the country needs.
A Klobuchar/Brown ticket will rule the day in 2020. Klobuchar, of course will reside in the White House.
Klobuchar/Hickenlooper 2020.
A senator and a governor. Both moderates. One from the Midwest; one from the Mountain West.
No far-lefties from the West Coast or the Northeast.
That's the ticket.
2
This group, thus far, vurtually guarantees a trump win in 2020...
1
These two middle of the road Democrats are electable but provide no seminal message elements of a winning Strategy, nor the most important ‘strategic narrative’.
They may be able to ‘borrow’ the key strategic points that braver, and more importantly ‘progressive’ candidates expose and educate voters about.
But these blending and aggregating copy-cat, but basically moderate, candidates raise no excitement.
IMHO, Kamala, AOC, Elizabeth, et al. may all ‘expose’ and target different revolutionary Strategy and more importantly ‘strategic narratives’ point by point, we are still awaiting a true leader who combines all the exciting and transformational ‘issues’, but who will sincerely join together all these new progressive points — and an inclusive combining of mere ‘issues’, while also adding the magic element of the actual hidden ‘meta-causal’ cancer deeper in our ‘body politic’ — while compellingly ‘exposing’ and educating the American people with how they can peacefully accomplishing such multiple revolutionary goals for themselves, their families, and their country.
Such a candidate of a people’s peaceful Political/economic and social “Revolution Against Empire” — as our founders, farmers, patriots, original Tea Partiers, Minute Men, and people like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”, and Patrick Henry fired a “Shout (not shot) heard round the world”, which Tom might have taken the Paine to expand Pat’s rallying-cry:
“Give us Liberty (from Empire), or Give us Death”.
1
I see Joe Biden, the leading candidate at the moment is making inroads with Black Rock Billionaire Larry Finke.
Why do I think Occasio Cortez is not going to be happy about it?
If you see three white guys walking down the street, two of them voted for Trump. It may only be the common sense of female and black voters that rescues us from this seemingly endless nightmare of an unqualified and unpresidential blockhead squatting over the Oval Office. At this point I welcome relief from any party who can provide it.
Single payer is not a “fever dream” and the Times should stop with its campaign against it. Single payer is desired and achievable—why can’t we have it? If private insurance is so good, it can exist alongside as a competitor.
Having voted for Barack Obama twice, I can report that I supported Hillary Clinton in the beginning. I voted for Obama twice but really knew there was cost for the Democratic Party - all the while I had designated myself as an "Independent". The Dems were split. Or maybe the world wasn't ready for a president who didn't wear a pinstripe suit. Or maybe the nation wanted to get rid of the taint of a president who liked the charms of a young girl - too bad, all of it. George W Bush was a disaster of a president. The war in Iraq - all of it. Bush II caved to the religious right - and he accepted that mantle with open arms. He also bankrupted us. I don't think he was a bad man - I think he was a stupid man. Trump is a different matter. The Bush coalition did nothing to stop Trump in 2016. The prelude to Trumpism started with the Republican Party and the greed of the corporate nation who were then allowed to pour money into puppets for the wealthy. Money buys influence. I voted for a black man - and he was just like any other white Republican or Democrat. The middle class is losing -still, despite his efforts. Now Obama is a multi-millionnaire. I say - good for him - more money and more security protection for him and his family. This time around, we don't have a Bush on the roster or a Clinton on the roster - we have something else. A pretty disgusting legacy for both parties -- is this Trump - this president. How can we trust either party to do the right thing?
If politics is "au fond," entertainment,"then Trump is the ultimate entertainer!He has also kept his promises. 1 sees no depth explanation of how Klobuchar's policies would be different from those of Trump, successful since 304,000 jobs were created in the last month! AK may be "Minnesota nice,"but nonetheless represents the elites, and is mum on fellow Democrat, Keith Ellison, accused of sexual harassment yet elected to post of a.g.For or against, Sen. Klobuchar?Admire president's strong stand on the wall, and if it is true that 90 percent of the drugs entering the country come through the southern border, killing dozens of citizens daily, then not to have a wall, or strong fencing with sensors poses a mortal danger. Neither Schumer nor Pelosi,both of whom have walls around their properties, cares about the citizenry in this regard, and agree with SHS who is doing a terrific job as "porte parole"that opportunists like Pelosi, Schumer, ENTIRE Dem. socialist establishment would rather see the president fail than America succeed. Amazing that the marginalization of "petits blancs" in this country resembles, mutatis mutandis, what is occurring elsewhere in the WEST, in France where protests by "gilets jaunes r ongoing, and in G.B. where a policy allowing entry of 50,000 immigrants yearly w/o a referendum was endorsed by both parties to the detriment of England's poor whites more than a half century ago! Remember Enoch Powell?
Swing voters will not go for someone as unhinged as Trump.
Donald Trump is not concerned with whomever the Democrats put forward; he knows he does not have to be. While praising the intelligence of the American electorate, he secretly knows that they can be led around like a bulls with nose rings - only instead of bull rings, he uses their beliefs and prejudices to lead them wherever he wants.
If DJT doesn't destroy our fragile democracy, he has published the blueprint and playbook for some other demagogue to do it later. If a democracy like America's is going to exist, there will have to be a paradigm shift in human thought throughout the world.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds would see the survival of a particular group of people or a belief as more important than the survival of all. When we understand all this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
1
Of course.
Here's the difference between the Democratic candidates for average American voters who are not 24/7 political news junkies. The other day, my wife excitedly left a message on my phone from her car that I should tune in to hear Kamala Harris speak. A short time later, she texted, "Why's she in the snow?"
The really bad news for Trump in there is that American voters who are not political junkies are already listening to political speeches in their cars. The bad news for the rest of us is that they are texting about it while driving.
2
Here we go again. Dems chose Hillary Clinton last time pointing to her middle- of- the -road "electability." As a result the Democratic establishment turned their backs on one of the most exciting and inspiring campaigns of our time in Bernie Sanders--who did have crossover appeal in the working class. I predicted disaster and disaster won. Now Dems are preaching the same old shibboleth of electability, blind to the American affection for passion, guts, and straight-talking honesty. The Clinton fiasco should have taught us to vote YOUR choice, not try to game out a projected "winner."
1
The trouble with voters who say they prefer the more electable candidate is that a large portion of them don't really know whether a candidate is "electable" or not. In 2016, voters who said they cared more about electability than ideology preferred Clinton over Sanders by wide margins, even though all of the data indicated that Sanders would actually perform better against Trump than Clinton would.
1
While I agree it's important to remove Trump from office in 2020, it's equally important to remove Mitch McConnell from leadership in the Senate. We all know how he has obstructed the Constitution, he also managed to block Obama's every move in the Senate for his entire term. Here is a man who should be shown the door in 2020 ! I know he is up for re-election in his home state of Kentucky in 2020, but it will be difficult to beat him there. The prize would be to turn the Senate along with the President in 2020! Stay Focused!
5
I was born and raised in MA. If I had been polled I would have said go with however can get elected. I like Elizabeth Warren's policies, but she reminds me too much of Hillary Clinton. Plus east coast liberals are seen as elites by the rest of the country. Why this is terrible is beyond me. I do think we need a candidate who is not from either coast even if those are the candidates I particularly relate to. I do like Ms Klobuchar. Being a tough boss should not disqualify anyone unless that person is unfair.
The takeaway from Leonhardt's Opinion piece is that for the Trump to not be re-elected in 2020, the Democrats need to be careful about whom they nominate.
No kidding!
And I agree that a candidate whose focus is on whipping up the Democratic base by promoting left of center agendas could be a catastrophic for America. Not because the ideas are bad or ill conceived, but because they might intimidate enough voters to award Trump re-election.
If the ultimate goal during of the 2020 Presidential election is to run Trump out of office - and frankly nothing else really matters more - then it is my hope that the Democrats nominate the best voice that can influence those in the middle to vote that way.
While I am an open minded voter where left-leaning ideology or for that matter skin color and gender don't matter much, I am realistic in knowing that there are many who are looking for a strong yet moderate voice. A person that they can relate to. And a person that they have faith in.
And that is why I am hoping that Joe Biden throws his hat into the ring. I believe that the middle will embrace him.
1
The Dems are going to screw up this election one way or another.
You can take that to the bank.
The GOP's attack plan, n.b., truth has nothing to do with anything here, will be socialism, immigration, guns and open borders; they'll sprinkle in some late term abortion and other nonsense to boot.
The Dems are vulnerable, inconsistent and half-hearted with all of them.
After the complete ineptitude of the past two years, I would think that any functioning adult the Democrats put up should clobber Trump, but then again, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
2
Klobuchar being a "tough boss" is not an issue in a race against Trump, who is famously abusive. It's only an issue in the primary, and I really don't see how another Democrat uses it against her.
What does it mean to be a "harsh boss"?
Does Klobuchar demand that people who work for her work as hard as she does? Does she insist upon quality work done on time? Does she hire illegal immigrants and pay them less than minimum wage? Does she periodically flog her crew?
So Brown is "plain vanilla", so what? That doesn't mean mediocre, a really good vanilla is hard to find.
"Rhetorical greatness"? Are his tweets grammatical and free of spelling errors? If so, it's a god start toward rhetorical greatness. If rhetoric is the art of persuasion, Brown has a good record of persuading a lot of people to vote for him in a very tough neighborhood.
The Democrats lost the White House in 2016 because they lost the Electoral College in the middle of the country. Doing the same again in 2020 might be the definition of insanity.
1
Sherrod Brown is the real deal. He is the kind of person who can fight back and definitely keep Trmp on his heels. Real populism combined with authenticity and sicnerity trumps fake populism.
Sadly, we have to still worry about nominating a female candidate, as it it seems to be very easy to portray them as aggressive and grating. Only a very deft female candidate can overcome the ability of a Trump to stand up against being villified. Klobuchar could be one of these candidates, but it could be that we should wait for one more cycle before a woman can get past the baggage of the times in which we live.
89
@Srose
Rasmussen poll results indicate that Trumps favorable ratings from all voters just increased to 52% - a 9% increase since after the shutdown (Daily Mail)
@Srose Seriously? Wait one more cycle because of baggage that will NEVER go away because that "baggage" is nonsense that would never be applied to males, but is always applied to women. I'm 68, and I would like a president who is my gender in my lifetime.
14
@Srose
Sherrod Brown came out against Medicare for All. Very anti-worker that.
1
While we’re trying to win through persuasion, let’s talk sense about the fever dream.
I recognize many Americans don’t follow the details of healthcare policy, and fear change. Many assume the government is inefficient and that ours is the best healthcare system in the world, because we have the best everything in the world.
But once you dispel the myths about universal healthcare, the facts speak for themselves. It’s pretty much impossible for Medicare for All, in any form, to be more expensive or less efficacious than the so-called system we have now.
If swing voters are in fact persuadable, don’t facts persuade them? If the election is to be won by persuasion, isn’t an ironclad case the best kind?
Hemming and hawing about improved access to healthcare and improving and protecting Obamacare sound inoffensive. It’s unlikely to alarm the uninformed voter. But it also muddies the water: because it leaves the issue tedious and detail-driven, it gives the Republican opportunity to offer his own incomprehensible details in rebuttal. That’s how good ideas are diluted by disinformation.
Better is simple: Medicare for All.
Do you qualify? Yes. Is you doctor “in network”? Yes. Is your treatment/medication/procedure covered? Yes.
Will taxes go up? Yes. Will it cost me more than I’m spending now? No.
Will I have to pay COBRA if I lose my job? No. Will my employer be able to change providers or decide, say, birth control isn’t covered? No.
Universal is defensible.
3
@James K. Lowden
Will people have to wait to see a provider, instead of waiting to get insurance approval? Yes, yes and yes. And, they will wait quite a while in some cases if we don't do anything to increase the number of PROVIDERS. How you think its gonna work when everyone can schedule an appointment? You will WAIT. And Wait, And Wait.
David Leonhardt should get a reality check: All 2020 Presidential Candidates from the Deomcratic Party are supporting the "Green New Deal". And that makes them unelectable outside Brooklyn. The problem is not lack of differentiation but lack of a sense for reality. The "Green New Deal" is completely nuts and if the candidates keep sticking to it, it will take the Democratic Candiate out of the race for the White House on its own. In such a scenario Donald Trump would win re-election, no matter what the economy does, the wall to Mexico, further Government Shutdowns or any other issue. He said it all at the SOTU: The USA are not a Socialist Country. He is right about it....Besides the unelectability of a candidate running on a Socialist Platform, the "Green New Deal" as the basis of the Democratic Platform will most likely invite some billionaire to jump into the race. Think the choice between Hillary and Donald was bad, try Donald and "The Green New Deal". Some narcissist billionaire will hear an inner voice asking him to save the world. Outcome: split the anti-Trump vote and make the Trump re-ection all but certain.
The fact that 4 states could flip an election where, 'thanks' to the anti-democratic Electoral College, the majority popular vote was disenfranchised, is a cruel joke on us, and a Damocles sword on this democracy. In that sense, irrespective of the virtues of any other democratic candidate, a binomial Klobuchar-Brown sounds appealing. And certainly on the imminent threat of the public's complacency in re-electing this most despicable bully named DJT.
1
1: Trump is the first U.S. President in history to commit treason. Thus, he does draw responses that are out of the norm.
2: "Populist"is a good thing, that was stolen by the right-wing as a buzz word for racist.
3: Socialized medicine is where we will ultimately arrive, because the health of people cannot depend on profit. And,
4: Trump will be in prison in 2020 and not able to run for president.
3
Decency and intelligence is the main issue in my vote. These are the bed rocks on which to build potential success.
2
The only way to beat a bully is to punch him in the nose. All the GOP candidates for President last time failed to realize that and one by one they caved. Hopefully the Democrats remember that when they go up against the President this next time.
Trump's nightmare opponent? Reality. Once that sinks in the modern GOP is toast.
1
To many, "electability" is another word for "being fully qualified". An ideologue whose incompetence and inflexibility will further sink the country in chaos most likely will accomplish nothing, while aggravating existing divisions.
I will not vote for a candidate who accepts/supports US regime change policies such as Venezuela, Iraq, Libya, Syria.
I will vote for Senator Bernie Sanders, assuming he runs,
And I hope his Vice President is Congressman Ro Khanna CA
Sadly the women candidates are inclined to support military action, perhaps feeling that being strong means being overly willing to use military force. Some new women in Congress know strength differently and will be wonderful future candidates.
I haven't forgotten Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine
Albright saying "...we think the price its worth it.", answering a question from CBS's Lesley Stahl referring to the five hundred thousand Iraqi children who died because of US sponsored sanctions.
I haven't forgotten Hillary's debate statement about the US Libya "intervention", "being Smart Power at its Best".
I did not vote for Hillary, and I was relieved when Trump was elected, because the Democratic Party was in desperate need of creative destruction.
Some good in Democratic Party potential has come from reaction to the Hillary debacle and the unpleasantness of Trump.
I refuse to vote for a President that may make US life better, but who does so with the cost of wrecking whole countries and being responsible for the deaths and misery of millions
Sounds good, Mr. Leonhardt--sounds good.
But my fears (like sharks) are just beneath the surface.
(1) The GOP's diabolical skill--and yes, I said diabolical--at creating bogeymen. I know people--fine people--for whom "Hillary" is practically a code word for whatever is abominable, detestable, wicked.
"Hillary"--sworn to personally enter every maternity ward in the country and pull to pieces every unborn child she could get her hands on.
You think I'm exaggerating? I'm not.
(2) I fear a bitter internecine war among Democrats. This I don't think likely--I think we're ALL agreed: this man Trump has got to go. I do mean--GOT TO GO. The nation cannot possibly endure another four years of--of what?
Malicious incompetence I would call it. But why sketch the horrendous details. There are hundred of dots. You have only to connect them.
No, I really do think the Democrats--and the nation--are likely to "pull together" on this race. But they might not. You never know.
And Trump himself. Sakes! I underestimated him years back. "Never! "I assured a worried friend of mine--a black man. "Never could such a man be nominated by the GOP--let alone elected!"
But the GOP was the hollow shell of a party. No real ideas. No real message. No real hope extended to anyone.
They fell into the hands of an unscrupulous demagogue.
And he still is--an unscrupulous demagogue.
He can "rile 'em up"--incite his "base."
And in 2020--
--he will.
1
Brown and Klobuchar are indeed the strongest candidates we can offer in 2020. (I've been arguing this on NYT comments for a year.) One observation about Brown: with him, you get a strong progressive AND electability.
Here is what Elizabeth Warren wrote about him: "With the speeches winding down [at a Democratic Senators' caucus], Sherrod Brown, a strongly progressive senator from Ohio, raised his hand. Sherrod usually doesn't speak unless he has something interesting to say, so when he talks, people listen." from "This Fight is Our Fight", by Elizabeth Warren, p. 153.
And here is Bernie Sanders on Brown: "I challenged Clinton on her trade position and urged her to join progressives in the Senate, like Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and myself in opposition [to the TPP]" - from "Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In, by Bernie Sanders, p. 137.
Living in Atlanta, a blue city in a red state, I am perhaps better attuned to spotting which candidates can win outside the most progressive hotspots. I love Boston, New York, and San Francisco, but Massachusetts, New York, and California are not reflective of the states we have to win to carry the Electoral College. Brown and/or Klobuchar would trounce Trump........and will have "coattails".
The Republican strategists have undoubtedly already figured this out, so be wary: the GOP trolls will be targeting these two (while posing as "progressives").
1
Trump hits his highest level of approval since just after his inauguration according to today’s Rasmussen report. He is up 9 points since his SOTU.
I think those thinking it’s going to be a walk in the park to beat him likely we’re shocked last time.
Maybe you’ll get lucky and North Korea will go back to the Obama days when they were firing icbm over Japan or the strongest economy in 10 years will crash.
Hope and Change baby. Forward!
It is impossible for me to conceive that most Trump voters did not realize he was mysoginist, sexist and racist; or at least two of the three. Therefore, to win over some of his voters, one must contend with their predilictions. I find it hard to believe that anyone can beat Trump who is not a white man. Notwithstanding this, my top three favorites for the Democratic nomination are Warren, Klobuchar and Harris in that order. So I am facing a choice that you argue I should not have to face. I hope the world (the US electorate) is as you believe it to be and not as I fear it to be.
1
I watched the announcement on CNN. I was, borrowing from Stevie Wonder, amazed but not amused. Just on the subject of those pioneers who came west, the ones whose spirit Klobuchar praised. There's more than a small disconnect there when on the one hand Klobuchar brags about Minnesota Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan's Native American heritage, and on the other invoking and praising the people and the process that carried out genocide against Native Americans. I don't see any difference between Trump's praise for Andrew Jackson (slave-holder and well-known "Indian fighter") and Klobuchar's praise for pioneers and it's implicit praise for the genocide carried out in America's westward expansion.
The US is a country that not only has collective amnesia about its history, but worse, it has a totally fabricated narrative about its inherent goodness. Hence we get speeches like Klobuchar's, which liberals are salivating over.
Klobuchar and Brown if Trump is indicted, Warren and Booker if he isn't. Throw in Kamala anywhere you want and I'll dance to the voting booth.
Hilarious. This is how the Democrats are figuring out how to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in 2020. Of course a middle class fighter is what the people want, that is not rocket science. That is simply the history of voting patterns for the last 20 years. The problem is that neither party would run such a candidate before Trump impersonated one in 2016 and mopped the floor with the corporate stooges the parties usually presented.
The two candidates mentioned here are amateurs and losers who have no chance in the political war to come. But there is that one true middle class fighter who needs no introduction and who has had a base clamoring for him for years. The one person with more experience than these candidates and more battles under his belt. The person with a life long history of standing up for the middle class. The one person who terrifies corporate America and lilly livered opinion writers in the NYT. The one person who has polled as besting Trump by a wider margin than any other candidate in 2016 and today. The candidate that the out of touch pundits wring their hands over and explain that they know that America is not ready for him. The candidate that received more small campaign donations than any candidate in history in 2016.
The candidate whose name the centrist DNC cannot mention, the candidate who they are afraid of more than any other.
You know who I mean. The only guy that the people love and who can definitely win in 2020. Can you say his name?
Thanks David. They both belong on a ticket.
Yeah, ok.
These 2 couldn’t get arrested in their own states. No one knows them. They can’t get Trump voters.
1
Democratic voters arguing about their favorite candidate is turning into an exercise tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. For too long, Democratic voters have looked for charisma, only. They want the prom king. And if they don't get their prom king (Bernie supporters, I'm talking to you), then they pout, because their guy lost.
White Democrats who didn't vote for Hillary in 2016 didn't think about the disastrous consequences to people of color in this country. And since Trump took office, hate crimes have skyrocketed.
Similarly, Democratic men did not think of the disastrous consequences that the Republicans would visit upon women. We now have a would-be rapist on the Supreme Court, who has already signaled he will reverse Roe v Wade.
What these voters didn't understand then and don't understand now is that many millions of us have a lot more skin in the game than they do. This administration is literally an existential threat to many of us. If we want a Democratic president, the individual candidate isn't that important. As Mr. Leonhardt notes, their positions are very similar. Dems should vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is versus Trump. End of discussion.
And if they don't? Because they need to "vote their conscience"? Their selfishness will only hurt tens of thousands more of us. How about having some of us on your conscience, Dems, you know, the Americans who have been hurt the most? And just remember it isn't always about you.
1
What if Trump is not on the ballot?
1
@Brad in Oregon. Elizabeth Warren is too shrill and shrieky. She looks and acts as though she's going to implode. Klobachar has all the right stuff including a sense of humor.
I think Amy Kloubuchar may already be toast because her staff says she’s an insufferable bully (like someone else we all know). And Sherrod Brown seems completely forgettable (i.e., he has zero charisma). At this early stage I’m starting to like Julian Castro, so I hope his star is rising.
3
Democratic voters arguing about their favorite candidate is turning into an exercise tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. For too long, Democratic voters have looked for charisma, only. They want the prom king. And if they don't get their prom king (Bernie supporters, I'm talking to you), then they pout, because their guy lost.
White Democrats who didn't vote for Hillary in 2016 didn't think about the disastrous consequences to people of color in this country. And since Trump took office, hate crimes have skyrocketed.
Similarly, Democratic men did not think of the disastrous consequences that the Republicans would visit upon women. We now have a would-be rapist on the Supreme Court, who has already signaled he will reverse Roe v Wade.
What these voters didn't understand then and don't understand now is that many millions of us have a lot more skin in the game than they do. This administration is literally an existential threat to many of us.
If we want a Democratic president, the individual candidate isn't that important. As Mr. Leonhardt notes, their positions are very similar. Dems should vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is versus Trump. End of discussion.
And if they don't? Because they need to "vote their conscience"? Their selfishness will only hurt tens of thousands more of us. How about having some of us on your conscience, Dems, you know, the Americans who have been hurt the most? And just remember it isn't always about you.
They are, as you say, Trump's nightmare opponents.
Some center left constituencies will act in ways to elect Trump.
First, a core set of liberals are afraid of winning; all they want is someone who will put them front and center. They want a saint who will spend to solve all their pet problems at once. And buy everyone a Prius, and double every teacher's salary. Their petulance cost Hillary, they will cost us again. Second, most democrats will not vote, and I expect black leaders to complain that voter registrations were lost and bad people prevented them from voting (same complaint, 50 years).
Is it clear to the democrats that Trump's appeal to 45% of the electorate has held firm despite daily evidence of his ineptitude, cruelty, misogyny, megalomania etc.? I guess not. Because all point to his weaknesses and expect that to generate votes for them. They will in densely populated districts on the coast, and nowhere else. Not FL, not PA, not MI.
Republicans are drawn to leaders who promise to drink blood, throw bombs, and hurt women; i.e., exhibit unmistakable streaks of cruelty. Democrats are charisma junkies (Obama, Bill Clinton); none of those running today have this characteristic. They likely mistake their local appeal for nationwide currency when they don't have one. The right supremacist wing has a tribal leader; it will take a tribal leader on the left - and there isn't one. All we have are people intent on playing total spoilers.
I think Amy Klobuchar has a real chance at winning, there are 5 choices for VP imho. Beto O'Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi , Julian Castro or I would see if Collin Powel is still available for politics and ask him. As for being difficult to work with, I have worked for many difficult people, you learn to get a thick skin and let them know when they crossed the line, you yell right back, they respect you more for it. I'm going to take the money I was going to donate to Beto and send it to Amy :-)
Why Mr Leonhardt would you succumb to the same ‘median voter’ fallacies that propelled Clintonism? Bernie Sanders would have won PA, MI, and WI in 2016. You stress being of the people, more focused on progressive economic policy than on divisive social and identity issues, being credible, etc. Sanders demonstrated all that and still does. Most of the NYT seems to believe that he is “too much” for the American people, but that is wrong; he may just be too much for the elites that have brought us to this new, unhappy gilded age - about which you write so well.
1
Is more better? Want to study how the typical American electorate thinks? It’s pretty simple, just ask your closest friends or better yet, family who still prefer Trump and why? If you really listen to them, you just might have the answer on how to beat Trump.
Getting back to my original question, I personally think LESS is better. NOT less energy. NOT less awareness. NOT less Passion. LESS CHOICES!!!
I hate going back to basics in sales, but now, more than ever, stick to KISS! Present your product or idea and then SHUT UP!
Stay away from promises you know will never get through, at least in this next election like Universal Healthcare, FREE college for all, or ever mention Socialism!!!
1
The only person the Dems have so far who has any chance against Trump is the one person being attacked just like Trump by the mainstream media as somehow the favored choice of, yeah you guessed it, Russia. Tulsi Gabbard is electable and can get the independent vote you so sorely need. You will destroy her before she gets any traction. Good job from my point of view I do want to see Trump re-elected.
The 2016 Republican presidential candidates were a rogues gallery of undesirables: T. Cruz, M. Rubio, J. Bush (That again?), C. Christie (With 15% support in his home state?) and that other guy: swindler. con man, grifter, draft dodger, prevaricator. But: "Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the taste of the American public." The rest is history or a nightmare: it's subjective.
Now, the Democrats have this huge field of issue candidates - with some overlapping and a shared vision for America: (1) Lift incomes and reduce living costs for the middle class (if any of them still exist) (2) Fair taxes on the rich (who would prefer to and do pay no taxes) (3) Protect Medicare and Social Security (which everybody has been paying into their whole life) (4) Global warming (if it exists) (5) Consumer protection (for the poor who pay 400% for a loan on their paycheck). "What do they think they are thinking about!"
Bernie, Joe Biden: one foot in the nursing home. Liz Warren: right-on smart as a whip and knows what needs to be done (but has a problem). Kamala: tough cookie with a fever dream. Corey B: did a great job in Newark. Amy Klobuchar: lawyer, skilled politician, smart, practical, might have miffed her secretary who types 40 words/minute.
Now, why am worried about who can win? Because nothing in American politics makes sense anymore...
Even if she is not as abusive and volatile as some people say, simply having the reputation will be a drag on the possibility of her getting elected. People do not simply make up stories about a bad boss; and the behavior often has to be quite bad before someone will speak up.
2
Democrats need to understand they win when they align swing voters with turnout. You can't play entirely to one group or the other. You need both. If you run a moderate candidate, you'll need a more clearly progressive platform. If you run a progressive candidate, you'll need a more clearly moderate platform. That's how these things work.
Personally, I care more about the platform than the candidate. Pick someone charismatic with a good television persona. That rules out Sherrod Brown but Amy Klobuchar definitely qualifies. That's fine. However, and this is the important point, you are not going to win any voter enthusiasm with lines like "lowering health care costs" as your policy position. That's a vacuous statement devoid of all meaning. It's also extremely ill-suited to the times.
The public is not in the mood for half-measures on health care. Even if you only achieve moderation, you need a strong progressive position on health care. Eliminating private insurance is a negative way of saying "Medicare for all." Just say Medicare for all. People like the idea. We can sort out the details later. The moderate position is insisting Medicare for all is properly financed.
Tah-dah! Progressive moderation.
Looks like many commentators think that Trump hatred and wishful thinking are the "solution" to winning, and pointing to the win in the House, forgetting that during both Bill Clinton and Obama the Democrats lost far more seat in the midterm than the Republicans lost with Trump, and both Bill Clinton and Obama were still reelected.
34
I am curious: what is it that you think trump offers other than hatred and revenge?
17
@Robert
I am also curious. But the people to ask are the 63,000,000 that voted for him and still support him after all he's done. I'd guess they might reply they like his audacity and that he gives them hope.
4
@Mike and Trump will be re-elected. The dems cant help themsleves by looking more and more buffoonish and out of touch. AOC and their new green deal are adding to the clown act of the dems.
1
Let's not get into Trump's own conundrum at this point, picking which opponent he fears most. He fears them all. And he should.
5
He should fear the wrath of American voters.
Klouchbar and Brown both come with the drawback that their Senate seats could easily be lost to the GOP. Given RGB's health, we must take the Senate in 2020. So there needs to be some exact planning here - I don't have the information to suggest an answer, but I hope everyone involved is aware of it....
4
This opinion seems like a reasonable analysis of these 2 candidates and the reality of the forthcoming presidential campaign. I will never again vote for a person who identifies as Republican - the last was Bloomberg - but I cannot call myself a dyed-in-the wool Democratic partisan either. There are elements I refer to as "overreach" such as the disregard of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, as identified by the calls for the Lt. Gov. of Virginia to resign although convicted of no crime, or using uncorroborated testimony against a Supreme Court nominee whom I loathe but who was smeared at the end by accusations that were not provable. I also do not think that the way to improve our health care system is by eliminating private insurance. There are other issues that I diverge with the Democrats over but in the end I expect to fully support the party's nominee. I'm turned off by the strident rigidity of a candidate like Warren, and wary of a candidate who's entirely untested at the federal level like O'Rourke. I like Gillibrand but don't think, as of now, that she has the personality to break out of the pack and gain national traction. So time will tell who emerges as the best to defeat the monster in the White House and if it turns out to be one of these 2 well then I can only say that either would get my vote.
4
A copy of your comment should be sent to every Democrat campaigning for the 2020 presidency. I am hoping that there are many voters out there who share your thoughts and feelings.
Isn't it time to include the likely absence of Trump by 2020, supporting the premise repeatedly with his crimes and unfitness examples? His base needs to hear the objective facts repeatedly, simultaneous with investigative activities and results. Warren had the courage to open that conversation. Please have the courage not to continue basing analyses on the premise of Trump's administration continuing for another year or another 6 months.
2
@Michele
Sorry, but I believe that's wishful thinking. Trump will run in 2020 unless he has a major medical crisis before then that leaves him incapacitated or dead. He won't be impeached and he won't resign, no matter what is contained in the Mueller report. At this point Trump's base is immune to objective facts, and Trump owns the Republican party.
@Berto Collins
Maybe you'r right, but we really do have a criminal and literally dangerous "president" who undermines himself and us, for example with the shutdown and immigration horrors. If he calls another false emergency, even the most craven Republican Senators will be forced to encourage his resignation.The problem is that including him in any election discussion trivializes how dangerous his unfitness has already proven.
OF COURSE Democrats should go for the more electable candidate. Those who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because of Bernie Sanders are prime examples of why Democrats should line up behind their Nominee. The fact that they wouldn't or didn't vote for Hillary was a contributing factor to the outcome.
The Democratic Nominee should be someone who has the best chance of beating Trump, and that implies a Nominee who can actually appeal to at least SOME voters who voted for Trump in 2016.
If Sherrod Brown, a moderately progressive Democrat who won in GOP-leaning Ohio, can appeal to working class voters, that means he can be competitive against Trump in 2020. And the fact that he's even-tempered is a GOOD thing, as it draws a stark comparison.
It would be harder for the Republicans to paint Senator Brown as a "way out there" candidate. They're going to try doing this anyway; the Democrats may as well try to make that a more difficult "selling point." Electability is important.
2
Electability is in the eye of the beholder. As a life long Democrat I see Brown and Klobaucher as boring, weak, and losers. There is only one candidate out there who excites the Democratic base and who can cut through the GOP fake news tsunami with ease. He is the guy who has already done it once, Bernie Sanders. If you want to win, run Bernie and stand back. If you want to lose... again, try to push through another low energy loser because you think they are the right age, from the right part of the country, have some special sauce from the last election, etc.
Every Dem who has announced so far knows they are going to lose and is just doing it to get name recognition for their next book and their future elections. Not one is a serious candidate with a base, money, and recognition. Bernie will destroy all of these candidates in the primaries unless the DNC again puts its finger on the scales because it “knows better”. We have seen how out of touch the Democratic establishment is when it comes to understanding the American voting base. It is time that the fools and disrupters step back and let the people decide. The road to victory is there for Bernie and anyone who gets on board. The road to disaster is there as well if the Dem leadership behaves like they did last time. We do not have much time left for Democrats to learn to trust democracy, we might not have any time left at all.
1
Trump’s worst nightmare is a “real Trump” A competent , tough , straight shooting, successful, self-made person. That would be Bloomberg or Schultz, but the political elite of the party, who have never worked in the private sector, yet all seem to be millionaires , have slagged them mercilessly.
That the party is taking the lead from a part-time Brooklyn bartender instead of people that have created multibillion dollar enterprises from nothing makes my head explode.
This election comes down to Florida and Ohio. Is there a plan? In a "wave" mid-term election , both elected Rep Governors and the majority of representatives were Republicans. In Ohio – Brown’s home turf - 12 of 16 congresspeople are GOP. The State seems to be all red other than Brown.
Will the Democrats win 90% of the popular vote in California, NY, Mass and Washington and fall short of 271 electoral votes?
2
A "real" Trump? The "fake" one is bad enough. Schultz SAYS he should pay more taxes, yet he's critical of Elizabeth Warren's proposals. And while it would have been nice if Hillary had won in Florida and Ohio, had she won in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, she would have won the 2016 Electoral College, so there's a scenario where she wouldn't have needed either Florida or Ohio. The reverse is also true, but the point is, the Democrats need a candidate who can be competitive everywhere.
3
Oh please, those guys are hated across the country even more than Hillary was. They would make Trump look like a statesman and a genius. And half the country would refuse to vote.
But you must have been kidding, right?
Once again, David Leonhardt shows himself to be one of the few Times political analysts with a clear vision of what's important to the upcoming election.
Brown and Kobluchar would be a formidable ticket. So would Brown and Harris. Biden/Kobluchar would have certain advantages as well as the added political baggage that Biden's long history with banks and previous presidential runs would inevitably conjure. Brown has the advantage of being pro-worker without the banking baggage from the credit industry weighing him down as with Biden.
Koblucher shows a potential for recognizing significant new issues shaping the global political landscape, e.g. technology, that would complement the more "meat and potatoes" vision of a Brown or Biden. Harris has that capacity as well.
It also is possible that a Brown - Harris or Brown - Booker ticket would resonate. The Southern State primary results will be decisive in this regard. Because, if the African American vote is only sufficient to swing the Southern States in the primaries but not the general election, then the South runs the risk of being written off as a loss to the evangelicals once again, And face it, California + the Midwest and Rust belt + East Coast can take out Trump, and then voting rights reaffirmed and reinforced can take care of the South down the line.
4
If only logic could be applied to primaries. Someone has to get nominated before they can be elected, and it's not clear that the nomination process will select the most electable.
2
@Rick
And it does not help that some of the big blue states, like New York, have a closed primaries system which makes it difficult or impossible for independent voters to participate in.
1
It picked the most electable candidate last time until the DNC overruled the decision and picked Hilary instead. I say just go with democracy this time and let Bernie win. It will be good for the soul.
Quite a picture of Amy battling snow and nary a hair out of place. She does seem quite compelling as a candidate and I was impressed with her aplomb during the Kavanaugh hearings. There was no flash of anger, just a steady controlled continuation of her question, which made Kavanaugh realize how badly he'd stumbled. His emotions were out of control; hers not. Brown seems a steady fellow as well altho not at all as known in a larger sense to many like me. I was amused by the comment from a SF nag who questioned who the staff members might be who spoke of Klobuchar as demanding. I believe Klobuchar would be a very good candidate for the presidential run and will continue to view her as such.
4
No woman will win in 2020. Hitch your wagon to that star and you get four more years of Trump. Did you not see the 2016 election?
I just hope the democrats don't continue to be delusional about what "electable" means. They promised me Hillary would have a better chance than Bernie and to this day I believe they were misguided, wrongheaded, and refused to look at the reality of people's deep-seated resentment of the Clintons (right or wrong). I voted for her, but knew many people who said they never would, and probably didn't.
3
I voted for Bernie in the primary because all the polls had him as the biggest winner against Trump. Then someone cheated in the primary. I voted for Hilary even though the polls had her as the least likely to beat Trump because there was no other choice. But that election was lost in the primary when the weakest candidate was magically chosen by special delegates. Bernie is still the people’s choice and the strongest candidate against Trump. I wonder how the Dems will achieve their defeat this time?
1
@Kate: Yes. Even though Clinton did win the popular vote, and did well in southern and midwestern states, as expected, she stumbled in the northern and mid-atlantic states, where I am beginning to suspect that voters would like to see someone who is not a corporate centrist. Five of us Texans discussed this issue yesterday. We are all in our fifties, and though technically some of us are lumped into the Boomer generation, we all agreed that, culturally, we identify with GenX and Millennials. We're the first generation raised on electronic media, the first to be economically worse off than our parents. We've always been financially squeezed. We've been downsized multiple times, faced numerous recessions, lost homes, been burdened with student loans, and are now charged the highest prices for health insurance. Despite lifetimes of exercise, everyone some kind of health problem - but we're still five to fifteen years away from being eligible for Medicare. We're educated, but chronically underemployed. We're the ones that will take the first hits if cuts to Social Security and Medicare are made, and none of us are looking forward to dying young or spending an old age in penury. We've been knocked around by vulture capitalists our whole lives. All of us agreed that more socialism is exactly what we want and need, and all of us are looking to more progressive candidates. Many will join with the Millennials to support their goals of a stronger America through solid social programs.
2
I can only say as an Ohioan, that Sherrod Brown has been a useless and non-productive Senator for us.
I would not vote for him either as a Senator, Governor or President (or VP).
3
@Concerned Citizen
Portman has been substantially more useless than Brown, but I'll bet you voted for him in 2016.
1
What is the age of all the poor little staff members that could not handle working for Senator Klobuchar?
What are the odds it's the most pampered and coddled demographic in history, the millennial set or younger?
Do I care if she is demanding to work for?
No. I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.
8
@Futbolistaviva Bullying the relatively powerless people who work under you is not a sign of strong character. It should be taken seriously, even amid the diminished standards of the Age of Trump.
1
Amy and Sherrod, Sherrod and Amy. To quote The Big Bang Theory's characters, Sheldon and Amy...Shamy. What a ticket that would be! Why? First, Democrats must never lose the Mid-West again. The people of those states are our people who helped build what the above Party stands for. Next, Klobuchar and Brown get "it," get "us" whether moderate or liberal. Crucially they are progressives. Then, people say Senator K can be a tough boss. So be it. When you have an individual who is dedicated and passionate in her beliefs, I can guarantee that she sets a high bar for herself as well as others. It goes with the territory. And Brown may not be the orator that President Obama was/is, but with that gravelly voice that is capable of being amped up if necessary, that guy can hit home runs.
I do want to say as a final note that so far I am thrilled with the Democratic candidates. And whoever becomes the presidential nominee, we must work like we have never worked before to get them to the Oval Office and send Mr. Trump packing to spend his remaining days in one of his golden towers. He is awful...
279
@Kathy Lollock
Kathy, yes,yes, yes! What a ticket you recommend. Both Klobuchar and Brown would be the tonic that our sad country so desperately needs. If Klobuchar is perceived as a tough boss is that so bad? Now is the time to winnow the wheat from the chaff, not when it’s too late and one is in office. No names...take guess.
17
@Kathy Lollock: Thank you! Very well said! You took my thoughts and wrote them, here. I completely agree with every word.
15
@Kathy Lollock I think the ticket should be Sherrod Brown for President and Amy Klobuchar for VP. This route would put a woman in the White House in a place where she would earn the national exposure that is needed to win the presidency. Read Michelle Goldberg's article listed at the bottom of this piece. She could run for president when Sherrod dropped back at the end of his term or terms. She is young enough to do this and I think she is an excellent candidate. Did you see how she handled Supreme Court candidate, Brett Kavanaugh, in the confirmation hearings? She is a strong woman and strong older women play a difficult role in our society which can account for the hard on staff criticism.
19
In a large field the left wing is going to unite around Warren and she's going to pick Harris and then campaign more to the center. Trump will survive impeachment and get nominated again and lose.
@Robert David South They'll never win. One woman who has lied about her heritage and the other who is trying to soften her time a prosecutor.
Trump has demonstrated that he can run rings around Warren and Harris has no likability. This is a sure loser ticket. There is only one person who can definitely beat Trump, you know who he is.
When will you begin to speak about how the Democrats need to retake the Senate with a significant majority?? None of the announced candidates has the ability for a "coat tail" effect at the ballot box. If McConnell is still in power (or even still in the Senate as minority leader should the Dems retake the Senate), all bets are off on reversing the damage done by the GOP. Mitch and the GOP Senate are your biggest enemies.
13
Mr. Leonhardt starts with a poll. Ah, yes. If that's all that mattered, Hilary Clinton would be President. But it does not.
These are good candidates, though I'm not convinced that Ms. Klobuchar can rise above the "mean boss" tag she has, and Mr. Brown is as exciting as Tim Kaine, but even IF they even win the nomination- they will run a "conventional" campaign while Trump tweets and (forgive me) seems to be having fun being, well, Trump.
Mean and Boring will not beat a guy smiling who can brag about the good economy, bringing troops home, and peace with North Korea.
4
True, these are losers. So why are so many people pushing for boring? Didn’t they watch the 2016 campaign? Was their TV broken? Trump loves the camera and he lives the podium and he loves to campaign. Run a boring intellectual against him and they will lose.
1
Being a tough boss won't necessarily make Klobuchar an ineffective President. Steve Jobs was famously obnoxious to employees, and Elon Musk demands 70 hour weeks from his engineers. Both were very successful business executives.
102
And I wouldn’t want either one for president. Being a tough boss does not mean being abusive.
16
The tough boss trope will get lots of mileage, it’s a targeted strike. There’s a huge swath of the male half of the country that is disinclined toward strong women.
17
@Schrodinger A pox on business exec examples. This isn't business. Her suck up, kick down pattern is not a good sign for statesmanship and leadership. We need stability, in diplomacy, war, financial upsets, domestic strife.
She ducked Banking Committee out of fear of conflicting with Wells Fargo, a heavyweight in Minnesota. Not a good sign of strength. I fear Klobuchar's a bit of a hack pol. And her touted bill passage record is lightweight. "Cotton Candy Amy."
Would I vote for her against most any GOP and against Howard Schultz? In a New York minute.
Brown has to 'splain his first wife's restraining order. Transparently.
I'm pretty discouraged by the vast lineup. Don't see any sterling. All of the declared so far are doubtful winners, and several are of dubious character. Bullock and Hickenlooper don't have any foreign policy experience. Can a person named Hickenlooper get elected? He's pretty old, too...
Steve Bullock, you need to take a couple of trade trips!
PS Earth to Eric Holder's ego! The only person who considers you a viable candidate is you. Get real. Do the name Marc Rich and the term Too Big To Jail mean anything to you?
10
I've had a variety of bosses. Most were competent, some high-performing. There were those you could go have a beer with and those who were self-possessed - pleasant but buried in their own ambition.
I also had an over-the-top boss who on at least one (probably many) occasion(s) turned purple, bulled his way around his desk and unloaded in the face of a colleague who had shown weak initiative on a project. Harsh! But for the most part he was a convivial and supportive leader. He rescued a dying institution and raised it to prominence - the right person for the right time and place.
Washington is a war zone and may be nothing but a smoking ruin by 2020. Forget wooly-headed, progressives and their fanciful reforms. Right now we have desperate mess. It will take the right person to clean it up. Nice guys, cynically mindless partisans, naive idealists, thin-skinned dysfunctional narcissists,... fuggedaboutit. When they win, we loose.
If Klobuchar is tough on her staff, so be it. Good!
Let's get rolling!
4
Bernie will look tougher in the primary than Klobaucher. What are you going to do then?
Sherrod Brown 2020: Trump won by a hair in PA, WI and MI. Hillary Clinton hung on to VA, CO and NV. If those six states again all go Blue, the Democrats will win, narrowly, in 2020. Throw in any further combination of FL, OH, IA and NC, and there will be another Blue landslide similar to 2008 and 2012. That's the game plan, nothing new here. So, returning to the essentials, focus on and win those six states, which are sine qua non. And what does that mean? White, middle and working class voters. Best Democrat? Sherrod Brown by far, who will appeal to the "centrist" middle/working class voters who went for Trump in 2016, and who will appeal simultaneously to "progressive" voters. Sherrod Brown has it hands down. And, if he and Amy Klobuchar can be on the same ticket, it could be a super landslide, as Klobuchar has the same credentials.
5
@C.L.S. I would put either Brown or Klouchbar at the top of the ticket with Castro, Booker, Warren, et al as running mate to perk up the base. But I agree with your electoral analysis. Take the heartland!
1
I have given this a great deal of thought and am convinced that a Biden/Klobuchar ticket is a definite winner. If not Biden, then Brown/Klobuchar. The Progressives will vote for anyone but Trump so why not work for the electoral votes needed in the Rust Belt etc.
4
If Klobuchar is a harsh boss, then check it out and report it, and MOVE ON. Don't use it as a constant drum beat for the next two years.
1015
@Madeline Conant, I second this. Excellent suggestion.
68
@KateF
Plus, she smiles plenty, and can laugh out loud. The pretender in Kremlin West only smiles at someone else's expense and is never seen to actually laugh - which betrays a serious character flaw, in my opinion.
105
@KateF I have heard through the grapevine that HRC was much better toward staff in 2016 than Bernie was, and I'm a Berniecrat. I don't know enough people who volunteered for GOP campaigns to say anything of worth.
15
Growing numbers of the public are beginning to realize that there is a possibility that Trump will not be running.
He will either be leaving to "spend more time with the family" or be swamped with legal issues. (Hint: He should have drained it when he had the chance.)
So, any person running needs both a Plan A and a Plan B.
Plan A is for Trump.
Plan B is for anyone else.
However, it won't be Pence.
Pence is polling at 20% approval rating.
Will it be Mitt?
An ex-hedge-funder who despises 47% of the citizenry?
Well, everyone else in the GOP is so toxic....
My choice?
Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, two hard-working Dems with excellent voting records that go back years.
They have proved themselves already.
I don't have to worry if they are simply spouting cliches or if that is truly where their brains and guts are.
4
Trump can beat that ticket if he runs. And Pence will have a high favorable rating among GOPers if he is running. He can’t beat many candidates, but he can beat Warren. It’s time to pick a populist winner and not try to create a special magic out of wishful thinking. And there is only one populist democrat.
Never in the history of our country have we had a President that was accused of the nefarious entanglements of trump, aka, Crazy man. I cannot believe that the American people will not send him down in defeat no matter who runs against him. We do not tolerate a person who wants to vilify everything we hold dear and who cozies up to our enemies like he does. Also, it is all for MONEY. Make all the news stories you want but study up on the defeat of our dear mr Nixon.
3
Heads up Democrats:
Listen to the candidates speak and debate. Read stories about them, profiling them, laying out their ideas and beliefs, but only by legitimate journalists with reputable, quality news media. Tune out of social media Republican disinformation and inflammation.
Then support with your pockets, support with your voice at rallies, support in your conversations with your neighbors, family and friends, support with your feet at marches and support with your vote at the polls, whichever candidate gains the Democratic nomination.
We won't all agree who the ideal Democratic nominee will be, but we do all agree, Trump must be removed from the White House as soon as possible.
And don't forget, we must also cure Congress of the Republican virus. America's democracy cannot regain its health by only removing the most officious puss.
Finally, let a new Democrat president and new Democrat controlled Congress not repeat the mistake of Democrats in the first two years of the Obama Administration. Not holding Bush, his Administration and congressional supporters accountable only emboldened the Russian Republican Party. Trump and Republicans in Congress must be held accountable. They must be investigated, indicted, tried and imprisoned as appropriate. American democracy needs to heal and those who vote for Republicans must learn the truth about those who have deceived them.
155
There is only one Democratic candidate who can be trusted to investigate the Trump administration when he wins.
@Bobotheclown When he wins? You must be a Trump supporter. He has a 38% approval rating.
I hope the media looks deeply into Amy Klobuchars surprisingly abusing her staff in emails that largely were sent between 1 and 4 am.
That raises a red flag, minimally regarding her temperament and perhaps other problems.
1
She has a whole lot more problems than being tough on her staff. She is as corrupt as Trump but her particular sins have not come out yet. The media is getting ready to dump if she is the chosen one.
Those in office should legislate knowing that their personal benefits will be no better than the average they dole out to the populace at large.
2
You would not be guilty of hyperbole or exaggeration,would you Mr. Lenohardt, in calling any one of the Dem.PARTY opponents of Pres. Trump a nightmare for the president, would you? Looked at objectively and honestly, not 1 of them can match The Donald as an entertainer and politician, and can you envision thousands of folks driving in some cases overnight and waiting in line to hear any 1 of the declared candidates speak in public? If politics is the ultimate form of entertainment, then Trump is the ultimate entertainer, and do you know why? Trump is always himself, always spontaneous, has "it." that indefinable quality which draws people to him! If TRUMP is not re elected in 2020, the biggest letdown would be among the print and t.v. media folks whose livelihoods depend on his remaining in office!Cable t.v. networks would lose their anchors, layoffs would be across the board. Morning Joe Scarborough would have to go back to practicing law, Mika would have to choose another line of work and Mike Barnicle, banned unofficially from newspaper business because of allegations of plagiary, would take an early retirement.Trump's appeal is buttressed by a strong, economy and his anti illegal immigrant stand has the support of the citizenry.Get used to it, Mr. Leonhardt, TRUMP, providing his health holds up , appears now, especially since the appearance on the scene of unabashed democratic socialists, as a shoo in for a second term. The anti Trump media would not have it otherwise!
@Alexander Harrison -- you really aren't making any case for the Trump voter as anything but "deplorable."
I'm surprised to see you make this argument so baldly.
Your previous posts lead me to assume you do not intend this as satire ... but a snarky Democrat could have easily written this as such.
Trump can beat any Democrat so far announced because the are all boring. But Bernie is not boring. He is not afraid. And he is entertaining. He can go toe to toe with Trump on the entertainment front and beat him. So if you want to win you are going to have to accept that social democracy is here to stay. That is what the people want and eventually that is what the people will get.
Why is the electability so important? To a lot of people, the last two years feel like 20 years of long ordeal with a narcissist, ignorant and racist, street-smart bully in the White House. Voting this bully out of office in 2020 has to be the singularly most important goal, and so important that any differences in policies among the democratic candidates should not really matter that much to most democrat or decent voters.
Almost by definition, more moderate candidates are more acceptable (i.e., more electable) than more radical candidates. For this reason, I really like candidates like Amy Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown and possibly a few others. In balance, I would prefer Klobuchar over Brown, as she may bring more energy to the general election and more contrast from Trump.
I also hope that democrat candidates (interest groups) do not push each other to more radical policy positions just to place themselves in a "better" position in the primaries but to distance more moderate voters in the general election. I watched painfully that Hillary Clinton gradually changed her positions on immigration during the 2016 primaries under pressure from some interest groups. For my friends who are more liberal and progressive than me, I can toast you for your boldness and good heart any day and anytime, but this time please cast your votes to more moderate candidates like Amy Klobuchar. Please. This election is just too important.
1
Moderate candidates are more electable? Really? Have you been watching the news for the last few years? There is a reason there are no moderates in the GOP and few moderates in the Dems. The people are sick to death of the slow torture of “moderates” and will never elect one again. The choice in the next election will be fascism vs social democracy. Moderates need not apply.
Forget about moderates. It's time for visionaries.
3
Choosing a Democratic nominee for president presenting an emotionally appealing "niceness" to the American public & calling for "healing" when confronted with cretins as adversaries is ridiculous.
If an economic progressive can't be found to combat the present occupant of the White House, we'll have more years ahead to whine, "Why can't these bullies play fair?"
Mr .Leonhardt's position might have been effective against a President Mitt Romney, but that's an alternative history.
1
While it's still way too soon to tell, this 1-2 punch is what's required to soundly roust the sitting coward from his bully pulpit once and for all, provided the rest of the growing crowd of Democratic and semi-independent candidates decides to check their egos and rally around them in true unity sooner rather than later. And while that more grown up behavior is not what the Dems are traditionally known for, now's the time for them to break their own rules by putting their country and their party above themselves. How many swing voters a unified ticket like that move is anybody's guess, but it could make the difference that wasn't made in 2016. To summarize Klobuchar's frozen yet fiery launch: E pluribus unum!
I agree. Trump would have a field day demonizing any candidate that promotes anything he could label " Socialist". How can he attack moderates like Klobachsr or Brown? They can beat him with their smiles!
2
Isn't Sherrod Brown a millionaire? How folksy. "Dignity of work" is rich people's code for low paying jobs with no benefits.
two political zeros that will raise taxes and destroy the economy Bring It On
You can divide most Democratic presidential aspirants as either intoxicants who make voters feel politically giddy and light-headed or stimulants who energize and mobilize voters. There are one or two sedatives -- calm and calming -- and the rest are trying out for the role of Vice President or just practicing for a future run.
After a season of political cabin fever, Democrats are eager for the Spring leaping into the Fall of 2020, when Trump like a tree leaf falls.
If there's one lesson we've learned it's that a show horse might win the race but it's the plough horse that gets things done and pulls in the right direction.
Leonhardt says there are no big differences among the putative candidates now. There can't be. If the donkey is to pass through the eye of the primary needle they all have to be the same size.
But come the first 1000 days of 2020, the differences will be stark and telling. Jimmy Carter promised to tell the truth. But the truth was that he couldn't lead and Congress wasn't a nuclear sub. Clinton was the Comeback Kid who on his way back lost his compass and forgot triangulation also means sell-out. Hillary was battered by haters.
Obama was too good to be true and president. When Rep. Joe Wilson called him a liar during the State of The Union Obama should have called him out and decked him. A principled boxer in an age of political cage fighting. But we don't win on points.
Show horses are off and running. Few deserve to get to the starting line.
If the Democratic field gets too numerous, it will work to the detriment of the Party!
1
Impressed with her clear headed analysis of where we are today under Trump and without mentioning his name a wise move ,pointed out how she would differ as our president. Amy has true grit for sure and I think she would be than capable of handling Trump's bombastic bully boi style and has enough class to make him look bad if he takes the low road vs her. Quite capable of taking away the midwest that helped elect Trump Amy can be quite a formidable candidate ,smart and tough and a champion for the middle class. No more winter weekends at Mar-A-Lago presidential palace what a con TRump pulled on his base as they get stuck pressing their noses vs the windows of Trump's palace to see how the rich live, enough is enough.
1
A ticket of either Klobichar and Brown or Brown and Klobichar would be very hard to beat and would go a long way unite the Democratic party. Either way such a team would have to be taken very seriously.
2
Both Klobuchar and Brown would be excellent candidates. They will have to survive the gauntlet of candidate in the Democratic race and find a way to rise above the fray to get their message out. If either succeeds in winning the nomination and assuming Trump isn't hurt by Mueller, they will be in a back alley knife fight the likes of which neither has experienced. Trump will pull all stops to win a second term. He will be a dirty campaigner and employ every dirty tactic imaginable. It would seem Klobuchar and Brown would each have of the mettle to compete and they will need it against Trump.
2
Given the general disgust the majority of us have with the current POTUS, a sensible, articulate, forward-thinking candidate should destroy him in 2020. That is, if he's still in office by then. Also worth noting that we are slipping towards a recession in 202 and, should this take hold, it will show, once again, the failure of GOP tax cuts as economic stimulus.
"...the fever dream of eliminating private health insurance."
So we're going to have to wait again for proper health insurance?
I desperately need a blood workup. I have to pay for it out of pocket because of a high deductible, and I don't think I can even remotely afford it.
Can you please estimate, sir, with your great non-fevered brain, how many years I am going to have to wait for basic healthcare?
Because some of us out here are getting desperate with our untreated conditions.
1
I saw a comment asking about Senator Klobuchar's commitment to protect the environment, when she is by far the most effective senator getting legislation passed in coal-country Mitch McConnell's Senate:
Klobuchar's 2017 National Environmental Scorecard grade of 100 percent and lifetime grade of 95 percent is even a smidge higher than the estimable Mr Sanders. Now that we are all moving past Trump, facts matter again - here's her proenvironment voting record:
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/amy-klobuchar
And even better, or more fun anyway, was her brilliant clapback tonight to Trump's ignorant tweet that since it was snowing in Minnesota today during her candidacy announcement, there must be no climate change:
"Science is on my side, @realDonaldTrump. Looking forward to debating you about climate change (and many other issues). And I wonder how your hair would fare in a blizzard?"
It's going to be so great having a president who not only speaks powerfully and eloquently to shut down lies and liars - she can spell!
#nomorecovfefe
1
What is the opposite of 'out -of-touch" elitist'? Possibly an 'unpretentious egalitarian", humble populist, who understands the plight of the masses? Whatever the opposite is, that is NOT who Trump is. He is very pretentious, not egalitarian at all, and full of hubris, and even though he says he is a populist, is far from popular policies that would aid the common man and masses. Yes, the majority of us, don't want an 'out of touch elitist' but what we really don't want is an 'out of touch non-elitist' who is irrational and unreasonable leading our country and the free world. Please, all other candidates, stay rational and reasonable and I assure you the majority of Americans will choose you over Trump, as they did the first time, but this time will not have Russian trolls influencing and interfering in our elections, attempting to sway people's vote or getting them to stay home and NOT vote. We've seen what, 'pretentious ignorance' can do in the White House and will not vote for a second installment of the same. The day of reckoning will come. Justice will be served.
1
I consider myself a progressive Democrat and could totally get behind a Klobuchar-Brown ticket. It would likely put the upper-midwest in the Democrats column in 2020, and spell serious trouble for Trump.
When Elizabeth Warren questioned whether Trump would be around to run for re-election in 2020, inferring he might be in jail, I saw a ray of hope! You have to fight dirty to beat the con man. While I'm a huge fan of Brown, he doesn't fight dirty. That's what we will need to win.
1
Mr. Leonhardt is correct when he states that the Democrats often pick candidates who do not and/or can not establish rapport with the the American voters ....particularly the swing voters who elected Trump. He is mistaken, however, if he thinks the two candidates that he put forward (although not as repellent as the other candidates who have thus far declared) are examples of those candidates who could achieve such a resonance. They may both be from the Midwest but they are also from elitist schools with Hollywood and New York supporters....a double poison in the eyes of the voting block in question. No one from Minnesota could carry the country particularly a woman who went to Yale and the University of Chicago. They won't even listen to her. Mr. Brown is only half tainted with a Yale undergrad degree with his graduate work done at Ohio State. Neither of these people is a veteran which would be a major weapon against the hypocritical Trump who mocks the memory of John McCain and has repeatedly insulted the Joint Chiefs. Like it or not, justified or not, the Democrats have to face the awful fact that the ideal candidate to beat Trump is a middle aged white male who has served in the military, has no ties to the Ivy League, Stanford or the University of Chicago, is neither a lawyer or political scientist and is not chummy with either Hollywood or New York. They will be hard pressed to find such a candidate among their ranks.
1
Trump's actual "nightmare" opponent is himself.
Like many very troubled people, he has been self destructing for decades.
The premise that the turnout model doesn't work based on red states Georgia and Texas – and Florida, which trends right and has more rightward leaning hispanic population – seems like a bit of a straw man argument...
Most of what I know of the candidates comes from watching them on MSNBC. Sherrod Brown came across as a well intentioned wimp, Klobuchar came across as a giggly woman impressed with herself. And her performance getting shouted down by Kavanaugh was heart breaking. Neither Sherrod or Klobuchar come across as having the gravitas needed to take on the huge job of governing this country or the oratorial skills and presence required to inspire voters. Among the people who have now thrown their hats into the ring I think most of them would make really good vice presidents, but I've yet to see someone who seems ready to take on the actual presidency.
1
Trump should fear the looming possibility of even more his crimes being divulged, and impeachment, and ultimate criminal prosecution. He should fear losing in the Republican primary, particularly to the stealthy Mitt Romney. He should fear a real democratic election result, unaided by another freakish lurch in the Electoral College.
We should all fear - no, we should be in a state of panic - that somehow he infests the Oval Office again.
1
I’ve thought for some time that a Klobuchar Brown ticket was a winner. It can be a Brown Klobuchar ticket. At this point it doesn’t matter to me who leads the ticket. I just want the rule of law and decency restored to the White House.
1
Has it never dawned on Mr. Leonhardt that he got his "electable" neo-liberal nominee of choice in 2016?
The candidate who "might struggle to beat President Trump" is the one who supports policies beloved of the Washington establishment, but which the general public finds mealy-mouthed, dishonest or inadequate.
Remember "we are not Denmark"? How'd that work out for Hillary -- and the rest of us? Or would some prefer to lose, than elect a candidate whose positions actually have popular support?
Denmark or bust?
2
The press needs to just STOP covering Trump's catcalls and insulting nicknames. Don't do video of him saying those things and don't write about it. NO catcalls and NO insulting nicknames.
1
"Klobuchar…is battling accusations of having been a harsh boss, which seem to be a mix of sexist stereotype and some truth."
How much is sexist stereotype and how much truth? I had already read the BuzzFeed article linked here and found it disturbing. Purportedly yelling and throwing papers, and once a binder, seems really bad, right? That's until you consider how vicious Trump always is, and how in 2017 Ben Jacobs, the Guardian political reporter, was asking Republican Greg Gianforte, the tech millionaire endorsed by Donald Trump, about healthcare when Gianforte viciously assaulted him.
Fox News reporter Alicia Acuna, producer Faith Mangan, and photographer Keith Railey witnessed the assault and published the account on Fox’s News website. After Jacobs asked Gianforte his question: "Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him. Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the man, as he moved on top the reporter and began yelling…To be clear, at no time (during) this assault did Jacobs show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte."
Jacobs had to be taken away in an ambulance. The police allowed to Gianforte to just walk, he only received a short stint of community service, and was easily elected.
Little doubt Jacobs would have been happy if Gianforte had thrown some papers at him. Amy Klobuchar may have a temper, but if she was a man, no one would care. Which means it's all sexist.
1
Minnesota has issues, and so does Senator Klobuchar. Next.
@cyclist
Everybody has "issues", and nobody has more of them than the current POTUS. If the Democrats are looking for a candidate without any issues, they would have to nominate someone who is deaf, blind and mute.
1
David---talk issues, not people. A 'fever dream' – no more private h/c ins? Hey that needs explanation to a confused public. warned that Medicare for All may mean loss of ‘freedom’---( private profit for insurance co's)
1st, many countries do have 2 tiers, including some private insurance, BUT still guarantee affordable health care for all.. But we have multi millions still uninsured, and rising costs.
Other countries also use insurance mandates but with govt regulation of premium costs. That’s how their citizens get representation for their taxation--- the so called American Dream, as they say.
They don't let Insurance profits call the shots for their govts. VS here, our taxes are forced to subsidize insurance profits.
Now we have our King Trump, his GOP courtiers, and the huge campaign donations by corporate elites who are our 21st century counterparts of the 18th C aristocrats we once overthrew.
Our 1 % elites legally call the shots in politics, profiting from our national productivity. This in what was once the world's great democracy. Can our new Democrats rise up to meet this challenge? Or will they turn out mediocre, just 'better than Trump?'
Our 21st C aristos and the politicians who serve them regard affordable health care for all as a SLIPPERY SLOPE—‘ a mortal threat’ as in past decades, says Krugman. It would lead to loss of their wealth and power. What next, higher taxes, and 'big govt' regulations? Like in our past generations? Outrageous!
Nope, I'm done with moderates, let's just compromise with the devil types, and I include Obama in that group. Get it right: the Republican party as now constituted threatens the existence of all future life. So I don't want some naive moderate saying, gee whiz, maybe I can just compromise with Mitch McConnell and he gets 10 laws helping big oil and I get...nothing.
Do you not know even now what we are up against? These people will stop at nothing to maintain power - fraud, criminal acts, voter suppression, borderline misuse of the military, court-stacking, and more. I want someone who will FIGHT as if all our lives depend on it - because they do. That would be Kamala Harris. I'm not voting for yet another Democratic weakling.
Okay, so let's not get into the trap that we have in Virginia. Yes, we need a candidate who isn't full tilt socialist or full tilt pro-abortion to win in 2020. But, Brown has a domestic violence record. All though Klobuchar is pro-abortion, she's not as extreme as some of the other contenders. I think she has a shot.
I'm still hoping for a younger Biden-like figure (e.g. Gov. Edwards from Louisiana) to run. Maybe Beto or Booker.
I really like a Brown/Klobuchar ticket. They both seem like sensible and decent politicians. I think Biden or Sanders is most electable. Sanders is the most popular politician in the country. But I’ll take anyone who’s not an authoritarian or extremist nut job.
1
With over 20 candidates the Democrats are in danger of cannibalizing each other, pulled to the far left by AOC, the winner battle-tested but with all their weaknesses laid bare. Vulnerable to an assault by DJT.
First I have to say this article is right on, as a DEM my prime objective is to beat trump and I would vote for anyone who I thought had the ability to do so. Second, I really like Senator Amy Klobuchar even though I really know little about her. She really impressed me at the Kavanaugh hearings, she seems like a really normal person who I would be happy to say is my president. As far as being a harsh boss, so! as long as there's no skeletons in that closet.
1
Booker is great but. Not sure if he alone could attract some of the people the Dems lost to Trump Perhaps with a good running mate.
Get the lefties to cool it. They get attention but will get us more years of Trump. No one male or female who is old. Tone down the identity politics. We are all Americans last I heard.
This is a hopeful article. Let's get all the info from the people who really know this candidate. If she's the real deal, and can beat Trump based on her service to working people, then Leonhardt meets the requirement of good journalism to serve the future.
1
"So if Democrats wanted to identify their best hope for beating Trump, what would that candidate look like?"
Al Franken.
That's why they put the hit on him so quickly. He was the perfect candidate to oppose Trump... and to think, they got him out of there on behavior akin to Bob Hope or Richard Dawson... and that he walked from all that, even more reason to believe how good he was for the job.
3
Trimp is cowering in the corner, desperately terrified by these great political rivals.
It is not sexism to call out Senator Klobuchar for her workplace demeanor. Women can and do bully and harass. There’s no reason to disbelieve her staff; they know. Whether it’s disqualifying is another matter. But whether man or woman, it’s not a quality of leadership.
1
I’d vote Brown/klobuchar no problem. Sorry Kamala you don’t have enough experience and I don’t want another rookie.
1
On electability, an unnamed commonality between Klobuchar and Brown is their whiteness. Is that, as much as "moderation," what might move those who were persuaded by Trump's race-baiting?
Klobuchar’s potential seems really great, but I would like to understand why she was so quick to turn on Al Franken over a frankly laughable abuse claim....
1
How about a ranked choice election, so we can all vote for candidates we truly believe in without scare tactics and fear mongering about wasted votes or “spoilers?”
1
Again, the electoral 9/11 known as the Trump Administration cannot happen again. Those who stayed home in 2016 will not do so again. Those who griped about Hillary, can not do so again. There will be no hacked emails to divide the Democrats, no Comey to de-fib the Trump campaign, no Bernie Bro's let down. Now you might think, well they'll be something else to divert voters to Trump. Really? Seriously? Wake up and smell the indictments.
Can the press not start pitting candidates against each other? At least the Democrat candidates?
It’ll be bad enough when the time comes that the candidates do that to themselves...
1
It is exciting just to have a wide range of Democrats entering the field. Don't rush to nominate one candidate. There is value in seeing and hearing all! So, Trump blasted Amy for looking "like a snowman"! O.K. so that would be "whiter than you!" and should work with Trump's base. She has been criticized for being tough on her staff. This is a criticism you would want to have against a man who does not know how to hire or manage staff. Beto O'Rourke is out front in El Paso, where the people, like those in Squirrel Hill, Pittsburgh after the Synagogue shooting, are saying " Don't come here. You don't speak for us!" We have Cory Booker exhorting to win with love! Trump stooped to hate. Bring them all on and let's savor the rhetoric!
So far the crowd is a bunch of empty suits.Warren is a toast as we speak...the rest will follow .
Senator Klobuchar comes off as the wholesome gal next door, Amy, everyone's BFF with manners. who can forget her in the Kavanagh hearing? I'm ready for someone to turn down the volume and just get something done to better the country.
1
This column is just more wishful thinking about how to beat the big, bad Trump. The obvious way is to adopt many of his centrist policies -- that promote job creation and that end lawless migration -- which are actually supported by a majority of Americans. But that would require abandonment of the college dorm room Marxism that seems to afflict much of the Dem Party.
Instead, Leonhardt prescribes that old chestnut, "electability." You remember "electability," don't you? It's what got John Kerry, John McCain and Mitt Romney their places as candidates. How'd that work out?
Klobuchar and Brown will be crushed by the angry Progressives in the primaries. Harris will prevail, in part due to her swearing allegiance to the doomed Green New Deal. And we'll have four more years of "ain't Trump terrible" from pundits like Leonhardt.
I welcome Klobuchar to the field, and I'll welcome Brown too if he enters.
I'm one of those "voters [who] understand that choosing a candidate with modestly different ideas about how to achieve these goals isn’t much of a sacrifice."
What does worry me about the Democratic agenda of " policies to lift incomes and reduce living costs for the middle class and poor. ... tax increases on the rich ... climate action, voting rights and expanded Medicare" is that it is a big sprawling agenda of major change.
Just stabilizing or fixing the ACA will be a fight.
Climate will be a huge fight, and in my view a carbon tax with 100% uniform rebate is the only practical solution, for multiple reasons I won't detail here. ... beyond that it's probably the only solution that could draw any votes from moderate Republicans. (It does have support from a host of Republican economic advisors.)
The experience of the Obama & Trump presidencies is that a president gets no more than one major policy change legislated, and then the pushback stops everything else.
My key agenda item is CO2, it's getting desperate. My question of the candidates is "don't tell me you're for everything ... tell me your priorities for your political capital."
Being "for everything equally" means you aren't really serious about getting anything done.
This is the problem with the Democrats and while they always lose except when they have somebody charismatic like Obama. The problem is they're playing the last election. The timber Kratts are acting as if it's 2016 but it's not it's 20/20. Got a good strong candidate out there like Bernie Sanders who is in line with just about everything with the majority of America wants and you will cream Trump. Start playing this election like it's 2016 and you're most likely lose again
My ticket for electoral victory and good government is
Sherrod Brown for President
Stacey Abrams for Vice-president.
Solid in the progressive center.
The Republican tactics of meanness and derision will fall flat.
Divisiveness will be reduced.
Progress will be possible, especially if the Senate returns tomDemocratic hands.
Trump's confrontational style is driven by his instincts, and he has shown surprising aptitude in getting under the skin of his traditional opponents. He seems to have figured out Warren's vulnerabilities and was able to establish the conversation about her ancestry.
He will find it more difficult to get his hooks in Klobuchar because he has little experience opposing Midwesterners. He will see little to attack before he is in an untenable position.
More needs to be said about Pete Buttigeig.
He may not be electable but he has the right idea. He stands out because he doesn't sow pie in the sky fantasies that put lipstick on a pig. He understands we have bigger issues right now. We need to fix government. We need to excise the rot and put some standards in place to ensure what happened in 2016 never happens again.
In the Democratic President's second four years (s)he can tackle heathcare in a profound way. Look at college tuition costs. Stand up to big business over the environment. Look at economic inequality.
Let's look at realities. We need to fix the problems before we can tackle the nice to haves. Right now we are hanging on by our fingernails. It's not the time to be planning a manicure.
1
Outside of Minnesota I doubt if many people have ever heard of Klobuchar. I read the NYTimes, Washington Post and other publications every day and I had not until yesterday.
@Aaron Adams
A jury of 12 would not believe that.
Ohio Native here. I’ve admired Sherrod Brown for Years. He’s your favorite, NOT drunk Uncle. The guy that works as a Plumber or Electrician, a rumpled teddy bear that slips you a few bucks “ for School “ when you visit. In other words, he’s the real deal, a true public servant, in the original sense. HE wants to actually help people and improve their lives, it’s not about him.
As for Senator Klobuchar, I see the knives are already out, and pre-sharpened. Where have we seen this, before ??? I don’t know enough about her, but I like what I know, so far.
My very best wishes to both of these very capable Democrats. Yes, they ARE Trump slayers. I can hardly wait.
350
@Phyliss Dalmatian . Great to hear that she's a tough boss. Is that the perogitive of a male only? Isn't that what's needed in the world of politics? Go get em, Amy. As for Sherrod Brown, love him and his down home voice. I would love to see Senator Brown head the ticket with Senator Klobuchar as Vice President. Then she would run for Pres. after his one or two terms.
6
@Phyliss Dalmatian
I do not know much about Mr. Brown. But honestly the last thing I want is a "rumpled teddy bear.' I don't want someone I'd be happy to have a beer with, because he's real enough 'to slip me a few bucks.' I want someone who can blow me away with his/her intelligence, someone who could make me focus on what they're saying, they're so smart. I want someone better than me. Mr. Brown could be that candidate, but let's ask for the right criteria.
3
Almost three million people found Hillary more appealing than Trump. About 500,000 found Gore more appealing than Bush. Our system is totally out of whack with what the electorate as a whole wants. Having said that, I do believe that you have a point. Personally I wish that Sanders and Biden and Warren would just remove themselves from the contest. The first two are too old (sorry but people in their late seventies should not be our president) and the third managed an own goal with her foolish pretense that she was Native American. Brown and Klobuchar are both experienced on a national level. I like Harris and Booker, but I'd prefer someone who had more national experience.
5
If I were Trump I'd be more worried about being in an orange jumpsuit collecting garbage at the side of a freeway than who my 2020 opponent might be. He may eventually evade charges of money laundering and tax evasion (his real dangers), but it's unlikely he'll be a candidate. I'm more concerned about possible Trump spinoffs, like Pompeo the Great.
1
Trump's nightmare opponents? Seriously David, you must be joking. Who knows Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown? The first time I noticed Amy Klobuchar was when the judge Kavanaugh made Klobuchar look like a novice by asking her if she likes beer. Sure these 2 can be attack dogs for Trump not a nightmare. If democrats cannot learn for the debacle of 2016 presidential election, they have learned nothing and do not deserve to win.
As an independent, the only democrat presidential candidate for 2020 that will get some traction in the primaries is Congresswoman from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard. Why? not because she is capable of being a nightmare for Trump but because she is strongly opposed to the foolish and costly regime change overseas wars. Secondly she has served with bravery in the armed forces and thirdly for independents she is the most likeable of all the dozen or so democrats who have thrown their hats in the ring so far and others who are going to do so in the next week or two.
As a baby boomer, I would not want to hear from socialist democrats who would want to tinker with social security and medicare. The baby boomers have paid into both social security (SS) and medicare (MC) and will not like any attempts to mess with that. Again learn from Trump. He promised he would not touch SS or MC. Guess what he kept his promise. Don't even talk of increasing the taxes on the middle class. Whoever you want to tax is up to you but talk about spending cuts just like Obama did.
1
It should be a walk in the park for the Dems to defeat that person in the White House. He is unbelievably delusional to the point of being comical and dangerous at the same time. His bragging is obscene. His claim to fame is calling opponents names and golfing.
Now there are a few men in high positions being urged to resign for their misdeeds. Why shouldn't that one in the White House be held to the same standards. We can only hope we survive the rest of his term.
2
Are the stories of extreme staff abuse by Klobuchar true? If so, no interest.
4
Before anyone calls these Trump opponents they first have to make the nomination process. The democrats will first have to tear each other apart before winning the nomination.
The Democrats are going to offer everyone everything for free. Free money for being unwilling to work, free education, free health coverage, free housing, a job for life with a big fat pay check.
1
Davey, you really think AOC is going to endorse either one of these candidates? After this week, ie VA implosion, New Green Deal and the behavior demonstrated at the TDS Judiciary Committee this past Friday, you’re time would be better spent working on finding a candidate to run against Nicki Haley in ‘24. You all mailed in ‘20 this week.
2
Senator Klobuchar has the right set of attributes to take on Trump in 2020.
Senator Klobuchar has a super resume (high school valedictorian; B.A. magna cum laude from Yale; J.D. University of Chicago; private/corporate attorney and prosecuting attorney for years; U.S. senator for 12 years). She has a tough work ethic and has high expectations for herself and her staffers. Her stellar work on the Senate's important Judiciary, Agriculture, and Commerce, Science and Transportation Committees indicates she can handle the minutia of legislative details while working well with folks on both sides of the aisle to get things done.
And her questions during the Kavanaugh hearing were respectful, direct, on-point, and eye-opening, and Kavanaugh seemed most revealing in his non-response responses to her inquiries.
Senator Klobuchar's smarts, calm demeanor, inquisitive mind, sense of humor, cool under pressure, and keen abilities to get to the heart of the matter while treating others with respect and fairness is the best antidote to Trump's pugilistic, hit before thinking approach towards anything that challenges his perch at the top of the U.S. political structure. She could take him down.
What a shock to the system it must be to now become a candidate in this malady known as the U.S. Presidential election. What a good thing for our country and for the world that Senator Klobuchar has agreed to take the plunge.
Go get em Senator!! You've got my vote!!!
4
If the DEMS win the Oval Office in 2020... The winner will have unlocked the magic code .. How to convince 18-26 YO's to vote on election day. They'll show up for the free concert, poetry slam, drum circle and protest march... but the never make to the polls on election day.
Amy Klobuchar has been accused of abusing her staff(s) and employees. We don't need another crazy or phony person in the WH.
Nobody would have guessed this by her very ongoing public behavior, just the opposite in fact, but appearances are deceptive.
When I see a politician's public behavior, I expect their behind closed doors behavior to somewhat coincide.
Thanks for playing, next.
The Times needs to get to the bottom of this.
Where there is smoke you can bet money there is fire.
4
@Prometheus. Where there's smoke there is fire? How about Benghazi? How about the Clinton e-mails? How about Obama's birth certificate? Republicans are adept at producing plenty of smoke without benefit of fire.
@James Amato
Granted but these are people on her staff
Harry Reid
This needs to investigated
Schultz got it right on 60 Minutes: Neither party is serving the interests of the citizens. Trump-Pence v. Schultz-Bloomberg, a fair fight--the others are DNC Politburo sideshow till the party takes over in July 2020.
2
Klobuchar is the Tim Pawlenty of 2020 -- an over-hyped Minnesotan who won't win, due to the dullness factor.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren's entire campaign is about fighting for the middle class. Why didn't you mention her? Have you fallen prey to the Pocahontas nonsense? She seems to have a more systematically considered world-view than any of her opponents.
2
I’m definitely leaning towards Senator Klobuchar. I thought the manner in which sho comported herself during the Kavanaugh hearings was commendable. The fact that she’s got a reputation as being a demanding and difficult boss isn’t relevant to me and shouldn’t be relevant to voters.
However, I would add a third person to this list: Kamala Harris. If I were Trump, I would not want to debate Senator Harris one on one; I think she could eviscerate him without even breaking a sweat. It’d be fun to watch her deconstruct him, but that’s assuming Trump the toddler shows up for these debates.
3
Trump's nightmare opponents are women with experience as prosectors, attorneys general or similar. He cannot criticize their gender or appearance and insulting nicknames won't work unless the Democrat is as foolish as Elizabeth Warren was.
Imagine Harris or Klobuchar debating Trump, comparing him to a subject in a RICO investigation. This would be great television. I have some reservations about female candidates coming off as nasty, but I am reminded that nobody gets to the top of their profession by being a nice guy. Or gal.
136
@JR
There's no "can't" for Trump. His ego needs and related pathology fuels his drive to diminish all others, particularly females. The best way to handle him is to ignore him, or when that is not possible to place him in his cage w/o using his name. Had Hillary dealt with him that way, she likely would have been President. Candidates should take their prompts from Nancy Pelosi- she knows exactly how to diminish Trump.She should hold a boot camp for aspiring Presidential candidates.
8
@JR
Agreed. Let's watch Trump get nasty and sexist (you know: be himself) during a debate, with millions of suburban independent female voters watching.
3
@JR Agreed. Nice women don't make history. I think I read that on a bumper sticker somewhere...
3
David - It sounds like you think that only a Midwesterner can beat Donald Trump. And if readers go to the article about Kamala Harris they will see other letter writers say more or less the same thing - that no “liberal from San Francisco” can ever be elected president (interesting that others say Harris isn’t actually a liberal at all because she doesn’t adhere to their exacting standards). I suspect that others will criticize Elizabeth Warren for being an unelectable liberal from another coastal state, Massachusetts.
It will be interesting to see how Democrats resolve these factional differences. They will be united in only one belief - the need to defeat Donald Trump. And honestly, any one if their candidates would do a far better job than Trump by almost any measure. So let’s hope that they don’t fatally wound each other during the primaries. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize.
Oh, and about those liberals from San Francisco: Another one of those, Nancy Pelosi, will have a lot to say about 2020. Let’s hope that she can keep her caucus together so they can keep the House in Democratic hands for another term and let’s hope that the various House committees can expose Donald Trump for what he is. If he survives politically to run again in 2020, the voters will be under no illusions about the choice they are making for the future of the USA.
6
One of the main reasons that Trump won in 2016 was that he managed to project a strong anti-establishment image. This, by the way, is not quite the same as a populist message and, as Trump demonstrated, does not require any coherent message at all. Hillary was a supremely qualified, eminently reasonable, moderate Democratic nominee. But she was also seen as a quintessential establishment candidate. She still lost to Trump, a narcissistic incompetent incoherent demagogue, who generated significant cross-party vote by being willing to anger the traditional political establishment.
To beat Trump, the Democrats need to nominate somebody who, to some degree, can credibly tap into the still strong anti-establishment voter sentiment. Such a candidate could be a moderate or a progressive but would need to be seem as independent, non-traditional and willing to go against the party ideological orthodoxy on some crucial issues. Among the declared Democratic candidates so far, I quite like Kamala Harris.
6
The degree of ideological difference among all the Democrats is virtually nil and every one of them would be constrained by exactly the same forces and considerations in attempting to move forward some or all of the liberal federal policy agenda.
So what makes sense is to nominate and elect someone who can be elected and someone who has and can maneuver in the Congress.
Politically too, 2+2 = 4 and that is one of these midwesterners. Add to the mix the vital significance of nominating a woman -- and electing here this time -- and the answer is you get to Sen. Klobuchar, who is likely to emerge as a top three candidate in the Democratic field: Albeit one who has to do a mea culpa on the staff issues and pledge to be a better boss as president.
2
I'm a progressive pragmatist and I have been watching Klobuchar closely this past year. She's been my first choice and she still is, even with being a 'tough' boss. If the staffers had named themselves I would be giving it some further study, but they didn't. Huffpo said Harry Reid had to talk to her about it and his spokesman said that Reid does not remember having such a talk. The trolls from St. Petersburg are busy pushing the story (see WaPo, they are everywhere there) which makes me disinclined to believe it. It shows me that Trump and Putin fear Klobuchar.
Being a 67 year old woman, I say it's time for a woman to be president and I hope it's Amy Klobuchar. I loved her roll out in the snow, absolutely loved it.
8
Electability. That is the only Democratic qualification for this coming presidential election. Identify a Democratic team that will put an end to the Trump nightmare. Klobuchar and Brown certainly may be the ticket to make it happen. They would have a broader appeal, acceptable with many progressives and most middle America moderates. Hillary's lesson; she was too polarizing and tone deaf to white working class voters. Warren is a reservoir of good ideas but not electable on the national stage. Gillibrand and Booker do not meet the electable criteria. Neither does Bernie. Joe Biden is past his time. Harris perhaps works as a running mate for a Klobucher or Brown. Electability needs to be the number one criterion for 2020. We can work on all the details after we get rid of Trump.
9
@Bill, What does "past his time mean"? Is Nancy Pelosi past her time? Would a newly elected young, freshman representative have done better than her in dealing with Trump. I detect more than a whiff of ageism in your comments.
1
@JerryV
We need fresh faces and new ideas. If that is "ageism" then I'm guilty. And by fresh faces I don't mean freshmen.
@Bill, Some of the most effective office holders in our history have been people "who have been around the block". They tend to have the experience and personal knowledge of legislators so that they can negotiate with people of their own party as well as with those across the aisle. mentioned Nancy Pelosi. A presidential example would be Lyndon Johnson. The fresh face and new ideas of John Kennedy were not sufficient to pass a civil rights bill but Johnson was able to do it, even against a lot of Southern racists. (Sadly, the stupidity of his administration during the Viet Nam war was a powerful mark against him.) . But most important is the ability of a candidate to carry the swing States that Clinton lost to Trump. I would like to hear what the candidates say over the next year. At this time, however, I believe that Biden would be the best candidate. But let them all run and let the voters vote.
1
Klobuchar is worried about the debt? The GOP, hypocritically, owns that issue, and it's bogus.
Where do we get the money to restore our public education system and infrastructure without government spending?
Other candidates have ideas about paying for that and they are better ideas than "closing tax loopholes" as Klobuchar wants. For example, raising taxes on the wealthy and/or taxing wealth.
Klobuchar is Hillary with tweaks. She'll win, and lose, the same folks Hillary did. We need a candidate representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
4
@russ Hillary was pulling a freight train full of baggage that Klobuchar does not have. No comparison.
1
Yes but... why is NO ONE mentioning the huge elephants in the room? Tax expenditures which favor the wealthy and military expenditures on senseless and wasteful wars and weapons and adventurism abroad. Those two add up to well over a Trillion dollars per year.
And, of course, raising the top individual tax bracket, raising the SS taxable limit, taxing capital gains at a higher rate.... which are all good policy positions.
11
I define myself as a progressive but I also understand the need to win in 2020. It will be important for progressives to not get too ahead of themselves. The Democratic candidates need to communicate the following in my opinion: 1) How can we bring our budget deficits down in a re atonable manner without significant compromises in our military preparedness and or significant cuts in supported social programs such as SS, Medicare etc; 2) How can taxes be raised without significantly impacting economic growth?;3) What type of funding is needed over the next 10-years to improve our infrastructure ensure our competitiveness with other countries?;4) Institute a program of reducing greenhouse gases gradually and manage the impact on employees who may be negatively affected?;5) Work with businesses to ensure that all workers have access to healthcare. Those businesses that currently do not provide healthcare benefits are taxed to provide workers the opportunity to join the ACA at no cost;6) Increase taxes on the wealthy, tax capital gains and reduce the military budget to bring our deficits down to a more manageable number;7) Ensure the government agencies (FBI, EPA, Energy, Interior, etc) that are currently being decimated by a failed admin are restored to serve their purpose as designed. There are others but these, in my opinion, are the most pressing that need to be addressed in a coherent manner by the current crop of Democratic candidates.
5
There is a difference between voters who follow their idealistic emotions, and voters who really want to win. The former considers the perfect world as their guiding light, while the latter considers the probability of winning as their beacon of hope.
The 2016 election was, perhaps, an anomaly, but not because of the popular vote majority. That was intended to be other than the actual electoral outcome, hope being extinguished by the Electoral College.
How ironic that under a president who offered what his supporters hoped would be the perfect world, our world has become anything but.
Candidates like Klobuchar and Brown would seemingly tack towards realism, which might just trump a president who not only tacks toward, but dwells in a world of falsehood and fakery. By focusing on the possible and viewing perfect as being the enemy of the good, they might be viewed as less than pure by their more progressive colleagues, but they might also prove to be more acceptable to voters who are necessary in order to win an election
5
Sherrod Brown is NOT boring! Sure, he's kinda gravelly-voiced but he has the common touch, is honest, super-smart and knows how to get things done.
He'd make a great President or VP for sure. However, Ohio would lose its only real advocate in the Senate and that could be a big, big problem for us.
9
i happen to think pretty highly of Klobuchar, and I think the way that she handled herself in the Kavenaugh hearings shows exactly how to neutralize Trump, with a humbled sense of pain at how inappropriate he can be. As for the complaints about being a tough boss, I am ok with it as long as it is about getting the job done, and not about massaging an ego. No one s perfect, and as long as she gets things done, i can live with her being a demanding boss.
6
Subordinating marginal differences in the candidate's positions to "electability" is understandable given the angst and incredulity caused by Mr. Trump's constant forays into near-insanity. Honesty, would we be that surprised to read "Trump has given the State of Nebraska to Putin!"? Well, maybe just a little (:
4
All this sounds wonderful. But voters have to make sure that they vote in senators and representatives who will work with the person they elect as president. Otherwise we'll have another stalemate like we did with Obama. It's not enough to elect a person president. Voters must decide if they want the president to have the backing of Congress. In the case of Obama they didn't. That, and the GOP attitude that they wanted to make him a one term president, handicapped his ability to get things accomplished.
4
@hen3ry--But, we have also seen the stalemate that can result when the Congress is controlled by the President's party, but they have no confidence in him. This happened with Trump, and it's why he's been unable to pass any meaningful legislation, except his tax break for the rich. The main example is his wall, which he could not persuade his own party to agree to give him funding for. When voters elect an extremist to the presidency, Congress may work to temper his/her extremism. That's important for progressives to remember.
2
Klobuchar And Brown are my dream ticket with Klobuchar the headliner.
4
@Jim Sande--I'm not happy with what I'm reading about Klobuchar. I've had abusive bosses. I don't want one in the White House.
@Jim Sande: I'm with you, Jim! Thank you!
(1) The path to the progressive agenda will come through control of the house and senate. That should be the primary focal point of the progressive core. None of the Democratic party presidential candidates will veto progressive legisation.
(2) The path to the presidency is through states such as Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pensylvania, North Carolina, Florida. The Democratic party needs a candidate who will run well there.The progressive core needs to remember both of these points.
This op ed does a good job addressing the second point.
A ticket such as Klobuchar or Brown and Beto O'Rourke (youthful enhusiasm and maybe the ability to swing Texas as a VP candidate) sounds good to me right now.
7
Sorry but it’s gonna be a fighter and a serious minded and compassionate person that the majority of America want as a president. Trump has burned out a majority of the voters. He’s stale. He’s mean. He’s unpresidential. The democratic candidate has got to be strong enough to get 10 million votes above the republican candidate/ Trump to prevent another stolen election. Anything less and the GOP and Trump will steal the ballot box and claim the presidency just like before by way the ancient, undemocratic, (and to Trump, and 99.5 % of Americans: unexplainable) process of deciding the election via the college electorate. Right now Democrats, Greens and even the few decent republicans that are left must volunteer and get involved in making sure all the votes are fairly cast and counted. Fair elections and Voter Accountability is what Trump and the GOP fear the most.
5
When has a man who held any office ever been criticized for being too harsh or tough or demanding? I do not want a patsy milquetoast for a leader, for once I want a liberal leader who has the courage of her convictions and righteousness required to inspire others through love and fear.
Of all the candidates so far, I support Klobuchar.
10
I don't know how things are outside of the East Coast, but one generalization I can make from here is that prosecutors who go on to elected office undergo a transition where their prosecutorial zeal, the quality which had made them so successful earlier, congeals into a toxic mix of spite, vindictiveness, and paranoia, picking fight, and finding enemies where none exist. As evidence, witness those delights Chris Christie, Andrew Cuomo, Rudolf Giuliani, and Eliot Spitzer.
Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar were both prosecutors and from what I've read, they fit the above description quite well. Do we really want another White House with a revolving door of disgruntled staffers, spinning like a dreidel?
4
@stan continople No, we don't want that on top of the ticket. The VP, on the other hand...
Coming from someone who switched to vote for Trump after previously only voting for Democrats, I think any warm body will beat Trump. Getting rid of him is enough to get me and I suspect others fired up to come out and vote.
But what will actually excite me about a candidate is finding someone with a clear and bold vision to make the changes America needs if it's to have any chance of surviving its existential threats from global warming and special interests.
This is what ultimately (and foolishly and regrettably) got me to vote for Trump and, so far, I've only heard this from Senator Warren. The others, especially Klobuchar, seem more of the same droning incremental cover your self stuff.
I'd also prefer someone that seems genuinely nice and empathetic, and judging from Klobachar's dismal record on how she treats her employees (not to mention her vicious and silly comeback tweet to Trump on his hair) she's not nice enough for me.
2
@R1NAYour vote for Trump said it all. That's where you lost the credibility battle.
@David Kannas. I am sorry you view it in battle terms. I wanted to shake things up because the same old same old certainly hasn't worked. At least I feel I was honest enough to admit my mistake.
Maybe, if we're lucky in the end,Trump will swing the pendulum towards radical change in a lasting good direction.
1
Senator Brown's protectionism is little different than the President's. I don't see the populism of the left as an attractive alternative to the current mess.
The populism of the left offers you universal healthcare and a cleaner environment. It offers cleaner elections, publicly funded, and taxes on the rich who currently have the senate bought and paid for.
There’s some debate over the extent to which trade policy is to blame for wage the suppression and income inequality we’ve seen over the last 40 years, and some debate about what to do about it. Just because Trump and Brown both oppose NAFTA doesn’t make their reasoning or policies indistinguishable.
In have seen a number of new articles lauding Klobuchar for passing the most bills of any Senator. Whether this claim will help her candidacy is questionable as the record is easily obtained online. I checked her record in the 2009-10 session where 3 bills she introduced became law with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress. One of these was a bill to rename a building in Minnesota and another concerned formaldehyde in lumber. The third was about responsible drug disposal.
4
Seems to me either Brown or Klochbarer are first tier candidates at least as formidable as Harris and Biden. It's early yet but unless voters don't turn out or a third party candidate runs as spoiler the Democrats would win with most any moderate at the top of the ticket. Conservative columnist George Will recently wrote what seemed like an endorsement for Klochbarer.
The billionaires will be arrayed against whomever the Dems. put forth this election.
Once again we'll see the will of the American people versus money.
Campaign finance reform, jerrymandered districts, and saturation TV ads have given us the difunctional government we see today.
But it appears to be functioning just fine for those billionaires.
7
I would add John Delaney to your list. In some ways he may actually be to the left of the moderates you list, but his pragmatism and bipartisanship makes him very acceptable to former Republicans like me who are likely to be voting in Democratic primaries next year.
2
I voted for Bernie Sanders not because I agreed with everything. I assumed that our system would mean that he would not get everything that he was for, including a national minimum wage that does not recognize that the cost of living is lower or higher depending on where people live, etc.
We are not electing a king. We have three branches of government that are meant to be a check on one another's excesses. But in general, I agree. I'll be interested to see what comes of these accusations of Klobuchar. It could be that she just has high expectations or it could be that she's the Red Queen. We are terrible these days at dealing with nuance and waiting until the facts are in before we make judgments.
8
@wanda It's not so much us, but our profit-driven "news" media who are terrible at presenting nuance and facts. They give us horse race and reality show, rationalizing that this is what the public wants. Les Moonves, former CEO of CBS, admitted that covering Trump's candidacy as entertainment was bad for democracy but great for business. Hence the endless coverage of presidential tweets and sensationalist stories based on 30-year-old yearbook photos and "mean boss"allegations by former staffers.
The person whoever the Dem candidate should fear the most is not Trump who, as Elizabeth Warren pointed out yesterday, might not even be in office by 2020 and might even be in prison. The person they should fear is John Kasich, the former governor of Ohio, who will get into the race in a nanosecond if Trump is forced out of office and may even primary him. Though Kasich is basically sane, do not forget that he is a typical old school Repub conservative who will never raise taxes on the rich, cut the defense budget, acknowledge that immigrants are the lifeblood of our future, get rid of Citizen's United or loosen the iron grip that insurance companies and Big Pharma have on health care. He will, I believe correctly, point out that there is no way we can afford to pay for the top two items on the progressive wish list: stopping climate change and universal health care, in one fell swoop no matter how much we tax the rich corporations and home grown oligarchs. Kasich would also have the advantage of having been in Congress and a governor or a large state, which none of the current crop of Dem candidates can claim. It seems to me that the only person who could beat Kasich (or Trump) is Joe Biden, with Klobuchar as his running mate.
7
@sleepdoc. Joe Biden is a decent man with a checkered history. I also think he is past his sell date. The constitution expresses that the minimum age for a candidate is 35. Back when the Constitution was written 35 was a ripe old age. But it's what we've got, and I would favor younger candidates with less baggage than Mr. Biden.
1
Add Nikki Haley to the mix if Trump falters. I don’t think she would primary him, but if he is gone, her plans to wait for 2024 could easily be accelerated. I think she is the strongest presidential candidate the GOP could field. And unlike Kasich, she won’t have to fight a “never Trump” label within the GOP.
@sleepdoc -- while I'd prefer to have any non-flakey Democrat in the presidency (no Tulsi please), it can be argued that a Kasich presidency would be good for the country if he were to bring the GOP away from personality-cult authoritarianism (the polite way of saying "neo-nazi") and gaga kakistocracy, and return the party to a commitment to the constitution.
I don't think he can do it though; I don't think anybody could do it now. The tragedy of our time is that a large majority of those remaining in the GOP are real Trump supporters. They tell us "I don't like the man but I like his policies" ... what lying bupkis.
I don't see any way for a Republican to win the nomination without feeding the Trumpers their red meat. (Meaning Kasich can't win the nomination, unless he turns into a Trump and they buy it.)
When Trump exits the stage the obvious question is who is the next-Trump? Remember that authentic fascists fit a pattern: almost always grew up lower middle class, went into the military, often suffering through a war in which they were defeated.
The next Trump is likely to be a lot more authentic, probably less overtly narcissistic, younger ... and potentially a lot more dangerous.
I see no way that small-d democratic Republicans can rebuild a party until Trumpismo is thrashed to the point of extinction as a national party. At that point they can perhaps achieve a center-right party that is viable by taking independents and Conservative Democrats.
1
It is hopeful that electability has entered the heads of more Democrats, and anti-Republican voters. Because last time around, Dem-purists elected Trump by staying home out of identity-politics sulking.
6
The Democrats are too busy being Democrats to nominate a centrist would could beat Trump. They must appeal to the lunatic left in order to get past the primaries. Once that baggage is loaded onto the Democratic platform, failure will follow. Trump's biggest opposition will come from within the GOP itself. The path to the WH is through the centrists and independents, not the radicals wings of each party.
5
@Mike So in looking at candidates we need to look at who will be able to pivot gracefully after the nomination.
@Mike. I don't believe that is the case. The collective horror, on so many sides, to what Trump and his cronies have wrought will provide the glue. Most citizens will coalesce to bring an end to the reign of Trump and McCon(nell) and to reinvigorate Democracy. Let's face it, Republican victories have relied on gerrymandering, voter suppression, the outdated Electoral College, taking NRA funds, and trolling. Methinks any Democratic candidate can effectively stand on restoring Democratic norms.
1
The premise here is a silly false dichotomy. The "electability" angle going back to male Clinton is a myth. Bill Clinton only got elected because of the spoiler third party candidate Perot. In that context, Jerry Brown or whoever could have won also as the Democrat. "Electability" gave us John Kerry instead of Howard Dean: how did that work out? "Electability" gave us Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders: what was the outcome there? The idea that all the Democratic candidates have similar records is demonstrably false.
Dear Times, Please stop this horserace stuff. If you insist on polls, please poll us subscribers and ask who wants more horse race "reporting" as opposed to digging into candidates' records of accomplishment on important issues.
9
@Evidence Guy -- the problem with " records of accomplishment on important issues." is that there's not a Bernie or progressive out there who has accomplished much. It's intrinsic ... if you want somebody who's not mainstream they cannot have accomplished much.
Personally I'd settle for a really well-thought-out plan, and evidence of some ability to govern with a divided legislature. I'm partial to governors as a result.
Swing Voters lean left, are you kidding me David? We yearn for Clinton, Bush 41 and Reagan!
I am a swing voter as is most of my family, friends and colleagues at work. The variety (or lack thereof) of political issues we have in common, simply center on sane political actions which will positively affect our family, community and nation.
The Green New Deal or as Pelosi stated, "Green Dream" and this current early crop of Progressive Candidates will only cement the heart of the country into Trumps camp.
Give us "swingers" a traditional Democrat who does not play race politics and focuses on the middle class and you win in a landslide. However how do these Dems win the primary when the party has abandoned its' working class ideals and people like AOC have commanded the headlines as well as the Islamist Tlaib, all you are doing is creating a platform for 4 more years of this Tweeting Chaos.
3
I like Amy Klobuchar and I think she can take a punch from the president and deliver a counter that will rock his world. But how tough? Can a woman be largely perceived as a "fighter" with many middle-class voters, particularly men?
Older, rural (and some suburban) white voters--especially men--haven't broken the shackles of their sexism. Their hostility for Hillary Clinton was, to me, based largely upon her eagerness to criticize Donald Trump and contest him rather than her perceived "elitism" or animus toward the Clinton dynamic. Educated men, I think, have less of a problem with a woman who's sure of herself and handle rough situations with "a common touch," something that Mrs. Clinton lacked, her "deplorables," for instance.
And I'm not clear on where there's separation between Ms. Klobuchar, Ellen Warren or Kamala Harris, the former being new to the race, and Senators Warren and Harris lugging their own particular crosses up the trail. Trump has said he "wants" Ms. Warren but that's a trap. He hasn't demeaned Ms. Harris--yet. Which bring us to Sherrod Brown.
He's a likable, folksy guy, smiling and sunny but he's got grit under his nails. He knows more about government than No. 45 will ever know. And Ohio has mighty deep pockets where the president is revered like a deity. How much of a factor he can be to pry away neighborhoods and towns and counties from the president next year depends upon one thing: the economy, and not just the numbers. Wage disparity is the key.
4
This nearly lifelong Ohioan has seen Senator Brown constantly fight for the middle and working classes. And all without a heavy overdose of identity politics. He has indeed opposed the the GOP vote suppressors and the Administration's unsavory record regarding racial issues. He just needs a charisma boost and less wonkiness in his speeches and tv appearances. He has the gravitas and experience to be a good President. Or is he too nice and too clean?
No dissing Amy Klobuchar either. Fine kick off speech today. Like Brown, somewhat to the left of H. Clinton but far enough away from Sanders, Warren, et al to have a good shot of winning in 2020.
6
Brown proves he is all business, it’s not about him it’s not about flashiness it’s about caring about the people he represents, and I believe Brown does that every day with pride and dignity,
2
In a linked article, Leonhardt cites polls to claim that increased support for 'healthcare for all' shrinks when those polled find it means losing private health insurance.
Problems with this reasoning:
1) Poll questions influence answers. Thus, for example, a poll that says, 'You will no longer have your private insurance' may get one answer; whereas a poll that asks people if they would favor single payer if they paid less for medical insurance in taxes, but got better care is likely to get more support.
How were the poll questions asked? I don't know - does Leonhardt?
2) Attitudes towards issues are not formed in a social vacuum - increased support for healthcare occurred in the political, debate framework of the 2016 election. Then, support for Sanders' position on healthcare among Democrats increased despite Clinton and right wing journalists' attacks on it.
Polls can show views in a moment, but cannot effectively predict the impact of knowledge and argument on those views - in the case of healthcare for all, the trend seems to be that the more people learn about it, the more they like it.
3) Last, those swing voters Leonhardt says healthcare for all won't fly with? Sanders won many conservative Democrats in primaries - with healthcare his main plank; but many of them voted for Trump in the general. A progressive candidate could have made the dif:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study
6
Amy Klobuchar is like a sensible pair of shoes.
And after 2 years of Potus stomping over this country in a pair of army boots (albeit to protect his delicate bone spurs), what this country needs more than anything is the political equivalent of a sensible pair of shoes.
Go Amy!
6
My choice for the ticket is Amy Klobuchar - Adam Schiff. The concern that many people don't know who Sen. Klobuchar is irrelevant at this juncture. Everyone will know who she is by the time the campaign gets underway in earnest. And besides, almost everyone in America knows who Adam Schiff is. He is liked and respected by everyone, including non-Trumpite Republicans and Independents. (I have asked every such Republican and Independent I know, including the two Republicans in my family, and they are unanimous in their high regard for him.) The even temperaments of Sen. Klobuchar and Rep. Schiff feel really wonderful and even revolutionary at this point.
As for the articles about Sen. Klobuchar being an ogre to her staff, every woman who has ever held a job outside the home knows that she's being held to a different standard than men bosses, and the complaining is rampant sexism.
5
Booker, Warren and Kochubar. Having heard their proclamations of candidacy I am unimpressed.
Each touts their childhood, upbringing, dogooder accomplishments and how they would champion the causes that afflict the country. How eloquent and heart tugging. (That after all is how most politicians beat the drum except for Mr Trump).
Booker is convinced that he is as good a speaker as Obama and two reasons he was elected were being black and silver tongued. Booker reminds me of Sharpton albeit more educated. Has that slimy sense about him that makes me very uncomfortable. And his most recent acknowledgement of having a heterosexual relationship was such an obvious effort in keeping his closet door closed. Why not come out? Celebs pay through the nose to keep their secrets from the public. Inevitably someone will peel back that onion as we’ve already seen. Pols don’t stand a chance.
Warren playing the me-too card and her American native heritage is too much for me to handle. Her path to the White House is full of potholes. As for her speeches, she is well experienced in framing her message and hitting the replay button again and again and again. To be fair, she and Booker share that skill.
Kochubar’s proclamation yesterday to an audience of cold, snow covered supporters
was an omen of things to come for her candidacy. A real tugger and avowed slugger, whose uninspiring message will no doubt be plagiarized as more women candidates come forward.
The best ticket the Democrats can nominate is Brown/Klobuchar. The second best is Klobuchar/Brown. Whatever is third is a long way behind.
5
I would vote for either in a New York minute. I think Elisabeth Warren has a better grasp of the issues, but if Klobuchar or Brown can show they are more electable by winning the prinaries, I would be overjoyed to vote for either in the general, jus as I was happy to vote for Hillary when my favorite Bernie lost the primaries.
How about a Brown, Warren ticket?
3
Great analysis! These are two that can win the MIDWEST.
All of the candidates are qualified and most have good ideas. I don't think a +70 year old can win Ideally we would get a true progressive, but we need to win in 2020.
2
"The 2018 attempts, in Florida, Georgia and Texas, all fell short."
I don't think the Georgia attempt fell short. I think the Republicans rigged the election. And in spite of the rigging, the Democrat got nearly half the votes.
13
@Charlesbalpha
The 2018 attempts in Texas didn't fall short either. Beto was far more successful than anyone predicted at the beginning of the race.
"It offers the promise of avoiding any political compromise. "
I don't think "compromise" is the problem. Democrats just hate the extra effort required to win over a skeptical independent, so they bash the independents instead.
And, by the way, I don't consider 56% support a "rout".
2
If single payer “Medicare for All” is Democratic primary voters’ litmus test, the chances of Republican victory in the general election goes way up.
1
@Philip Pandolfi
1) Congrats, you have succeeded in identifying the real argument of Leonhardt's piece - that a progressive, pro-healthcare for all candidate will lose swing voters.
2) Too bad neither Leonhardt nor you address the failure of the last right liberal candidate to get those swing voters - many of whom voted for the 'unelectable' progressive Sanders in the primaries, but switched to Trump in the general. In swing states no less:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study
Excellent piece. And I concur. Either of those candidates would have my support. And, while I might find Kamala Harris more charismatic, she has too many strikes against her-female, Californian, mixed race non-white, controversial history on criminal issues to some, the double standard that she would face because of her affair with Willie Brown.
The key is getting rid of the Abomination on Pennsylvania Avenue, keeping the House, and Taking the Senate for court nominees if nothing else. We are at war for the heart and soul of our country, meaning, do we have either anymore?
5
This group of Senators brings nothing novel to the table.
Independents won't fix something if it's not broken.
1
How about a Brown-Klobuchar ticket with Biden as Secretary of State? I love Biden as president, but see that he lacks the energy for a brutal,campaign, and the support of the most active progressives.
4
Finally a ticket young enough and just plain excellent at their jobs touted in the headlines. They are intelligent and humble enough to secure top brains into an administration which has a huge job in repairing Trumpism as well as going forward in a positive way.
Thank you.
10
Both Brown and Klobuchar are top-notch candidates but couldn't Kamala Harris or Cory Booker have been the subject of this piece? I hope people aren't dismissing candidates of color because the Trump base freaked out from having a black president. All four are currently at the top of my list. Let's not forget that minority voters have been putting Democrats over the finish line.
What I do not want is Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. After Trump, I need candidates that don't send me looking for the remote to mute or change channels. And would someone please tell the delusional Schultz to come to his senses?
6
The best case scenario is that Trump is impeached or indicted before the end of this year; then, we can elect the most progressive candidates up and down the ballot 2020.
The Republicans proved in 2017 that if you hold a majority in the House, the Senate and you hold the White House you can pass any legislation you want.
The Republicans passed the most obscene tax legislation In American history. A tax scam that robbed the Middle Class to feed the super rich. If the Republicans can pass a bill that only benefits 1% of the people, and harms 70% of the people, then the Green New Deal and massive tax hikes on the top 1% to pay for it will be a cake walk.
2
The article did not directly address the character issue, one of the biggest concerns many of us have with President Trump. We don’t (can’t) trust him. A moderate Democrat with good character, credentials, and experience can beat the president without having to resort to mocking or acts and talk from the gutter. We’ve seen abyss and need to back away.
8
I am one of those independent voters that these candidates are supposed to appeal to. I think Klobuchar is pretty good but I don’t like Brown. He hugged Trump too often, particularly on the trade policy issues where Trump has been a real disaster.
5
Mr. Leonhardt please don’t forget that the candidates need to focus on reversing the tax increases levied by the Republican Congress and President Trump on the American people due to the elimination of the personal income exemptions, and the capping of the State and Local tax deductions. It has been reported the average tax refund issued so far in 2019 fell to $1,865, down 8.4 percent from $2,035 at the same time last year.
14
The most critical issue is to preserve our constitutional republic by denying President Trump another four years in office. For this reason, I support Senator Amy Klobuchar as the 2022 nominee of the Democratic Party. She is a "centerist" who can win. I encourage those -- including myself -- who support a progressive agenda to have patience. First things first.
I live in northwestern Wisconsin and look forward (as has been reported) that Senator Klobuchar will visit us soon.
10
It is troubling to see that the Bernie Bro’s still do not get that their guy is unelectable. The R’s did not spent much time on him last time but had he been the candidate they would have, very effectively, portrayed him as a communist. Add to that a personality that comes off as an angry old man and you do not have winner. I think Amy Klobuchar probably has what it takes as she has endorsed universal health care without endorsing an unworkable Medicare for all. People who have employer provided healthcare will not give that up and there is no appetite for destroying the entire health insurance industry and the jobs they provide. Plus they have the lobbying muscle to make sure congress will not legislate destruction of their industry.
9
Regarding turnout, the close elections in Florida, Texas, and Georgia were all subject to claims of voting irregularities, so it's hard to assess the impact of turnout. Those contests were unexpectedly close. In Georgia, in particular, had it not been for voter suppression, Stacey Abrams would likely be governor today.
20
There are many critical issues that confront people in the US and for that matter around the world. The growing and ultimately radical impact of climate change occupies the top category. Universal access to good and affordable healthcare and decent paying jobs another, not to mention racial and gender prejudice. However, none of these can be even remotely addressed as long as the Trump extremists are in power. It doesn’t take a political genius to figure out that for the next election defeating the leader of this revanchist white nationalist cabal means uniting the broadest possible collation to engineer his and his followers defeat as convincingly as feasible. Democrats should nominate someone who can unite the full spectrum of opponents to Trump. That means all other differences must give way to the primary objective. A candidate and an election theme that can accomplish this should be the focus of those running and those voting in the presidential primaries. Otherwise reread the histories of Europe in the 1930’s to see the way things can go very very wrong. May all the gods help us.
9
it's time for all 'one issue' voters to snap out of it. it doesn't matter what your 'one issue' is--gun control, medicare, climate change, income inequality, etc--the only thing that matters is beating trump (or whoever else the republicans trot out) and taking the senate away from mcconnell.
30
Aside from the fact that Mr. Leonhardt's column did not mention the issue of climate change, it is clear that the acceptance and influence of PAC money needs to be addressed and highlighted. While not overly enthused about any Democratic Presidential wanna-be yet, my primary vote will go to the candidate(s) who reject PAC money.
Bernie and Beto proved that it was possible to run an effective campaign without PAC funds. If the DNC had not intentionally tipped the balance toward Clinton in 2016, we might not have wound up with the deranged ignoramus we now have in the White House.
If the DNC itself wants to accept PAC money to underwrite campaigns of worthy candidates for the Senate or House, that's one thing. However, the most reasonable and electable way for a Democratic Presidential candidate to demonstrate she/he is not owned by or beholden to the wealthy, to corporations, or to lobbyists is to reject PAC funding, thereby proving their dedication to the 99% of us who have been left behind in so many ways over the past few decades.
Given the greediness, sleaziness, and possible criminality that the current administration seems to demonstrate on a consistent basis, a Democratic Presidential candidate free of entanglements to the oligarchic class would be a real breath of fresh air!
6
@wysiwyg. While I share your idealism, I went all in on Gore and Kerrry and I am tired and angry about losing. So this time, I am remembering that "politics ain't beanbag" as someone else said. A wonderful candidate can be snowed under (pun?) by gobs of money, which is still legal. Let's get a win and then talk about campaign finance reform, again.
8
@wysiwyg "If the DNC had not intentionally tipped the balance toward Clinton in 2016, we might not have wound up with the deranged ignoramus we now have in the White House." I so agree with you.
My first thought: What a fantastic visual. Anybody else is gonna have a tough time topping that. I enjoyed her comment about having "grit." Shades of a certain Lou Grant describing another Minnesota professional woman.
15
I believe Lou Grant said Mary had spunk, not grit. But your point is well taken.
6
@Slim Wilson got me there, Slim...thanks for the correction. Maybe it was Mattie Ross of Yell County, Arkansas I was thinking of.
I have always liked Senator Kloburchar..but must admit that I was troubled by the recent articles on how she treats her staffers. Having managed in organizations for years I found that the treatment of staffers and other support workers---clerical personnel for example---was a key signal on how successful a colleague would be on their job. Trump's job performance is the most a glaring example of the relationship between job success and treatment of staffers. I am not opposed to setting high standards for those who support you, but, that all important feedback function can be just that, recommendations for improved performance or it can be weaponized to humiliate---As her campaign moves forward, how she responds to her use of the feedback function would guide my vote.
5
@Amanda Jones Luckily we know how successful she is at her job because she's been doing it for a while. It's not like she's an unknown to politics like Trump was.
12
@Amanda Jones I just read it was 3 out of the hundreds she has employed. I am cautious to but with her knowledge and contacts she'd be a breath of "trust" air.
4
@Amanda Jones
I’m not concerned, just yet, with this issue. Could be a bogus complaint by disgruntled employee or a planted story by an opponent. I’m going to listen to what she has to say and weigh it out fairly.
7
The idea that Klobuchar and Brown are "electable" outside of their respective states is yet to be seen. The Monmouth poll is quite literally at this point in time something of joke and has been treated as such by other news sources. The Democratic field is forming and it is large (reminiscent of 2016s GOP field), so time will tell and of course the primaries will show who actually is the strong and electable candidate. I would also add that Bernie and in a way Trump proved that populism (Trump's was a lie) wins voters, particularly swing voters, not milktoast, middle of the road candidates. I see several Dems that are likely to fit that description.
8
Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown are not on board with Medicare for All. Accordingly, the voting public will be less than enthusiastic about them unless they stipulate a better plan for a universal health plan in a timely fashion. People simply aren't willing to sit on their hands on this one. Democrats want someone who will fight for everyone, not someone who will settle for the status quo in the guise of "incrementalism."
15
Both go against the most popular and most direly needed solution to our national healthcare crisis.
They back “solutions” offered by the Healthcare Lobby to protect their profits and death grip on the dysfunctional and disgraceful American healthcare system .
I , and many other long time registered Democrats , see true MedicareForAll as a litmus test for prospective Democratic candidates .
There’s no more excuses for skyrocketing premiums , onerous copays and deductibles, Job lock and it’s inherent subservience and dependence , restricted networks designed for the benefit of health insurance company bottom lines .
If a candidate is serious about leading transformational change and bringing much needed healing and belief in our institutions back , at a minimum , they have to support and boldly push true MedicareForAll and not some Frankenstein hybrid cooked up to benefit corporate interests .
Both Klobuchar and Brown are DOA for their misplaced priorities as well as their failure of moral impetus and imagination.
At the end of the day they are garden variety servants of wealth and power giving lip service to a disenfranchised and abandoned electorate.
8
@Paul G Knox. I wanted universal health care thirty five years ago and still waiting. Two points to bear in mind. One is that incrementalism has been very effective, starting with widows and orphans in the 1930s. The other is that Medicare has a 7% overhead, and commercial insurance is much much more. If we have universal health care ala Medicare, someone has to figure out what to do with all the honest, hard working middle income people in the healthcare business who are going to be out of a job.
4
@Paul G Knox So are you saying that on the basis of a single issue you discard them, even if one was the nominee? Do you not see, yet, how destructive that is to an entire nation of people who care about more than one issue, or a different issue than yours?
Here is the message the Ds need to relentlessly hammer: we are about many issues, that can be categorized together as “social justice”.
3
@stidiver
What about coal miners ?
Whatever Brown’s merits, the Democratic Party cannot afford to lose his Senate seat. For that reason, and given that there are many good alternatives, he should not be the nominee.
8
This is an interesting and timely column by David Leonhardt. The prognosticating value of the Monmouth University poll of Democrats and the analytical skill of Mr. Leonhardt will come into sharper focus in the weeks ahead. Perhaps, the whole process can be made even simpler.
It may well be that Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown will emerge as favorites to carry the banner of the Democratic Party, and they are both formidable candidates. It seems, however, to many of us that the test is very simple.
In view of the absolute terribleness of Donald Trump, electability of the Democrat vying for the nomination is what matters. It is the ONLY thing which matters.
9
"Enough failed to vote for Clinton that the presidency was win by Trump."
Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million. The total number of votes lost in three states that swung the Electoral College was about 80,000. I agree with your impact assessment but not so much with your take on Sanders' voters.
Did "many" Clinton voters not vote for her or not vote at all? Clinton was undone by several factors, some notably controversial, if not criminal. She was far more qualified but also fatally presumptive. She failed to connect with enough voters to ensure an insurmountable margin.
You're correct that voter unity is crucial. Any candidate hoping to unseat Trump must have both a slate of tangible policies and execution plans AND an ability to speak to the realities of voters. Democrats must avoid internal squabbles that would fragment party support.
So, policy or personality? Avoid getting sidetracked. Don't engage with Trump on a blow by blow, Twitter by Twitter basis. Stay on point. Be specific. Be relevant.
14
@SMKNC
Under the Constitution, the popular vote is irrelevant. One could similarly say that Bill Clinton was never a legitimate President as he never got 50% of the popular vote, and should have faced a runoff election. While those facts are true, that is not how we elect Presidents under the Constitution.
The entire nationwide popular vote margin "won" by Clinton was exceeded by her margin in California, where nobody even campaigned, and Republicans dismiss as a lost cause. Exclude California, and Trump won the popular vote. But as I said, its all irrelevant.
4
@RM
I love this Republican shtick that residents of CA, the largest and richest state in the Union, whose taxes pay for services in those states on federal welfare, are not actually relevant voters. LOL
10
@John
The nationwide popular vote count is irrelevant, period. California sets itself apart from the rest of the nation, providing a "sanctuary" from US laws it objects to. On the path to being like South Carolina in 1860.
2
I agree that selecting a very progressive Democrat for the presidential race would be a mistake even though it would align very well with my personal preferences. It seems unlikely to me that a very progressive candidate could knit together the Obama coalition to win the presidency. Job one has to be getting rid of Trump. I love Amy Klobuchar and if her greatest drawback is that she was perceived as "mean" by subordinates at some point, all I can say is welcome to the reality of women in positions of authority. My experience is that women are still judged by social standards. They are supposed to be warm and nurturing. If they are professional and demanding, they are perceived as "mean." Time to get over that.
I also am very fond of Sherrod Brown and have voted for him for senator every time he ran. My reservation about him is that, should he win, Ohio will no longer have any Democrat in statewide office. And he would be replaced by a Republican governor meaning that Mitch McConnell would have another ally with which to appoint even more rancidly conservative jurists to the bench. This is not good for America.
17
What I really find amazing is the confidence Democrats have. They are running against the undefeated Heavyweight champion.
I really don’t think they can beat him unless they have a true open debate on the issues and run their best, not just some Machine gender identity faker who is all style and zero substance.
Trump is likely to have a very strong case for relection running on peace and prosperity.
5
@TR88
I'd say that case depends on what your definition of "peace and prosperity" is. That Republican tax cut has been exposed as the sham it was. The administration's policies are destabilizing an already unstable Middle East. Mr. Trump's great and good friend Vladimir Putin is aiming missiles at Western Europe. A large number of Trump aids and operatives have been, are, and will be facing investigations and charges for corruption of various kinds. And Trump's economic policies are laying waste to the security of a lot of people who voted for him last time. Your guy doesn't have much left to build his case on. Hence his most recent adventures in fear-mongering and demagoguery. Even the Republicans are growing tired of it.
2
@Maggie Mae
His fear monger IG and demogoguery was pretty well received at the state of the union with 3 out of 4 approving including 80% of independents and 30% of Democrats.
As for the economy, How about the strongest, GDP growth in 10 years, the best wage growth in 20 years to go along with the largest number of people working in history?
@TR88
When wages have been mostly flat for a generation, a one to two percent bump looks pretty good (and it's certainly welcome). But your aggregate figures tell a limited and incomplete story. Who's gotten most of the benefits of productivity increases? Who's gotten most of the tax breaks? And what is the meaning of "the largest number of people working in history"? It sounds like some of that empty sell copy DJT specializes in.
"The problem is, there are virtually no examples of Democrats winning close races without emphasizing persuasion. The 2018 attempts, in Florida, Georgia and Texas, all fell short."
The fallacy of that statement is that it doesn't take into account the multifaceted efforts by the GOP to depress voter turnout in those states. The Democrats likely persuaded plenty of people, and the Republicans likely prevented many of them from successfully casting a ballot.
13
To win the WH you don't have to be region correct, Identity correct or any correct.
Just run a progressive campaign on issues that a majority of Americans can agree upon, number #1 being an affordable, universal, quality health system.
Obama learned the lesson and served two terms. Hillary did not ie running an identity obsessed, social engineering, east coast liberal, elect me because I am a woman campaign and was tossed onto the dust heap of history.
5
Any candidate for President must have a clear vision for the nation and Hillary did not. Obama did and Trump did. That vision must be palatable to swing voters and swing states. The mistake Democrats will likely make is to assume that Trump provides the perfect opportunity to win a mandate for radical(liberal) change. The swing voters are moderates that sometimes vote left and sometimes right but not too far in either direction. Any moderate, other than Hillary, with a vision, would have won against Trump. If the vision in 2020 is to make America Denmark, Trump will win and the nation will lose.
4
@dudley thompson Hillary garnered nearly three million more votes than Trump, who beat her with more electoral votes. She clearly was the preference of most of those voting.
11
@Barbara B
Tired old argument. Clinton is not the only person who ran for election and won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.
Winning the popular vote means nothing and there are no prizes for coming second in the Electoral College votes. Hillary was crushed in the electoral college vote.
2
@dudley thompson: The 2016 democratic platform had a clear vision for the nation that is still relevant. You might want to read it sometime...
Klobuchar is not that progressive. Before she went into politics she was a corporate lawyer and lobbyist who worked for big corporations like Ford and telecom giant MCI and her voting record since then reflects this. She is basically just another socially liberal fiscal conservative Wall Street Democrat who has cultivated a vaguely progressive-feeling persona that does well in Minnesota.
Sherrod Brown's record is somewhat better than Klobuchar's but both voted for Trump's grotesquely inflated military budget and neither supports Medicare for All. Both of these votes are strong indicators of their ultimate loyalties to the status quo. Both Klobuchar and Brown have raised roughly 3/4 of their campaign funds from big donors and PACs.
Democrats already have an obvious candidate who is both very progressive and who polls very well amongst Independents who, as David reminds us, lean well to the left on economic issues. That candidate is Bernie Sanders, the most popular politician in the country. 3/4 of Bernie's campaign money is from small donors and 1.5% from PACs (mostly connected to labor unions).
Though I believe that any of the three could beat Trump, the idea that either Klobuchar or Brown would be the more electable than Sanders is laughable.
Beating Trump is critical. So too is putting an end to the pro-corporate policies that hollowed out the middle class, slammed poor and working class people of all colors and made Trump's rise possible. Bernie will do both.
6
@Christopher Bernie Sanders is NOT a Democrat. Let me say that again. Bernie Sanders is NOT a Democrat. If he wants the Democratic nomination, he’s going to have to register as a Democrat. Until that happens, he doesn’t deserve the attention or the support of party members like me. We’re the people who man the phone banks, put up the yard signs, organize rallies, and write checks. We do it for party members, not people who can’t be bothered to affiliate with the party.
15
Bernie will help put liberal policies into the discussion, that is his role. He is not electable in a general election. Please, ‘Bernie Bros’ stop obsessing about the socialist from Vermont.
8
@Christopher
Agree with his policies but Bernie is a democrat for convenience and the real democrats are going to have an advantage within the party system -- like it or not. That is how life works.
1
I think Brown has the best shot, as he brings with him Ohio. The Harris/Booker/Warren crowd would challenge McGovern for King of he lopsided loss. Warren is a great lighthouse to shine attention on what needs to be changed in America, but lighthouse keepers make poor ship captains.
The last person I would vote for is Gillibrand. She accuses, then demands people resign without ever giving them a chance to respond to the charges. That is the approach used by lynch mobs.
You know, by today's standards, Richard Nixon was a Democrat Socialist. Established the EPA, signed OSHA into law, restored relations with China, de-escalated the Cold War. Maybe we can dig him up and run him again.
23
@RM
Gillibrand lost me with her treatment of Al Franken. Somehow, I doubt she’s counseling against a rush to judgment against a “sister senator” Klobuchar’s case.
Of course, Klobuchar didn’t exactly stand strong in Al’s corner, either, did she?
Sausage-making probably IS more pleasing to the nose and eye than the nastiness inherent in big time politics.
7
@John
Worst in the Franken debacle was my doddering old Senator Leahy. He jumped on the "Franken must resign" bandwagon, only to jump off and plead with Franken to change his mind once Franken announced his attention to resign.
No fool like an old fool.
7
@RM
The only time I liked Cheney was when he was overheard rebuking Leahy to do something physically impossible.
I've been on the Klobuchar bandwagon in these comments' boxes for quite a while, not only for her perceived electability (she puts Minnesota, which is a swing state that Hillary only barely won in 2016, out of play), but also, as some here have stated, for her constant support of electoral reform--I'm a BIG advocate of publicly funded elections with basically no corporate and organizational contributions allowed and very low individual limits on contributions to a given campaign, as well as re-establishment and expansion of the Fairness Doctrine, and she has been consistently supportive of that.
Two things I do worry about.
One is the whole "nasty boss" thing. I do recognize there may be sexism involved here, but we do need good reporting on this, as I am also not a fan of toxic workplaces and the terrible leverage swing towards the boss and against the worker of the past several decades. Anyone who I support has to be committed to swinging that back.
Two, voter suppression tactics notwithstanding, many fewer voters of color came out for Hillary than Barack; in states like WI, MI, PA, FL, NC they were the margin of defeat. A lot of turnout is still, unfortunately, tribal, and I do think that there needs to be a person of color on the ticket who excites those voters, because there's going to be even more intense voter suppression going on in 2020.
9
I think the ‘nasty boss’ issue for Klobuchar is actually a positive. Leaders often need to ask a lot of their aids, that is the nature of the enterprise.
Trump got elected because enough people thought the guy on TV that shouts “you’re fired” was just what we needed. I, for one, would prefer a level headed, no nonsense, FEMALE, commander in chief.
@Glenn Ribotsky
Klobuchar/Booker?
Amy Klobuchar has my vote. I’m biased. I’m from Minnesota and Amy’s mother was my son’s teacher.
10
Wouldn't it be great to just wake up and have the nightmare over. We could have the usual political discussions that don't include the Trump show shenanigans, and stop worrying about walls and Muslims and Caravans and other specters that keep us awake in our clean suburban homes. We could worry about middle class income, income disparity, climate change, health care and AI. Not the stuff that clouds our eyes and makes our eyeballs bleed when we watch the evening news or MSNBC or Fox and Friends, hour upon hour, instead of doing our chores, housework, and novel reading. Ah, great dream.
23
@William Trainor: I agree, William. I am so looking forward to the days I used to have, before the orange menace invaded...when I could sleep through the night without feeling anxious in the morning...when I could read for pleasure instead of keeping one eye on the "news" (like hearing about another possible shutdown before I get my tax return done)...and I can once again, have a pleasant Thanksgiving family dinner without arguments with the orange menace supporters in my family...Ah, yes: great dream...
1
The home state of a candidate is critical to the probability of winning an election. Warren, Booker, Gillibrand, and Harris represent deeply blue states who will vote Democratic regardless of who is nominated to run in 2020, be it a progressive or centrist. That gives Klobuchar and Brown an advantage. They represent purple states critical in the electoral college count. Either of the two is capable of galvanizing the party in a unified effort to defeat Trump. But let us not forget Biden, who has the command of global affairs to help us heal the damage Trump has sown with our allies and who can reach across the aisle to produce essential health, immigration, and infrastructure legislation.
10
Neither Klobuchar or Brown will look like middle class centrists when they run in the primary. Like Kirsten Gillibrand, who immediately dropped all her middle-of-the-road stances once she was no longer confined to a relatively conservative upstate NY congressional district, both will stake out leftist ground that to the middle class suburban swing voter will look awfully unappealing. I can't see Trump fearing either of these candidates.
2
@Chris
I’m guessing that you are one of the “suburban swing voters” you reference. So, according to you, encouraging limitations on increasingly unchecked corporate power (monopolization) in order to protect the rights of individual citizens, trying to protect the environment, creating a fair & functional tax code, improving the economy for ALL Americans, respecting the rule of law, and providing for “the common good” are all examples of “leftist” policies you cannot support.
Well, I may not be a “suburban swing voter,” but I’m a lifelong, relatively rural Tar Heel, and those things look tremendously appealing to me in these times when so much of our federal government seems to represent the interests of no one other than the obscenely rich and powerful.
You and your fellow denizens of the Charlotte suburbs need to start looking at a bigger picture - ASAP.
@Chris Trump should fear every candidate including the infamous "yellow dog" of gone bye years. He hasn't gained a single voter to his cause in his entire presidency.
They can all win.
@Chris
Biden is making inroads with the Great Billionaire investor Larry Fink and will be 78 if elected.
I’m not sure an old white guy with ties to billionaires is what is going to drive Milleniels or Socialists to the polls.
1
Hillary Clinton's centrist political positions were supposed to make her more electable than Bernie Sanders, even though his campaign in 2016 electrified millions of voters. If the Democrats refuse to even consider the catastrophe that brought us to this moment, and use the rhetoric of "electability" to bring us another candidate who stands for slow, incremental change when we are in crisis, the country will lose again.
If Trump's victory, hollow as it was, shows us anything, it is that to win, Democrats need to understand that millions of voters are sick and tired of watching the United States fall behind the rest of the world. Our income gap has grown into the grand canyon, our health care system is crumbling, and the climate disaster is growing more dire every year.
After almost two more years of Donald Trump's selfishness, cruelty, and destructive policies, we will all be more than ready for a compassionate candidate who has clear and sincere policies to move us into the world of solutions again.
6
@Nancy Braus
One would think.
But I fear that common sense is in short supply these days.
Whatever candidates are chosen, I hope the Democrats do not lose sight of appealing to independents and getting out the vote.
I am generally skeptical of polls, but this far out I think they verge on useless. They have become a toll for presumptive intellectual analysis that is questionable.
6
What too many so-called Progressives won't acknowledge is that by throwing their support to Sanders, with his trashing of the Democratic Party, many potential Clinton voters did not vote for her (data support this assertion).
Enough failed to vote for Clinton that the Presidency was won by Trump.
And what did this do? It set back the Progressive agenda decades, because Trump has packed the Supreme Court with Justices who will trounce Progressive legislation.
The goal is to beat Trump. The next goal is to undo all of Trump's damage. Then, after all of that, the goal will be to implement a Progressive agenda, or whatever part of most Americans will support. But that will require decades thanks to Sanders.
14
@Dan You can also THANK SANDERS for getting the progressive agenda back on the table Dan. Front and center where it needs be. I agree with the fall out of a Trump presidency but its too late to play it safe. Un like a very possible Schultz & Bloomberg 3rd ticket. Ugh. Sen Sanders did the right thing by running as a Dem in primary then FULLY SUPPORTING Clinton when she won the nomination. It IS NOT progressives fault it is no vision centrist Dems who wanted to "play it safe" and could not capture the indie vote w Clinton. She should have been leading on the progressives issues all along. Not going along. And I loved HRC! But lead gosh darn it!
5
@CJ Sure! Thank Sanders for Trump. THAT is getting the "progressive agenda" "back on the table?"
By the time we get around to even looking at a progressive agenda the "table" will have been recycled to the dump. I'm 70. Even my children won't be alive to see it.
He did not "support" Clinton. It was a tepid, late, and pitiful type of support. By the time he did that, he had already turned a large number of potential Clinton voters into Trump voters or stay-at-home voters.
Some support.
We are decades away from progress because of Sanders. And by that time, we could be a third-world country thanks to Trump.....and voters like you.
For the Democrats there will be two distinct campaigns...
A far left to win the primary and a move back to the center by the winner for the presidential poll.
2
Not to be trite but trying to get Democrats to work together is like herding cats. My great desire is that Democrats will all get behind their candidate and also enlist the support of possible spoilers whether they be from splinter parties or extreme factions. Sanders, Warren, Cortez etc. may be able to push a youngster like O'Rourke over the top but I would much prefer a person with more gravitas and experience and wisdom to be our president.
5
The democrats have proven that they are bad at choosing the "most electable". And, the DNC is even worse. The better approach is to choose someone who you are passionate about and for whom you will work (and fund) to get elected. Let's be bold. Solve the people's problems (the Progressive agenda) and we will all be better off.
4
@Charles Pack This is not time for Bold bold. It's time to field an 'electable ' candidate. If dems can't get passionate about the best candidate to beat Trump, they have not enough passion about saving our country from four more years of monstrosities, and possibly its downfall. How many more conservative judges can the country survive? How much more chaos, insults to our core values, alienating our prior partners, etc. Passion to defeat Trump, has to trump one's individual passions for a specific candidate. It's time to get objective. Our #1 goal this general has Got to be Defeating Trump. I fear for us, if dems don't see/understand this. This is a time the Whole, has to come before individual passion. We just don't have that luxury, not this time around. Focus on who do we need to win over to take Our White House back. Whoever can do it, I can't wait!
1
@balmerhonI voted for Hillary. I worked for Bernie and sent him money because his sincere and long-held beliefs and policies matched mine.
1
As always, extremely well thought through and to the point. A good and probably a good prognosis...thank you David
5
I'm excited by the wonderful field of Democratic candidates. But, frankly, in 2020 I will put all my efforts into electing NOT TRUMP.
24
On some issues, income inequality and the environment, we cannot afford slow or moderate. We've allowed these threats to fester and grow for far too long. Find me a candidate who is willing to go bold in these areas but doesn't promise free health care and free college immediately, but thinks these, too, deserve attention and rehaul, and I'm in.
9
I am definitely a democrat but a candidate promising free health care and free college will not be elected.
@Sally Marie Freeman
"Free" isn't accurate. A better way to describe the proposals regarding health care and education would be "tax-supported". That's how our peer nations ensure the general welfare in their societies. It's shameful that a nation as rich as this one is unwilling to do the same its citizens. Our taxes should be put to use supporting the community at large instead of lining the pockets of a narrow constituency of well-connected and wealthy special interests.
1
@dmdaisy
Same here.
>> In previous campaigns, voters cared more about ideology than electability.
You missed the 2016 Democratic debacle, I see.
The problem here is defining electability rather than lazily assuming it is identical to one's centrist proclivities. I write this as someone who has long admired Sen Brown but, as the 2020 process heats up, senses some vitality missing with him. We have the primaries, and whilst they are imperfect (the Democrats have many presidential years to look back on and confirm this, including 2016), I will take that messy process over the panic of the center we are now seeing among pundits and elites.
2
I would like to see women fill more political positions as well as corporate management positions. This country is missing out on half the talent pool out there. It is so frustrating to watch how this country is so slow in doing the right thing. I wonder if we, as a country, are capable of keeping up with the rest of the industrial world.
11
@Rick in Cedar Hill the rest of the industrial world is teetering on recession and haven’t really recovered for 2008.
The rest of the industrialized world in many cases does worse that the US. Great Britain is far worse.
There are now just 30 women in full-time executive roles at FTSE 250 firms, down from 38 last year – amounting to 6.4% of the total. They include six female chief executives and 19 female chief financial officers. Property firm Grainger stands out with women holding the chief executive and CFO jobs.
The report described this as a “woeful situation”, especially because the FTSE 250 - which largely consists of mid-sized UK-focused businesses - is often viewed as the pipeline for jobs at larger FTSE 100 companies.
The guardian
@Rick in Cedar Hill
Grant Thornton study results of women in Senior Management.
Australia – 22 percent
Brazil – 22 percent
Spain – 22 percent
United States – 22 percent
United Kingdom – 20 percent
Denmark – 14 percent
Germany – 14 percent
India – 14 percent
United Aram Emirates – 14 percent
Switzerland – 13 percent
Netherlands – 10 percent
Japan – 9 percen
@TR88 what I am concerned about is that the US is falling behind for a number of reasons. The national debt, expensive healthcare that does not even cover every one, the high incarceration rate, etc. One way to help us out of this is to employ the leadership of women. They would help guide us in a different and more productive direction I think. Let's try and see anyway.
1
My only question about "centrist" candidates is this: are they accepting huge sums of money from corporations? If yes, they will be unlikely to fight to repeal Citizens United and I will not consider them. If no I will look at their electability. Our nation's nightmare isn't Donald Trump... it's the corporations who fund the GOP no matter who their leader is and corporations who fund "centrist" Democrats who, in turn, will use the loss of revenue to accept "austerity" as the only means to balance the budget going forward. Any "centrist" candidate who takes huge sums from corporations cannot avoid favoring corporate interests over those of voters.
15
@WFGersen
corporations donate pretty evenly to both Parties and in the last 3 Presidential elections gave far more to Democrats.
There is no chance of “repealing” Citizens United. It is Law.
It would take an Amendment and you have a minority of Senate Seats and Republicans control 80% of the States.
4
Puh-lease. Your arbitrary purity test elected Donald Trump. Also, how can one “repeal” a SC decision? How about an electable candidate who one in office can appoint acceptable SC justices?
1
@WFGersen
Citizens United was a bogey man of the left. Trump proved that it.
1
The past 10 years have offered a great education on how our economy works. It has shown the stark contrast in liberal governance vs pro growth conservative governance. Obama raised taxes, kept the corporate tax stubbornly high, levied thousands of new regulations, and offered a "you didn't build that" policy ideology. His answer to budgets was never to cut spending, but to raise taxes, every chance he had. What happened? We had stagnant sub 2% growth. Good paying jobs were scarce, middle class incomes DECLINED, food stamp expenditures doubled, and 11 Trillion to the debt was added. The economy was so fragile, we couldn't raise interest rates a measly quarter point. Obama's last 2 years saw the S&P rise a measly 1.4%. Trump reverses all of that. Cuts taxes, especially the corporate tax, which was the highest in the world, slashes regulations, effectively reversing Obama's entire legacy, and offers a pro growth ideology. He effectively told our business leaders, our entrepreneurs, and smart people, Im giving you the greatest chance youll have in your lifetime to become successful. Im handing it to you on a silver platter, go out there and stake your own claim. Suddenly, by a crazy coincidence, we now have a booming economy, 3% plus GDP growth, jobs a plenty, and a parabolic stock market, up 30% from the day he was elected. So, do you want a good economy or not? This is how its done. Mr Leonhardt is suggesting we go back to Obama's way - stagnation. No thank you.
3
@Sports Medicine and we have all sorts of sleazy underhanded giveaways and personal grabs. That is clearly not the selfish government we need. Capitalism is finite and unfair. The two biggest issues we face that the will never be in the sights for the titans of energy are the environment and health. Every move they make is shareholder value, not obtaining a substainable organization serving the needs of the customers. Growth is not an answer to a sustainable economy. Rising tides should float all boats, but the tide should only rise so far.
8
@Sports Medicine
Who was the president when the economy crashed? GWB gave away huge sums of money, deregulated everything he could see including the banks and walked away from government leaving gigantic wreckage in his wake. Everyone knew the republicans would try to blame Obama for the wreck as soon as a few years past.
11
@Sports Medicine Please, don't play us for fools. Obama inherited an economy in shambles. The moves he made were necessary to enable a recovery. As the GOP fought him tooth and nail, he wasn't able to do all he could. And yet, he enabled millions to afford heath insurance where they had none. I know, helping the needy is not as attractive as helping the rich, who did just fine.
Remember, on his campaign, Trump was saying he would raise taxes on the rich even further: "I know these guys, they're doing just fine...they will not like me after I'm finished". He promised to eliminate the carried interest provision, and even accused Hillary of being too afraid to do this. Of course, he was lying.
Tell me about the deficit which is looming now that his tax cut is in full effect. What will that do to your precious stock market, and GDP growth once everyone realizes that we can't sustain it without "austerity" (meaning, less for the needy and old). Trump, no matter what he says, inherited an economy that was on the rise. He benefited from all the moves Obama made, and it enabled him to take full credit, as he is wont to do. But we know what really happened. "I got mine, and that's all that counts" is the new philosophy.
9
Brown and Klobuchar could be a dream ticket.
8
@Talbot white as snow.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m from OH and I like Brown, but lets not overstate his re-election victory. He ran against a very weak candidate - literally a used car salesman who came across as very slippery.
7
@ML And trump makes Joe Isuzu look like George Washington.
1
Georgia's elections are all undermined and often determined by a system of voter suppression. Gerrymandering to create safe seats for incumbents. Reduction in the number of polling places. Confusing requirements for identification. Limited early voting. Strict requirements on voting in a particular precinct. A criminal justice system with long experience in jailing and limiting citizenship of African-Americans. The loss by Stacey Abrams and other Democrats in 2018 showed that system in its full flower.
10
Sherrod Brown - Kamala Harris. That'd be a cool combo.
9
@Mike Marks
Kamala Harris is not very reliable. She is an user of people to get things 'her way. The Brown episode comes to mind.
@Mike Marks Kamala Harris-Sherrod Brown. That'd be a hot combo!
1
What we don’t need is a candidate who, like a squirrel, can’t decide which side of the road to make a dash for. Slick, poll-tested, pundit-approved wannabees need not apply. Minnesota nice knife in the back is okay by me as long as the end result is a return to FDR, capital d policies, starting with the realizations of his Four Freedoms. How soon we forget.
9
@Thomas we have a watchdog media to ask the tough questions to make sure that doesn’t happen. If we can only get them to ask the tough questions of Democrats so we know what we’re getting.
As afraid of that as Democrats are, it would be good for them and our democracy.
We have a right to know if we’re getting a Socialist or a Machine hacks in bed with Hedge Fund Titans.
3
Not hard to believe that so many strong Democratic candidates against Donald Trump in 2020 are stoked and raring to go The awfulness of the trump presidency has given birth to scads of Democratic presidential candidates from all over the map of Middle Class Americans are candidates for the presidency -- viz Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and other declared and undeclared folks of all Democratic colours throwing their hats in our presidential ring.
Today, the start of another seminal week of stress and anxiety in America, will see our president hawking his wall in El Paso, Texas at one of his horrific tribal rallies. One of the brilliant contenders against Trump's posse in the Mid Terms, Beto O'Rourke, an El Pasoan, will rally in Texas at the site of Trump's awful demand for his demented wall. If president Trump withdraws from the fray and declares executive privilege in his "national emergency"(sic) re his wall, we will all suffer, not just the Texans today. What happens in Texas doesn't stay in Texas.
4
Social scientist first noticed and pointed out the American system was having trouble in the late 1970s. In the 1980 & 1990 reports of the problems of rising inequality, the stagnation of wages and living standards, the increase of both parents working and reliance on credit had made it into the popular press. But such is our faith in individual effort and responsibility that the problems were still thought of as individual problems. But now almost everybody is feeling the pain and we are finally acknowledging that social problems need a social solution. That the individual exception doesn't change the fact of the unlevel playing field giving some an overwhelming advantage. It was the revolt of the people that ended the Gilded Age; I expect we are about to see another.
11
@sjs
Democrats ran on fixing inequality and wage stagnation for 40 years and did nothing except support Globalist trade deals that further weakened workers.
On the other hand Trumps Nationalism is actually doing something about it.
@TR88
Sadly, for most Americans, that is not what is happening. There is a difference between the words and the reality. trump supports are heading for a nasty crash against the brick wall of reality
1
@TR88 I agree with your first paragraph. The second Is silly.
Brown is NOT boring. I've admired him for years. He's smart, progressive, down to earth, and very likable. AND from the midwest. I like many of the candidates for different reasons, but he strikes me as most electable.
20
Boring is not bad. Trump is “exciting,” and utterly unpredictable, but what works well for ratings on reality TV is not always what works for leadership in real life. Bring on boring.
1
@LFK Brown is smart and a populist, but he's white, therefore not a favorite of NYT or the Democratic Party.
Congratulations, Mr. Leonhardt, for stating the obvious: Dems MUST appeal to persuadable voters to defeat Trump. A "base only" plan WON'T WORK. To win, Dems MUST run a candidate who can avoid the usual Republican caricatures and who can generate enthusiasm in a range of voters (cf. winners B. Clinton and Obama vs. losers Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and H. Clinton). At this time, I think Beto O'Rourke best fits the bill, but I look forward to seeing Sen. Klobouchar's campaign. Finally, if we learned anything from the ACA situation, it is that large policy changes cannot succeed without at least some bipartisan support. I also think that making fantastical promises is inherently deceitful (see 2016 campaigns of Trump and B. Sanders). Therefore, I think a campaign built on a platform of replacing all private health insurance with government-run single-payer healthcare, 70% income tax rates, "free college," eliminating combustion engines in 10 years, and guaranteed jobs, is a PATH TO DEFEAT. A PATH TO VICTORY would include things like: public option medical insurance, reducing college tuition, making polluters pay the cost of their own pollution, raising tax rates on corp. income, cap gains and dividends to match tax rates on wages and salaries, imposing surtaxes on share buybacks, increasing the minimum wage, increasing the EITC to make work pay, common sense gune safety, and disincentives on corporate concentration.
34
@James Grosser How about beginning to lower the eligibility age for Medicare, incrementally. Begin by lowering it to age 62. See how that works, both in terms of its cost and the number of Americans who have reached age 62 and want to retire and take social security, but don't because they would lose their employer-employee health insurance. And do not allow those who elect to take medicare at age 62 to enroll in Medicare Advantage. Shore up traditional Medicare.
2
@gogebic All good, except lowering the age from 65 to 62, doesn't seem incremental. It seems extreme. One year lower every few years seems a lot more doable, a gradual lowering. Plus people are living longer, and probably want to work longer.
@gogebic Lowering the Medicare eligibility age likely would just exacerbate the medicare funding shortfall. I am talking about a public option, in which individuals buy medicare plans instead of private health plans. That's different than what you suggest.
I agree that the primary focus of Democrats should be to defeat Donald Trump. Those on the far left who will demand more in social programs than the public is willing to support must remember that there are many Democrats in swing districts who could well lose their seats if the election focuses on the ideology of the far left. I agree that Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown are best positioned to take Democrats to victory in 2020. Amy Klobuchar's announcement speech yesterday was outstanding.
34
@RF
Medicare for all is considered "far left"--but the vast majority of Americans, including swing voters, support the idea. People need to realize that the "far left" (i.e. real socialism or something close the socialization of much of the means of production) simply does not exist in US politics. The "Green Deal New Deal" Democrats or as far left as the New Deal Democrats. The problem is this country has moved so darn far to the right over the past 40 years, most people simply don't know any better. So Clinton and Obama's center right policies (as opposed to far right policies) are now considered "liberal".
7
@Bret
Bless you for making this point. It's context that needs to be regularly repeated since the Republicans and movement conservatives continue to do so much to obscure the truth.
@Bret I support Medicare for all, but my first concern is defeating Trump. I think mounting a moderate political campaign will attract more voters than one skewed to the left.
As a physician committed to the idea of a single payer model I have the following concern.It would be politically perilous for the Democrats to push for a full-on change in the system all at once.The Republicans say they are all about letting people decide for themselves what works for them(even if in practice they then ignore them). My advice would be a public option for Medicare for the 55-65 age group as a test For the next 4 years after the next election.My strong belief is that they will vote with their feet and move to Medicare.Those who prefer to stay with private insurance are free to do so.As an aside large corporations who now pay absurd amounts of money to insurance companies could then return that money as better pay to their employees.(good luck with that )
79
@Basil papaharis Right on! I could not agree more. Dems should propose a gradually expanding public-option buy in rather than a rapid shift to single-payer insurance, which would amount to the incorporation of the entire medical insurance industry into the federal government and a massive expansion of the role of the federal government. That kind of change cannot be made quickly without generating widespread dissent and disruption. We need candidates who respect the views of all Americans. It will not do to have another President who only cares about the "base."
10
@Basil papaharis
That isn’t the single payer model.
Poor people who don’t pay and the uninsurable will flock to your Medicare for Some that will result in the weakening of Medicare as we currently know it and result in a two tiered level of care.
2
@TR88 Basically, Medicare for All will result in dramatically less health care for seniors, they very group who paid for Medicare the longest.
2
This is a dream team. After Trump I’m ready for people who can get things accomplished while remaining collegial.
27
@Mrs Ming After Trump, I'm ready for any fully functioning adult.
The problem for Democrats is too many choices. Who wants to learn about 20 different people?
Everybody knows Biden, Bernie and Hillary. Who wants to learn every bit of public information on the other 2 dozen? And most will be gone before their story comes out.
This is especially bad for millennial's. They have the attention span of a gnat. In the end, the youngsters will vote for whomever they are told to vote for, but 21 months from now, is too long to hold their attention. The candidates should make promises to old people. The upside is they vote. The down side, they may not be around in 20 months.
8
@Mike
"Everybody knows Biden, Bernie and Hillary."
Yes, we do. I'm a moderate Democrat yet a fierce partisan against Trump's Republican regime and party. Biden, Bernie, and Hillary are not what the Democratic party needs. The Republican candidates for President in 1996, 2008, and 2012 were all well known Republicans whom "everybody knew." Dole, McCain, and Romney all lost didn't they.
3
@tom boyd "Dole, McCain, and Romney all lost didn't they." You'll never see a bumper sticker saying, "Save The RINOs".
@Mike
Don't worry, whomever gives the best speeches will be your primary winner. That's the criteria nowadays for Democrat candidates for POTUS.
"Both have also smartly avoided some ideas that play better with liberal Twitter than swing voters, like the fever dream of eliminating private health insurance." Rather than proposing to eliminate private health insurance, which would incur the wrath of this wealthy, capable of lobbying business, let private health insurance wither and die by itself by expanding programs like medicare and medicaid to individuals not now eligible to participate. Lower cost alternatives that offer equivalent or better services usually supplant existing programs. This could also be described as a "let the market decide" solution that would appeal to non-progressive voters, as well as to businesses that now pay (really, through employee deductions) for health care.
11
Elizabeth Warren is the only woman senator of the five running that I would vote for. She has the smarts and she is brave enough to tell it like it is. And that’s why she can’t win, however. The other four women I find dull and uninspiring. I could go with Sherrod Brown but only if Biden doesn’t run. I can see Sherrod Brown selecting one of the women senators as a running mate and that might make the best ticket.
10
I don't consider restoring a truly progressive tax structure as "far left", we had it before and the country didn't consider itself communist or socialist. Also, the "fever dream" of eliminating private insurance is not wide spread at all, even among those on the fringe left. If we had a universal or single payer healtcare system it's a given that private insurance would also be available to those who could afford it, but it would exist in a much smaller role than it has now. We wouldn't be trapped into having only private insurance, and the insurance companies would have to actually compete with each other as well as the national system, which could push down prices and give people a real choice on how to get their healthcare. Instead we have regional monopolies of private healthcare, same as communications services now. Plus, imagine lifting the burden of providing health insurance on employers. Small businesses would be affordable to start up again, and large companies could provide training and maybe even a raise every now and then. This, to me, is NOT far left thinking, just common sense.
24
Personally for me it doesn't matter. My choice will be anyone but Trump. Even a moderate Republican might do though in truth that parties close association with the man has led me to conclude that I cannot vote for any of them, either. They adhere, these days, to Republican orthodoxy about as much as I have been to the moon.
My decision has nothing to do with political ideology, and everything to do with being completely repelled by a man who has proven himself unfit for the role of POTUS. If our elected Congressional and Senatorial representation cannot remove him between now and the next election I assure you my vote will attempt to do it.
And not to speak for others but I've a feeling the silent majority of American's are feeling the same way these days. As far as I'm concerned Trump is a (politically) dead man walking. I have had enough.
John~
American Net'Zen
61
@John
Well said John.
2
Viewing Trump’s awfulness and the huge chaos and distress he has brought to this country and the world, it is obvious that no one but a board-certified crazy person would be interested in tackling the job of repairing the enormous damage he has done.
I am therefore announcing with great reluctance and sadness today that I will not be running for President in 2020 because I am far too sane and sensible to ever desire the job.
24
How about a 3rd reason, that the 2000 and 2016 elections came down to some very close races, due to 3rd (party) candidates sapping votes from the Democrats especially. You can thank those elections for having given us the Iraq War and its trillion dollar costs, and 2016 brought perhaps the worst President in US history. How about that reason for why voters just want a candidate strong enough to win without having to count hanging chads. It's also becoming clearer that clinging to perfectionist beliefs for candidates is a losing game in a system that is totally geared to a binary option.
31
@Tim
Voter suppression and outright voter fraud stole the 2000 and 2016 elections. Same for 2004.
They have to persuade us they're 'on our side'? But how will they put into practice the policies for 'our side'? How to counter the objections of the opposition? Explain that.
Too much personality talk, not issue talk. Reality TV politics. Sure the public is confused and manipulated. The media grabs us, staying safe and centrist, avoiding pros/cons of issues and the comparisons we need.
We lag other democracies in economic mobility, security, health care---alll labeled 'left wing' here.
Trump is a symptom of the failure in how our politics are explained to the public---- our norm of big profit media, and politicians dependent on corporate donors to run a campaign. Donors make candidates compete for big money, to keep their platforms within limits, while marketing themselves to voters.
On the media, it's who is more electable, and which faction will a candidate appeal to more--- this week--- blue/red/women/men/blacks/whites, rural/urban on and on. Then they critique our polarization and identity politics!
Nowhere on our media are we given concrete examples of how dozens of countries have been funding and using their universal health care--since the 20th C. It's one of our hottest issues --- but the US is on another planet---in the age of the internet. No accident.
Who gives the best speech, warming our hearts?
Klobuchar's speech in the snowstorm was a spectacle --her audience out there in rapt attention. Heart warming in that cold. She sounded good, like the others.
19
@meredith
I’m not sure why you’re blaming the media for public confusion. The stories you’re alluding to are out there. Subscribe (if you don’t already) to a major metro daily paper (digital is fine but print works even better). Then follow along. I’m a journalist myself and I can promise you that most of us are trying to serve the public. Those who rely on social media for their news will not feel as if they can trust the media. You need a reputable source that you can spend at least a few minutes with every day. Over time, you WILL feel better informed, and you will also be able to spot fake or biased “reporting” so much easier. (If you’re already doing this, I’m not sure what to tell you, and I’m sorry you feel this way.)
With the possible exception of Corey Booker does anyone else see the irony that the race for the Democratic nomination has been dominated by female presidential candidates? Is the time now ripe for a viable woman at the top of the Democratic ticket who doesn't have a whole lot of dubious personal baggage? Hillary Clinton may have lost the presidency but maybe she helped pave the way for the next generation of women who want to become president.
35
The democratic nominee will need to be someone young, charismatic and NOT an inside the beltway politician. He/she has not emerged yet, but they hopefully will and soon.
2
I’m holding out for Beto. I mean let’s face it, my cat would be better than trump but is he electable? Every democratic candidate will be a million times better than Trump but are they electable. Sorry to say it but it’s got to be a man on the top of the ticket. We need a win.
12
@Oliver. Beto, as a white male has no chance whatsoever at winning the Democratic primary.
@Oliver Beto's another Rockefeller Republican in drag. Look at his voting record. Clinton redux. And superfical? Gag.
I don’t get it. You seem to be saying that vanilla, nothing more, is the flavor of the season. For those of us who ache for a clear articulation of the biggest problems we have to confront going for the
candidate in the homogenous middle is a long way from appetizing. Paradise California is an hour North of where I live. I went and saw what is left of the town after the devastation left by the “”Camp Fire.” Block after block was razed and one cannot help but wonder, “Is my town next, am I next, will my government be there to help if my home burns?” Standing back from the loss you have to wonder who in Washington is doing anything to keep that little tragedy from being larger, the next time. Six hours to my south San Diego faces Tijuana—one of Trump’s points of obsession. In fact there is a crisis but it is about more than a couple of thousand immigrants: it is also about the estimated 70 million fleeing from pain filled failing states going to an uncertain somewhere.
Paradise and her Camp Fire are the symbols for our neglect of the environment. Trump’s wall and his rejection of anyone whose skin is not white are the symbols of our inability to maintain order in the world.
Empathy, the dynamic you argue for as the vehicle to
Election success, is not enough. At some point we have to have intellectual acuity, an ability to identify problems and state clear steps toward their resolution. Even better that clear thought would stand on the shoulders of consensus. Warren2020.
16