Why is it that none of the articles on the New Hampshire primary deals with the 800 lb gorilla in the room: the New Hampshire primary is not closed, meaning that is effectively open to all not just Democrats. Undoubtedly, as in South Carolina, Republicans who have no real primary of their own, will line up to vote for whom they believe will be the weakest candidate against Trump. It is journalistically irresponsible, while touting "winners" and "losers", not to continually place such narratives in the context of who can vote.
3
Can't anyone see this is desperate and that the candidates all need to stop ruining the chance to beat Trump? They all need to sit together, look at the facts (e.g., America does not want Medicare for all right now, that has to be a process), decide which of them has a real chance to beat Trump, then begin priming those candidates. Too many of them seem pathetically desperate be president, not to do what's best for democracy. Talk about minimum wage increases, talk about VA benefits, talk about grants for trade schools, tech schools, clean energy jobs, instead of college, promise that healthcare will evolve in favor of all, and to quit bickering and degrading each other, it diminishes all of them and weakens the party and our hopes. This is common sense!
1
I could do without the constant sniping between them. I’m sick of it. Democrats don’t need to run attack ads for the White House’s re-election campaign. The liberal and Fox News media eats this up while ignoring the enormous graft and corruption by the occupant and his adult offspring. The occupant gets a free ride while media highlights the fake news talking points of the Republican talk show sycophants.
5
If you knew nothing about American politics and you only looked at New Hampshire, you would probably think that the race for the nomination was between Buttigieg and Sanders, but this is simply not the case. Buttigieg may be experiencing strong polling numbers in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, but nationally, his message is not getting through to voters. He is hovering around 8 percent, a dismal showing for a supposed "front runner".
Buttigieg is a novelty candidate that was propelled into the limelight simply because he is homosexual, not that there is anything wrong with that. Yes, he went to Harvard and served in the military, but so did thousands of other people and you probably wouldn't see them going from mayor of a small town to the winner of Iowa.
As much as I don't like to say it, Biden still maintains tight control over the moderate wing of the party. I see potential for Klobuchar and honestly think that she would make a very good Commander-in-Chief and is a respectable candidate who I would consider voting for, but as of now, her message is simply bouncing off Biden's rock-solid moderate support.
The media may try to frame this primary as a race between Buttigieg and Bernie, but as of now, that is not factually accurate. Through no one predicted the staying power of Biden, he has proved to be a formidable front runner, especially considering his support among African Americans that Mayor Pete severely lacks.
1
We have a great need to reduce the hype and focus on what is actually relevant, rather than trying to make headlines and media-driven excitement.
The primaries have just begun, with two small-state populations.
Why is it so impossible to let the millions of other citizens express their values and votes before the media takes over everyone's mind for them, making another election into another horse race, rather than a discussion about what our nation needs to lessen inequality and to create opportunity?
1
I have been watching and listening to Pete Buttigieg for a while, In the beginning I thought him to be a breath of fresh air, his intelligence would have played circles around Trump during debates, however, I notice the difference in him since he has started to rise in the National polls and the now Sanders challenge regarding IOWA it seems that the past several debates have not brought out the best in Mr. Buttigieg and my age will now show but he seems to have a "swelled head" this is dangerous in any endeavor and I must concur with Ms. Klobuchar and others who feel his lack of experience will be at issue, I know people want a dog in the game and not a puppy but they also don't need someone who needs to stand down a bit and regroup and find a bit more humility, this election more than any other is a very serious thing and should be taken with the utmost seriousness which will bring Democratic voters out in droves "like never seen before to use a Trump line"
3
“The point of the exercise, however, was not to trigger mass defections between ‘the left and the center,’ but rather to consolidate support on one side of the party or the other.“
And that is what's great about a ‘Free Press’ folks. It’s always on guard. But a stray shot now & then can impair an innocent bystander and cause mass panic in various directions.
Be alert & stay safe; by not taking info for granted.
1
I have to believe in American optimism. I just have to. The alternative is unthinkable. I have to believe we will right the wrong and no matter the Democratic candidate, hand a mandate repudiating Trump so clear that it cannot be ignored. Keep the House. Take the senate. Take the White House. I don’t want Trump to simply lose. I want him to be humiliated.
4
@Steph
I share your desire to defeat the White House occupant — but not your desire to humiliate him. His followers — though misguided — are our family members, friends and neighbors. Humiliate him and we humiliate them. We must end this “us” (good guys) versus “them” (bad guys). Though the White House wants to make this an ugly vengeful campaign we need not indulge him. He is a very very sick man who does and says incredibly evil things but he is still a human being and deserves to be treated civilly even if he does not return the favor. It’s the right thing to do.
We need three parties. The Democrats will always have this problem if they keep trying to appeal to such a diverse group of voters. It should be a race between Trump, Sanders, and a moderate. Then maybe we would get the moderate that most people want, rather than these extreme candidates that only appeal to about 30%.
1
It seems to me that the Democrats are "damned if they do and damned if they don't."
If the Democratic nominee is left-leaning (for example, Sanders or Warren), Trump will win simply by yelling "Socialist!" at every opportunity.
On the other hand, if the Democratic nominee is a "centrist" (for example, Buttigieg or Biden or Klobuchar), Trump will win simply because voters won't perceive a significant difference from the Republican candidate (Trump), and so (too) many voters will stay home.
Either way, Trump wins and the Democratic Party loses. I anticipate that voters will pick the Democratic nominee in 2024, but 2020 looks like a Trump win -- unless, of course, he dies before Election Day.
@Commentor
You might be right — but Democrats should still fiercely unite and put up an extraordinary valiant all our effort: actively campaigning, telephoning, canvassing, registering, fundraising, letter writing, sign posting, bumper sticker, getting everyone out to the polls effort!
1
As Bernie/Buttigieg/Biden (the “ Three Bs”) duke it out in the looming shadow of Bloomberg (the “fourth B”), our Liz has skillfully positioned herself to become the inevitable default candidate-of-choice. As Angela steps down across the pond, it’s finally time that the US pick another woman to be the “unifier-in-chief” of a male-dominated, and thus increasingly bellicose, world. If we’re honest about it, we must ask ourselves who, by macho instinct, like to play with guns and who, by nurturing instinct, are repelled by instruments of violence. There are both earth-shaking geopolitical and biological issues of survival that are at stake here and we can no longer experiment with the planet’s future.
I worry more about these things, and I am not hearing a thing about them from our candidates.
1) People my age ( senior citizens) are being swayed by the rhetoric from republicans about “socialism”, and equating it with something totally different from what “democratic socialists” like Bernie Sanders are talking about- this is hurting the Democratic Party as a whole. It needs to be reined in.
2) Another thing I am noticing Is that our democratic candidates are falling into a trap of repeating the same “stump” speech campaign promises over and over and over again ,( probably because Trump lies seem to gain traction with his base because of these repetitive statements). It’s not helping our candidates on the campaign trail.
3) First things first, We have Trump and republican congressmen and women who feel so threatened that they will not speak up to right and wrong . It’s wrong that Mitch McConnell has so much power, power to ignore the American people to accomplish his goals, letting important bills sit, changing the rules etc.
This threat to our democracy should be the most important discussion our candidates should be having with the American people, removing Trump, also stressing the importance of voting ( in every election) to improve the make up of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Judiciary etc , this is the only path that will ensure the many changes that are important to the American people.
4) nothing can change until we accomplish these targets.
3
Who will be the first candidate to acknowledge the elephant in the room: Joe Biden and Ukraine conflict/corruption? So far, they have all sidestepped the issue, perhaps thinking that they won't need to, but Pete is going after those voters so will be interesting to see if he utters the word "Ukraine" and gives a little wink to the camera.
3
@99percent
The ONLY reason why this is the "elephant in the room" is because Trump and Republicans have made Biden and Ukraine a talking point -- but all for the wrong reasons, because it's being used as a diversion from what really went on there with this administration withholding much needed military aid from one of our allies for purely political reasons.
And the STILL haven't received all of it.
1
@N. Smith
still haven't seen behind the curtain, have you
1
@99 percent
The occupant takes the strength of his opponents and smears them — with the goal — of voters saying the occupant is “no worse” or “they all do this.” Why does the occupant fiercely fight the release of his federal tax returns despite his repeated — on camera promises — to release them? How much Russian oligarch’s money was poured into the occupant’s failing real estate ventures when US and European banks refused him any more loans? Why does he support Putin over our US intelligence?
1
I don't get the appeal of Buttigieg. I find him phony and robotic. He talks ultra-smoothly and vaguely and doesn't seem to have any concrete initiatives. Maybe I'd forgive that if he had impressive experience, but he doesn't. He seems slippery and calculated, and knowing that he's received money from pharmaceutical CEO's just makes it worse.
2
@Samuel Russell
Of course, he has talking points like other candidates. They stick to what works. Of course, his speeches are rehearsed and well constructed — they have to be or the press will eat him alive — just like all the other Democratic candidates. We demand absolute perfection from our Democratic candidates though we fall short of it ourselves. I applaud all the Democratic candidates! It takes a lot of guts to do what they are doing!
When will someone point out that Pete Butigieg never appears on stage with his husband? The fact that he’s married to another man doesn’t bother me, but Trump and his surrogates (acknowledged or not) would turn Mayor Pete into hamburger. To those who doubt/deny this: have you ever seen a President with fewer moral scruples??
1
It's a two person race all right, its who's going to be #2 to Bloomberg.
Sanders is to far left for most moderates and Buttigieg, despite excellent qualifications, has the weight of the LGBTUQ, his age and experience working against him.
In California we're seeing ads with Obama and Bloomberg, I don't know if they are showing those in the rest of the country. A unofficial dog park survey said 7 out of 10 (humans, the dogs could care less) would vote for whoever Obama endorses (including two Trump supporters).
4
As Hillary reminded us when she said something like " you may not love me, but please think of your supreme court". Could she have BEEN any more right?
RBG has us all in a very precarious lifetime situation.
She should have gracefully resigned under Obama early when Mitch couldnt have gotten away with what he did to Garland.
2
Self destruction formula for guaranteed Trump re-election
3
This is the Year of the Woman. 100 years ago Women's Suffrage gave women the right to vote. Now is the time for a women to lead this country. And that woman is Amy Klobuchar. She speaks, acts, and has the gravitas of a President. And she is ready to be President on Day One. The last thing we need now is upheaval or lovely platitudes. Amy understands us, and she will work her heart out for all -- all -- of us. And if you want to see Trump defeated, she will do it and he won't even know what happened. This is the Year of the Woman. Amy Klobuchar!
6
It is less than an hour's drive from Sherbrooke to the New Hampshire border but in my lifetime that hour has become light years. The University of Sherbrooke provides my healthcare, our community's schools with oversight and the welfare services such as psychiatrists, psychologists , physiotherapists, homecare and family services.
On this side of the border Bernie Sanders would be part of our vast center and Pete Buttigieg represents many of the societal prejudices we have long ago overcome.
At the University of Sherbrooke students and staff can chose the name they wish to be identified with as well as their preferred gender ID. We have a self identified as conservative government where Bernie Sanders would not be out of place and Mayor Pete would be a voice calling for a slowdown in getting to a place we got to decades ago.
Fifty year ago ultra conservative Catholic Quebec had its own version of the American revolution and even as we still have our own version of the GOP it is now and seems destined to remain our lunatic fringe.
Having lived to the quiet revolution and having spent years living in red and blue America I have no problem with the Democratic party's potential nominees as they are all looking for the best path to the same destination. My wife who has already ordered her absentee ballot has days where we don't know if it is Sanders. Warren, Buttigieg ,Klobuchar, Yang, Steyer or Bloomberg best able to bring the USA into the 21st century.
5
I see all Bernie fans is out on the comment sections of NY Times, YouTube etcetera trying to undermine Pete Buttigieg’s candidacy just the same way they did with H Clinton. ‘He met with the FB CEO...he declared victory too early’ (of something he actually won according to the rules of electoral college in Iowa). I’m sure if they’ll keep up their work they will succeed in making Trump a two term president - just like they helped him get elected the first time around.
11
It's early days yet, much can and will happen. As far as moderates go, I find Klobuchar the most convincing. She would make a change, with more experience than Buttie and more focus than Biden. Biden could also be further dragged down by the involvement of his son in the really bizarre story surrounding Viktor Shokin, the general prosecutor of Ukraine, who tried to investigate corruption at Burisma, Ukraine's largest gas company. The latest story, and it's vital to verify all its aspects before reaching conclusions, is that Shokin's Vienna-based doctor is now certain that Shokin had been subject to an attempt to poison him with mercury which explained his heart failure. The whole Maidan "revolution of dignity" to which many people gave their lives was about fighting corruption, so this chapter needs careful examination. In any case, pocketing loads of money while serving on the board of a corrupt company while ordinary Ukrainians often earn less than hundred dollars a month does not endear Hunter Biden to me.
4
@Damage Limitation
I should add that Shokin raised much controversy (see his Wikipedia entry), for example for blocking prosecutions against those accused of shooting demonstrators. In post-Soviet societies, it's important not to take things at face value and to search further. A bit of a minefield here.
3
I wish Michael Bloomberg had started earlier.
5
While I would vote for him if he is the candidate, I would feel more comfortable if he were in the debates now.
It is probably his intent to keep out of the early carnage and jump in when the smoke clears. After all, he can afford it.
6
Amy. Moderate. Tested. Ready to lead.
7
@Grant Hartup Amy. Center right. Tested only in hermetically sealed white state Minnesota, where Republican voters look different than they do in the South and West. Ready to lead nowhere with African Americans and other POC. Lost even in Iowa, where she assumed she had the inside track. Has escaped real scrutiny, including for helping to throw Franken under the bus.
7
Because she has completely avoided any real scrutiny up to this point I'm going to ask a big question: Does Klobuchar not suffer from exactly the same problem as Buttigieg? Has anyone ever seen one mention of her African American support? I certainly haven't and would be shocked if she has any to speak of.
12
@Lauren I don’t disagree that she has escaped scrutiny, however, she did not stand behind a police officer who effectively bragged about allowing a black man to die (Earl Garner) as Buttigieg did, so comparing the two seems a bit of a false equivalency. And, I’m getting my armor on for this: wouldn’t a Senator from Minnesota going after, focusing on (whatever you want to call it) the black vote appear insincere and amount to little more than pandering? I’m sorry, but I seriously doubt any presidential candidate REALLY understands what it means to be a black American, so when they start talking like they do, I normally just tune it out. Yes, I guess I’m un-PC, but I am honest. The Democrat will get my vote, regardless of which Democrat it is or what their chances of winning might be.
2
The Democratic primary reminds me of the Hunger Games. There may be some initial cooperation but you reach the point where everyone else is fair game. If you want to draw comparisons between Trump and the President in Hunger Games, please do.
4
Since it is likely Trump will easily win this election all registered Democrats unhappy with their candidate selection should stay home on election day and avoid voting all together. Now hear me out before dismissing this idea. A win is a win regardless of how large so let Donald Trump take all 435 electoral votes. After Trumps re-election there will be a much needed alignment taking place in the DNC. Candidates having winning potential will be front an center for the next election. The outrage and torment will drive every single Democratic voter to the polls and in turn flip the script on the Republicans.
2
@RS
You are avoiding the very real horror of a President Trump who is in reality a "Fascist" in which he along with his"cronies' are in the process of destroying democracy in America. You don't have that much time.
3
Why exactly would anyone expect people competing with each other for a job not to be competitive? Have you never been on a team? Do you not understand how that works?
Think of the left and right as geometry for a moment. You have a circle the center which never ever moves is the center and a line to the right is the right. If the radius line keeps going further right. Everything to the left of it is still the right wing from the POV of the center until you get back to the center which again, never ever moves.
Warren and Sanders are the center, maybe even a bit right of center. Everyone else is to their right somewhere along that line segment .
2
You can't win an election running for a group of people that doesn't exist.
The idea of a struggling middle class belies every current economic statistic-it's a loser. You can argue that despite record low unemployment, rising wages (including faster for the lowest 20% than anyone else), and rising wealth for the lower 50% (WSJ) the middle class is still struggling. You have no evidence, but it can be argued. What can't be argued is there has ever been an era in US history where the middle class had more opportunities.
Not only are the statistics above exceptional but never have more Americans had the opportunity to obtain health insurance; including vision and dental coverage nor has there ever been a statistic like the one in which 78% of Americans expect 2020 to be their best financial year ever.
The Democrats can't win unless they change their argument. The Sanders/Warren plan of either destroying entire industries (insurance) or free stuff with no way to pay for it divides America, is a (WSJ editorial) "fairy tale", and a sure loser.
The argument needs to be what Trump has done to create this economy (some of it is luck and some credit is due Obama) is dangerous. Too much debt, too many cuts to foreign aid, and too much regulatory rollback threatens the environment.
Presidents don't solve individual problems. The American people can see the big picture-the economy is good and socialism fails. Democrats need a different argument or Trump will be re-elected.
4
This is like declaring the likely winner of a baseball game after the first inning. There has been one caucus so far in a state that is far from representative of the US. Caucuses do not inspire broad participation. A measly 170,000 people have voted so far. That means the two winners, Sanders and Buttigieg, each received less than 50,000 votes. And another candidate, Michael Bloomberg has strong support and will not even be participating in these early, small population state voting events. Can we at least wait for the results of super Tuesday in less than a month before announcing winners and losers?
6
This is the Year of the Woman. Women's sufferage happened 100 years ago this year. Amy Klobuchar looks, sounds and acts like a Leader, a President. Now is the time. We need a strong leader to bring us together, who understands what needs to be done and has proven that she knows how to get it done. Her life experience, her intelligence, and her toughness is what we need to defeat Trump. And she is the one who can do it. We don't need upheaval; we need good common sense and a leader with the vision, the knowledge and proven experience, the determination and the grit of this remarkable women. It's time for a woman ; and that woman is Amy Klobuchar!
2
One Facebook friend has just announced that, if Bernie is not the nominee, he won't vote for the Democratic ticket. He, however, is an outlier, a long-time socialist who has asserted from the campaign's beginnings that "only Bernie can win."
Fortunately, this Facebook friend votes in NYS, a strongly Democratic state. Our electoral votes are sure to go to whoever is the Democratic candidate.
I recognize the frustration of progressives who have seen moderate candidates lose. What they won't acknowledge is that, in the two most recent instances, those moderate presidential candidates won the popular vote, but lost in the Electoral College, precisely because progressives such as my friend refused to compromise.
So instead of Gore or Clinton -both were scorned by progressives, but would have given us worker-friendly, science-based, honest administrations- we got George W. Bush, an honest if not very intelligent man who was duped by neo-cons into initiating the most disastrous war in American history; and Donald Trump.
Nor did the GOP's Great Recession push the white working-class to the left; the American white working class embraced smears about Barack Obama, who saved us from an economic depression, believed Clinton should be "locked up" and voted for Donald Trump.
The Democratic majority is made up of overlapping categories of people of color, well-educated voters and pro-choice women. That majority is moderate, not left. Accept that, or reelect Trump.
7
The headline of this article makes no sense. A unified party supports an open, fair contest among candidates of varying viewpoints, not by coalescing around and virtually anointing a preferred candidate from the beginning, as happened last time. The fact that candidates compete aggressively to win support means nothing at the is stage. The test for unification will be for democrats to rally behind the eventual nominee regardless of their preferred primary candidate. So far, I see no reason to believe that will not happen.
2
There is no left in this race.
There is the center, Warren and Sanders,
and the right wing, everyone else.
4
And you think the Republicans are arguing about donations from billionaires versus small donors? They are not, and if the Democrats don't stop that kind of holier than thou nonsense this cycle, they are going to get trounced. Fight that fight after they capture the White House and Congress in 2020.
4
I seem to remember uncontrolled infighting with Republicans in 2016. The party was united in belief that Trump couldn't possibly win the nomination and if he did, Hillary would win in a landslide. I'm hearing the same thing now about Democrats and future President Sanders. Don't worry, beating Trump trumps all!
I hold with Bernie -- a very great man, as I see it! How silly to think Medicare for All would cost us, through our taxes, more than private insurance! We're simply too poor to have what all other developed countries have? I'd like to think Buttigieff would be a good bet at some point down the line, but when I read about his trip to Israel and his feeling that that country was being criticized by people who didn't understand it, I said NO NO -- not this guy! He has no understanding at all, it seems, about global affairs. Has to grow up a lot before he could be trusted to make serious decisions in that realm.
2
@Martha Stephens How long has Bernie been in Congress? Has he gotten Medicare for all passed yet? No he has not. It took a lot of hard work to get just ACA passed, and that bill had a lot of compromise in it. What makes you think he would do any better?
3
@Martha Stephens Sanders is a great man? I think he named a post office once. Otherwise he’s sat in Congress doing pretty much nothing but talking. He’s missed more votes than any other candidate and authored fewer bills. He is the classic establishment candidate—career politician and windbag. Shame so many people are drinking his kool aid.
@Martha Stephens
the problem with the medicare for all math idea is that
people think they would do better bc they get to
reduce their work-offered insurance premiums-but it is like a tax law that looks pretty at first.
Companies who are paying immense $$ to carry the plans for their employees (this is massive money) will be taxed more, and will NOT share the influx of any money with employees. If anything, the medicare for all will make employers more aggressive on keeping wages and other benefits low, stating that employees got "a big raise" with the medicare for all.
Believe, me that will be the way it goes. And that argument will go on for a long time with employers.
I wonder if the press is over playing the contest between primary candidates; how can you have a contest without the players pushing for themselves. And knowing the pugilistic Trump, are we not wanting to see a fighter emerge?
This year's primary has more candidates than we can easily sort out and it's only been Warren and, to a lesser degree, Sanders who have clear platforms. Biden says he's the one to defeat Trump and bring back the Obama years. The others seem to be running on niceness. What exactly is a moderate this year?
How about the press playing up the policy differences of the candidates, or their track record for ethics or their legislative accomplishments. Let's figure out which candidate can get government to work for all of us and let that message drive us all to the polls.
1
Mr. Sanders offers us only a "politics of resentment". America has never been a left of center country (McGovern anybody?). It is a a right of center country. That is not going to change any time soon.
If Democrats think the populism of Mr. Sanders will win them the presidency, they have another coming.
7
@TheOtherSide
Good thing that Sanders is the center then huh?
You are wrong BTW. The best years this nation ever had were the ones that republicans like to use nostalgia for but never want to admit it was so because of the regulations they removed which let them destroy our economy and government.
@TheOtherSide
Contrary to yours and others claims, poll after poll confirms the majority of Americans from BOTH parties support the progressive policies of universal health care, minimum wage, fairer tax system, better gun control, seriously dealing with climate change etc. etc. I would also submit that you check back to the promises that Trump made during his campaign, many of which dealt with the above issues promises he ultimately lied about and actually did quite the opposite.
The only people that want you to think the whole country is center right in their political ideology, are those that wish to maintain the "status quo" and ultimately, do little or nothing about the above important issues.
5
@Deus
Please name one "center left" president in all the years of the republic. I'll wait...
2
There is no party unity. It is everyone for themself. That is an equation for defeat in Nov 2020. Count on it.
8
@NOTATE REDMOND: And it's been this way in every presidential election cycle of my lifetime. Why is everyone so surprised? It's called Democracy.
2
@BlackJack
In the corruption of Vegas? It is called a crime everywhere else.
1
@NOTATE REDMOND
so true. the egos are just so obvious.
They all think its their time.
It was Hillary's thinking midwest was in the pocket and stay at homers that lost us in 2016.
Does no one remember the Trump split in the party in 2016? This is NOTHING compared to Trump's constant lie-laced attacks on his opponents with the vindictive nicknames and mockery. Why are the polite democrats being held to such a ridiculously higher standard?
15
@Ken
Last time we checked, the RNC knows how to count their votes honestly and doesn't put their thumb on the scale for any candidate.
This is not about insults. It's about a fundamental respect for voters in counting their votes. The IDP refused to do that. Even after errors were revealed, and accepted as errors, the lawyers for the IDP said they would not change anything.
2
@Ken
Perhaps, it is because now Trump and his
"Trumpublicans" have set the standards to an all time low.
@Ken
bc no presidential election has EVER been certain to decide the future of the democracy as this one.
Ever. The re-election of Lincoln, perhaps.
Why the split?
Newspapers said Buttigieg jumped the gun on declaring a victory for himself in Iowa--Sanders followed after that--to the point where the AP refused to declare a victor.
But there are people saying Buttigieg "had the numbers" and wasn't premature.
If we can't even agree that someone declared himself the winner before the fact, what can we agree on?
10
@Talbot
at least Butti is seemingly honest when he says any D candidate will be better than Trump. They all have to be on that page.
They are all a bunch of opportunists, who without a Trump presidency would unlikely even run.
Biden, what is this your 3rd run??
Rather than focusing on the candidates' inevitable disagreements, the Times might point out that Democrats understand the colossal importance of defeating Trump and the GOP in the general election. This is not a normal election; our democracy hangs in the balance, and responsible media might consider an unequivocal condemnation of the GOP's false narrative.
7
Yesterday I went and canvased for Buttigieg in NH, knocking on doors that mostly did not get answered. I was grateful to encountered one gentlemen who informed me politely that he was a Bernie supporter, so much so that he had people from Bernie’s campaign staying at his home. I thanked him for coming to the door and telling me and said I respected his choice. He said, “what really matters is that we get Trump out of office, we are in this together” I adamantly agreed. We both smiled and respected one another.
I read this piece and think why can’t the Democrats pull themselves together? The voters want unity and, as is human nature, a winner. But why do we need to call each other names and keep repeating “billionaires”? It is sounding remarkably like our version of “build the wall” or “lock her up”.
“Respect” was the first thing the Buttigieg campaign instructed of us as we were given our packets. We need to make this the Democrat motto.
21
@CY
And notice that "millionaires" is conspicuously absent from his pitch this time around. Why? Because he is a millionaire now, and Mr. Buttigieg is still paying off his student loans. Demonizing people who have earned their affluence is not going to win over independents, and if Bernie is the nominee, we are looking at another four years of Mr. Trump.
3
@CY Voters' trust in the DNC is evaporating. And the more the DNC talks about coronating the Billionaire Bloomberg with super-delegates, the more that trust disappears.
4
@BlackJack
I dont care who wins if they win.
Unfortunately, we are in this situation, and if its Bloomberg that can beat Trump, so be it. Hard times makes for strange bedfellows- but you fight fire with fire.
None of the current Dem candidates has the
gall to stand up to Trump ( and seem RIGHT) than Bloomberg can. Trump ONLY feels threatened by anyone with as much or more power and or prestige than he. This is why he
bows to the dictators of the world.
Bloomberg has absolutely nothing to lose and can spend money like no one else.
Let him win, and move on from this historic tragedy. He says hes in only to beat Trump. I will take that over the already obvious upcoming Dem infighting. Its kind of like boxing prize fights. Some guys fight all year but some guy gets picked to fight the champ bc he can beat that particular champ and make for a good fight.
Hate to admit it but this is no time for dreamers.
7
If the media and the Dem Party bosses want unity, then stop peddling the unsupported notion that only a moderate can win.
Gore ran as a moderate and lost to Bush.
Kerry ran as a moderate and we lost, once again, to Bush - after Bush had initiated a disastrous, unnecessary war.
Hillary Clinton ran as a centrist and lost to the most ridiculous candidate in US history.
Obama, ran as a “hope and change” progressive and won in ‘08 but by 2012, it was clear to anyone paying attention that he was a centrist on economic issues. So the tally is, centrists won only once in four tries.
And it’s important to consider that many 2012 Obama voters went for Trump’s phony populism, clearly desperate for change from a status quo which today’s centrists seem to be defending.
21
@Ed Watters Let's add to your story that Walter Mondale and George McGovern ran as unabashed liberals and lost in two of the largest electoral landslides in American history. At least Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry came close. The far left candidates were absolutely slaughtered at the ballot box.
Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter all ran centrist campaigns and won. I completely disagree that Obama ran as an out and out progressive in "08. His message was indeed "hope and change" but it was never M4A or free college. Never. He wasn't even pro marriage equality until late in 2012.
It's really not far left or center though that is the distinction.
The DEMs who have won the presidency over the last few generations have all been young, fresh-faced and optimistic candidates. It appears clearly to me that that is the winning formula for Democrats.
3
@Ed Watters
Since almost the first day Sanders entered the "den" of the democratic political establishment, as an "outsider", he faced the wrath of a group that did not want and never has wanted anyone to upset layer after layer of a system in which political hacks, consultants and lobbyists who are forever looking for jobs make up life in the "Washington Bubble". Sanders and other progressives who don't rely on corporate money would upend that whole corrupt system. In 2015, Sanders recommended to Elizabeth Warren that she should run for President yet, she declined. It was clearly determined afterwards that, for fear of incurring that wrath from the party leaders, she chose not to run against HC and despite similar policies, didn't support Sanders either. As a result of supporting Bernie Sanders over Clinton, the one that DID incur the wrath was Tulsi Gabbard who ultimately had to leave her position as co-chair of the DNC and since then has been regularly criticized and marginilized by those in the "inner circle" of the party.
One cannot help but help to notice that they would be willing to lose the election to Donald Trump rather than have Sanders as their nominee and Joe Manchin said so.
2
@Gary Waldman On the one hand, you claim Jimmy Carter proved that centrists have an advantage, ignoring that Carter lost in a huge landslide to Reagan (489 - 49 in the electoral college).
If you think Mondale was a candidate generating anywhere near the enthusiasm of Sanders, then you either weren't born yet, or you slept through that election - plus that WAS thirty-six years ago. Things have changed.
FDR, the most progressive President ever, won every election by a landslide. You might want to rethink your position.
1
Time and again we're asked to proceed with an abundance of caution over the concerns of so-called centrists, moderates, or independents. The mistaken belief is that those individuals are to the right, or center right. Let me propose another alternative: that the real "swing" voters are the voters who would normally come out for an inspiring, progressive candidate with bold ideas, but instead stay home and don't vote when served up yet another bland, milquetoast moderate whose goals are "give the GOP 75% of what they want and call it bipartisan."
It will take more than just voting against Trump to win, we need to give people something energizing to vote for, not just someone to vote against. I will vote for the nominee whomever that is, as must all of us, but I'd also remind people that "vote blue no matter who" includes Bernie as well.
42
Dominic, you and others are too hung up on labels. It is the measure of the candidate, not his perceived position on the issues. Those positions are like the weather, they change regularly based on the political winds. However, the candidate’s character does not. That should be the measure of your vote.
3
@Dominic I’ll vote for Bernie albeit reluctantly. I worry mostly about his ability to carry other candidates down the ticket to victory. IA, NC, TX are three states that will require a moderate Senate candidate in order to win. Basic common sense dictates that a Sanders ticket will work contra to that end.
If he wins, life will look a lot like it does now with all the gridlock but with positive Executive Orders. If he loses, 7-2 Supreme Court and Progressivism goes back in the attic for 50-75 years. Seemed like hubris in 2016 and it seems like hubris now.
2
Will the press please stop with this nonsense, acting as if disagreements during a primary campaign were some sort of novelty?
The Republicans have their demagogue this year, hence no discord. In 2016 they had divisiveness at least the equal of anything seen among Democrats this year.
Their primary season was a circus, with ringmaster Trump hurling childish insults at all his competitors. The Never-Trumpers were feigning integrity, clucking their tongues over his gross sexism on the "Access Hollywood" tape and vowing to withdraw their support, until his nomination was a fait accompli.
It's easy to display unanimity when your party's been taken over by a cult whose demagogic platform fits on a Post-it note.
Democrats, unlike the Republicans, represent a wide range of opinions and social groups. Disagreement is native to the party, and that's a good thing in a healthy democracy.
16
@GFE Not if you lose the election it’s not...
@bobandholly
Policy debates won't lose them the election. Picking the wrong candidate will.
Passions are understandably high. But some perspective would be helpful on both sides here. Pete is running what would be the most progressive platform of any Democratic nominee in modern history. He's advocating for raising the minimum wage to $15 and for every American to have the option to buy into Medicare. Likewise, Bernie's agenda is not as radical as it seems. In fact, his bold vision for health care is so popular that he has shifted the debate throughout the entire Democratic party in just the last few years. The party as a whole is undoubtedly moving in his direction and not away from it. Neither Pete nor Bernie is as terrifying as they are being made out to be.
The goal of a primary is to fight for your candidate. But the reward for winning the primary by tearing down the other half of the party is a completely unleashed Trump and a 7-2 conservative Supreme Court. Don't mess this up.
12
@Ryan
Sorry, but history has proven time and again up until this day, any candidate who takes corporate/lobbyists money will ultimately be beholden to the big donor, NOT, their constituents and Pete is no exception. He, went from a very progressive M4A position to a meaningless position of "optional buying into medicare" which ultimately solves neither the major problems of ridiculously increasing costs on all fronts and the right to healthcare for ALL Americans.
Sanders is really the only one with the progressive policies because he has, without wavering, been totally been committed to them for 40 yrs.
@Deus My point isn't that they are exactly the same. It's that you should keep supporting your candidate in the primary without painting the other as an evil criminal when there is an actual one in the WH.
And then vote for the Democrat in November.
Party unity? The Democratic Party is two distinct parties forced to fit under a single tent because of the monopoly of the two-party system. How can anyone expect unity? This is s diverse country with a spectrum of views, not just two.
9
@Michael And not a single candidate is pulling it together. I hope you enjoy 9 more years of trump.
@bobandholly
You jumped to the erroneous conclusion that I wouldn't vote for anyone but my candidate. I'll vote - this time - for whomever the Democrats nominate. That should be the attitude of any sane person who wants to get rid of Trump - and that should pull the party together.
Long term, our electoral system needs massive structural changes. Otherwise the disunity caused by the two-party system will persist. Which is precisely what the powers-that-be want.
1
@Michael
Here in Canada all five of our federal parties from Green to Conservative would fit in your Democratic Party. It is only the new right wing fringe coalition that contaminated our conservatives that is Republican.
1
He wasn’t my first, or even second or third, choice, but if it’s down to Sanders and Buttigieg, I guess I’m voting for Buttigieg.
4
Good grief, will you guys at the NYT get real? This is the purpose of the primaries. To discuss and compare ideas and to hone ones message. Why do I think whenever the msm (NYT in particular) starts to talk about “unity” that’s code for progressives to fall in line behind the “serious” and “grownup” anointed establishment candidate, like we were told to do in 2016. Not this time. There’s too much riding on this election to let the so-called political “experts” blow it. Again. This reminds me of 2008 all over when the pundits were saying no one would vote for a black guy with. Muslim name, yet he went on to win in a landslide espousing a very progressive platform.
10
It’s beyond time for the DNC to pull in the candidates, use their data crunching people, and lay out the reality to the bottom group of candidates. While we don’t need 2 tiny New England states to dictate the finalists, we do need to start pulling the wagons in, circle around, and start taking aim at the real challenge of unseating a crook.
9
@Gaston Bunny their data crunching people — how’d that work out in Iowa? No thanks — let the campaigns roll on. It’s what electoral democracy looks like.
2
@Gaston Bunny
Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren’t a Sanders supporter? The DNC needs to butt out of this and let the people decide who they want to represent them. We haven’t even finished the first primary and already they are panicking about Bernie Sanders wining.
2
@Gaston Bunny
Get a grip. Competing for the nod is the right way.
3
Joe Biden just has to be one of this country's bravest, most dedicated public "servants" on the landscape of politics.
He has endured with grace personal losses that are beyond my imagination, he has worked hard for the advancement of any number of useful policies. But he needs to get out of this race.
There are times to shine, there are times to shift gears downward and change course in this life. This is his time to retire while he still retains the patina of good guy. His latest comment about a questioner was not, IMO, malevolent. It was stupid and crass.
There is no room for this sort of Trumpeseque behavior!!! Nor does it fit in with the MeToo movement of respectfor women.
I will believe until the last gasp of this race that when Biden falters Hillary Clinton will step in. I've believed that since early last year.
But, barring that, Bloomberg should move to the helm, with Amy Klobuchar as his vice president. Odd couple? You bet? But they two would represent a geat diversity of issues across the US.
Amy Klobuchar has been my candidate since Day One, and I'm glad the media (surprised as heck) is saying "Wow, Amy Klobuchar is making strides." She should have received support from media and from Democrats long before this juncture.
To the Democrats, my party: Get your stuff together. You had years to muster and look at the mess. Some people have to step aside so all energy can go to the anointed nominee. Or we lose.
4
@HotGumption
Bloomberg will win over the suburban women, never trump Republicans, and Trump voters who realize they made a bad mistake. That will be enough to win the election.
But to turn a blue wave into a blue tsunami, we need enthusiasm from the African Americans. And the best way to generate that enthusiasm is to nominate a charismatic black American for Vice President.
In my opinion Stacey Abrams of Georgia would be the best VP for Bloomberg. Forget Harris and Booker, they have generated no enthusiasm among black Americans, and they should stay in the Senate.
3
@We the Purple Yours seems to be the dominating opinion in DEM politics these days but I have to wonder if it is truly the scenario. Saying that only a black candidate for VP would inspire the AA vote is akin to saying that only a white VP choice would inspire the white vote.
Isn't that more than a little racist?
I think the vast majority of AAs want the best candidate regardless of their race.
@We the Purple
With all due respect, don't be silly. Stacey Abrams is NOT going to be the vice presidential candidate for a million reasons, none having to do with race.
Bloomberg will win those former Trump supporters because in his resume they will see some of what attracted them to Trump (money, power, testosterone) minus the snark and waffling.
Also, I think most blacks vote with brains and by intuition, not merely by color of skin, so my view of that populace differs greatly from yours.
You made my case for me by pointing out that black polling did not move the needle much on Booker or Harris which proves what I'm saying: Black voters will vote for the most able candidate.
2
Why is the media trying so hard to make the Democrats sound like a hot mess? It's a primary contest meant to show differences so people can make a decision. This is not a kumbaya moment. If we want talking points and purity tests we know where to get them. Dems need to work on a comprehensive ground game plan for after the convention.
14
The only people sowing doubt about Democrat party unity is the press, and conservatives online.
The Democrats trounced the Republicans in 2018 by one of the largest margins in US history, and elected the most diverse governing body IN US history, and then stood united in impeaching a corrupt executive.
The only way a person could look at that and say, without laughing, that the Democrats have a problem with party unity is if they have an agenda of their own to try to convince people otherwise.
It’s “but her emails” all over again. Except this time it’s “But look what candidate x said about candidate y.”
14
Well said. We should add, the mainstream, corporate media, which has a lot to gain from dialing up the noise and hysteria. Add to this the Dem party leadership, which is clearly angling to achieve pre-determined outcomes.
7
Every time someone says Socialist, an Independent vote dies.
4
@Ray Wulfe then why is Bernie polling so amazingly well among Independents? Why is head to head polling starting to show him as the best positioned to beat Trump?
14
@Ray Wulfe
Is it socialism when Wall Street benefits from the health issues of our people?
5
@Marc Don't get me wrong, I.think Donald Trump and his corrupt GOP are a pox on the land. But Trump.would destroy Bernie on Twitter and on the debate stage. And Sanders is not alone in this, but he and most of the other candidates are busily tearing each other apart.
What we seem to forget is we are not electing an individual on his/her own, but a person who represents the Democratic idea of America, one the founders envisioned when giving us this country.
It's not who we "like" but one who will re-structure our leadership in the world. One who will establish a brain trust, bring in a Democratic majority in the Senate, unite once again with our European friends, and actually get this country back to addressing inequality, climate change, safety at home through gun legislation and unseen adversities which are sure to surface in the coming years.
I see too much emotion in this primary season and less reasonable scrutiny, that which will bring us a Democratic president-elect November.
25
@Carolyn M. Idealism like that expressed by @Carolyn M is wonderful if Americans voted with educated minds. But we saw what happened in 2016, so emotions and personality 'trump' ideals when it comes to outguessing the American voter.
2
@Carolyn M.
Having "reasonably scrutinized" the candidates, Sanders is the candidate who will revive the long dead American Dream.
He, more than any other candidate understands the societal deterioration represented by the obscene, colossal and growing inequality of opportunity. income and wealth, where the richest .1 percent take in 196 times as much as the bottom ninety percent.
Sure, his policies of medicare for all, quality, free child care for all, quality early childhood through grade twelve education for all, and tuition free continuing education... these policies will have a significant price tag upfront.
America is the richest country in the world, and it has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
With Sanders policies the American Dream will be revived and a better educated, healthier, more thriving citizenry will be worth the price tag.
Sanders' foreign policy will lead the world to use diplomacy, not military solutions to resolve conflicts.
Sanders will join with the world in combating climate change, while making sure that those whose jobs are lost in transitioning to a Green Future, are retrained for good jobs within the new Green Economy.
Sanders' integrity, bold ideas, vision and courage are desperately needed now.
A Future To Believe In!
President Sanders 2020!
5
I'm still thinking that if Klobuchar doesn't make the Democratic ballot that there's no one running that I can vote for. The last person quoted in this article expresses my view.
The Trump campaign thanks you for your support.
15
I share your enthusiasm about Amy! I also am prepared to vote, with equal enthusiasm, for any of the other candidates, who will undoubtedly bring values that are chillingly lacking in the executive branch now - and they'll bring teams who share those values. Please don't stay home in November!
8
@Kim from Alaska
So you, like so many in 2016, would rather sit at home and let all others vote instead of casting your ballot and defeating Trump? Great. If that is the case, congrats to Trump because he will win 4 more years.
3
Stepping back and assessing all the arguments, Warren really does seem like the unity candidate now. Not too left, not too old, and not too inexperienced.
8
@Parker76 She has no support among POC in any polling, does not get working class votes or fundraising either; so what means "unity" for you obviously doesn't mean "unity" for a whole other chunk of Democratic voters, or they'd be voting for her.
2
@Parker76 Not too left? She wants to use an executive order to forgive all federal student debt.
3
@Parker76 - if Warren is not too left for you, then you are out there.
4
Candidates need to put their egos aside, and put the party and nation first. Stop attacking other Democratic candidates whether directly or by innuendo and smears, and stop running if you can't win the nomination (that is purely selfish for power at the convention- shame on you).
We are more similar than different, and every Democratic candidate has a more progressive agenda than any prior candidates.
So stop purity tests and make sure you vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020 - think of the kids in cages at our borders, families who can't afford prescriptions or healthcare, shortening life expectancies and stressed out workers, climate change, racism, women's choice, Trump's shredding of our Constitution and international standing - don't be petty with sour grapes - just vote for the Democratic nominee to save our country, and planet.
6
The boomers are lining up for centrists. They want to go back to how it used to be.
There is no going back.
The world is on the brink of ecological collapse. Climate change is accelerating. People are dying because they do not have medical coverage. The middle class is disappearing thanks to debt and the greedy 1%.
There is no time for incrementalism.
18
@Campbell in theory who could disagree with your sentiment? Not I. The trouble is turn out. Boomers and older folks go to the polls and they tend to be more conservative. Make Election Day a national holiday or have it on a weekend and the GOP would be toast. That would be the single biggest change the Democratic Party could make to their benefit - if they never get full control of Congress/ White House.
3
@Campbell I am not a boomer and I will vote for a ‘moderate’—each of whom is more progressive than any former president.
1
I'm a liberal, very politically involved and follow the primaries closely but even *I* am starting to get sick of this process and the in-party fighting. Is it really productive? Or is it just sowing division and making voters more entrenched with their preferred candidate?
Every day since Iowa has made Bloomberg more appealing for me. Right now he's looking like the guy who can "rise above" these squabbles and actually beat Trump.
8
He can rise above because he hasn’t been campaigning or in the debates yet so is out of the fray. He’s swooping in with his money and building supporters through his ads. Don’t get me wrong, I will vote for Bloomberg if he is the guy, but it is a bit unfair and unsettling that someone can buy the election.
7
@shstl Ask NYers how they feel about Bloomberg. They're as rosy about the guy as they were for Trump. Please trust us. Please don't fall for another NYer that NYers don't even like. That's what went wrong in 2016. Listen to us. Bloomberg will be a disaster.
4
Not a Steyer supporter here, but I think people will be surprised at his level of support in the black community. When I talk to people canvassing in SC or NV, they have been surprised at how many people are saying Steyer. Look at his debate answers again with this info.
Only mentioning it because Steyer will be pulling support from Biden if this holds up - which will only benefit Pete and Sanders.
1
If Mike combines with Deval it would be as near a dream team as we could hope for.
I like Klobuchar but she is too little too late with needed campaign resources.
2
@Lawrence -- What a great ticket. Not one I had thought of. Two really capable people with the backgrounds to do the job. I like Pete and hope he stays in politics, but he needs a little more seasoning. The rest of them wouldn't excite me enough to vote for them, but a Bloomberg/Patrick is a really good one!
1
@Lawrence, dream team for whom? Wall Street?
3
While all the candidates are jockeying for position in Iowa and New Hampshire, it might be a good time to remember that the demographics of both states is somewhat limited and therefore hardly a good indication of how the race will really play out.
And by all accounts both Sanders and Buttigieg don't have very impressive numbers when it comes to African-American voters, and they seem to come across as some kind of after thought in both of their campaigns.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in South Carolina.
4
@N. Smith You can't just say "by all accounts", when all accounts show Bernie polling very well among POC. He got 40% of the POC vote in Iowa, and has the vote of POC 18-35 on lock in nationwide polling by a humongous margin; he is also very quickly taking numbers from Biden on older black voters as well. He controls the Latino vote and his outreach has been turning out Muslim and immigrant working class voters as well.
"By all accounts" or "by your account"?
1
@Marc
First of all. I happen to refute all those polls talking about how well Sanders is doing with people of color because polls are hardly correct (remember 2016?).
But of even more importance is the fact that the MAJORITY of Black Democrats are what one would call "moderate" and not left progressive.
I also happen to be a person of color with a better idea of what's going on in the community than you seem to.
2
Well, it is a primary.
Candidates are supposed to be at odds and convince voters of why they are better than their rivals.
Not sure really what we are to expect from such a process?
It's interesting how the media creates these narratives-- NY Times has run plenty of smears against candidates, especially Sanders, and then wrings it hands when the candidates go at each other? Me thinks you protest too much.
This melodrama is all the papers care about.
We are best not to emotionally engage with it.
Let the candidates define themselves. Listen to the candidates not the newspapers. Vote for who best represents your interests.
Then do the right thing in November. Vote for whoever wins.
EASY.
27
Pete B is showing his ability to handle the fray of the campaign trail. He is also honest in accepting donations from all Americans. Trump’s donors are coughing up hundreds of millions, Bloomberg has a bottomless war chest so the only effect of Sanders “rules” is to hobble candidates battling for re-election. Pete B won over 90% of Iowa’s counties showing little people do count. Sanders in not honest in his Medicare for all - people will pay as any with Medicare knows. Medicare A is free but has limited benefits - you need to purchase the supplements to get hospital, drug, and major benefits. The amount varies with state from $100 a month in CA, $140 a month in AZ, $150 in MN. Dental covers only preventative care and a eye exams with $100 for glasses. So come clean senator Sanders - you wrote the bill.
4
Didn't Sanders win the popular vote in Iowa? And I don't see how Sanders lie. about M4A. It is true, that people pay premiums for some parts of Medicare now, but it doesn't mean it will be true under Sanders plan .
5
@Barbara Strange disinformation here, Pete is the one of the group taking the most money from billionaires and big corporate donors. List out whatever reasons you have for voting for him, but that's not the issue you can claim superiority in.
The only one "honest in accepting donations from all Americans" is Bernie Sanders, who's breaking records on a weekly basis of accepting such donations. That's not my opinion, those are just the facts.
2
@Marc
Aren't billionaires and corporate (employee) donors not voters? And nobody is contributing to his campaign over the stipulated limit. Why do you think demonizing affluent citizens is going to help your cause?
Democrats are not going to win the White House without a huge percentage of independents. And independents are not going to vote for somebody who is actively promoting class warfare. That is also a fact.
1
It's 2016 all over again with the media. NYT et al has now positioned Sanders and Buttigieg as front runners because they're competitive in white rural states. And then that momentum starts to influence those states. So the media is compounding disenfranchisement of people of color. It happens at the voting booth and now in the primaries. Is selling papers/getting hits on line really worth the price when our democracy is at stake?
10
@Hudson Valley Girl I remember how interesting reading Manufacturing Consent was. If haven't, give it a read, you might like it.
@Hudson Valley Girl I always find it interesting when people want to speak for other voter groups by criticizing Bernie. He has the most diverse support, is polling better than anyone with people of color 18-35 years old, women of all ages (yes, more than Warren or Klobuchar), he has the Latino vote by a large margin, and has been turning out Muslim and immigrant communities to register. He is quickly taking support from Biden with older black Americans too.
People who can look at all of those numbers (please feel free to research them yourself, they're all out there), and paint Bernie as this "white bro" or white state candidate, are just telling on themselves. Trumpian disinformation and erasing minority voices by somehow implying their support for Bernie doesn't matter because you say it doesn't.
3
As a lifelong, idealistic Roosevelt-Kennedy-Obama Democrat who believes in the values of the party, I am so sick and tired of the news media's tiresome "Democrats in Disarray" narrative, trotted out like clockwork every four years ("Where's the Beef?", said Mondale to Hart).
Is this something that every reporter gets taught in journalism school? It is a horrible and lazy journalistic cliche that unrealistically obsesses over weekly and daily events and campaign minutiae, ignores the broader electoral picture and obviously plays into GOP hands.
The media's implicit value judgment here is that a monolithic, authoritarian party is preferable to a messy, diverse party that tolerates a wide variety of opinions. Surely they can't be serious about this?
And can someone remind the journalistic establishment that the "Disarrayed Democrats" have won the popular vote in six of the last seven elections since 1988 over the "Arrayed" Republicans? Some disarray!
20
Will you ever stop with the doom and gloom headlines?
When has there ever been a presidential primary when at candidates did not “attack” each other?
19
It is a wonder that Sanders’ divisive rhetoric is not confronted more directly. Those “drug company CEOs” invented and developed the stent that saved his life. The country does not need uninformed bombast and a class war.
6
@LTJ We're in a class war right now. Bernie didn't start it, he's just starting the working class's first reasonable defense in fighting back. Americans all over the country are being buried. Don't take my word for it, look at how much debt Americans are in, look at the tumbling life expectancy and soaring depression/drug addiction numbers. A small handful of corporations are profiting from all of this beyond their wildest dreams.
Tell them to stop the class war.
3
@LTJ - It seems you’ve been reading too much Ayn Rand. CEOs rarely invent anything, and the notion that one invented the stent is laughable. In actual fact, the stent was invented in France by a French/German team. In case you’re unaware, both counties have socialized healthcare systems (the horror!). Both countries also have better health outcomes and much lower costs per capita than the US.
Medical breakthroughs in the US tend to occur at research hospitals that get public funding, and the research itself is commonly backed by government grants. This is also a type of socialism.
CEOs are mostly parasites- they profit handsomely off the work of others. Often the process of extracting maximum profit results in the quality of the product declining, Boeing is a prime example.
1
Don’t delude yourself.
Candidates have not united on anything at all over the last 3 years.
They are all hyenas rushing after the same zebra. But once there it’s a free for all, anything goes, every candidate for themselves.
There is no ‘unity’ in the Democratic party at all. They have all been rushing for the same prize, don’t act surprised now that they start biting at each other.
The only winner in this pie throwing contest is Trump, for as long as the Democrats make minced meat of each other, he gets stronger and his base more solid. When the last person standing of the Blue Team arrives for the final fight, they will be shredded to pieces, exhausted, broke and facing a giant enemy, solid as concrete, with deep pockets and lots of fire to return based on the attacks leveled by fellow Democrats on their eventual champion.
Your actions re-elected him. Learn from this disaster Democrats.
Whether you like reading this or not this is the sad truth - If as a family you earn 350k or if you have assets of 350k, you are on the establishment side. That goes for all of our biased media and a lot of readers for The NY Times. If you have less than that, you are with the Progressives and their are a lot more on the Progressive side. So explain to me why Buttegieg, Biden or Klobuchar deserve the nomination?
7
@Michael Anthony
While I get that your comment is rhetorical, not scientific (a $350K annual income vs. $350k in assets are totally different things, and apparently an arbitrary cutoff anyway), let's say that, at a minimum, the sentiment holds.
Didn't Trump rise to glory by promising the world to the "have-nots" ( I guess specifically the white have-nots), and vilifying the "establishment" and "costal elites"? Blind faith and cult-like support ensued and yet, for the typical Trump supporter, the conditions for success have only deteriorated.
Whether you like reading this or not, the truth is that, by and large, one's ability to earn a high income is not random dumb luck and it does not disqualify one from deeply caring for those who struggle. Vilifying the class that employs, supports and pays a disproportionate share of tax dollars isn't going to help anything.
Mike Bloomberg is the only candidate with a vision and strategy to help all Americans without finding some "other" to blame. He will lead by example by raising taxes on himself and other ultra-wealthy (the $350K/yr you mention is not even remotely close to the level of income contributing to income inequality), but more importantly, he is best positioned to take action on the things that matter most to all of us: healthcare, gun safety, and climate change.
1
@Michael Anthony I have nowhere near the income or savings you describe and I support a ‘moderate’. Bernie Sanders is an ineffective senator with unworkable, often radical plans (I refer to his federal jobs guarantee, legalizing marijuana by executive order, and decriminalizing the border).
1
Awesome, now Bloomberg can walk through the rubble to the nomination.
2
Can’t even manage to get a caucus right and they’re going to run national health care for all? LOL
3
A president who has told 17,000 lies in three years and he earns your trust. LOL.
6
@M Of course, you know the Iowa caucus was run by the Iowa Democratic party which is made up of Iowans from all backgrounds and experiences. To say these same people will run a national health care program is disingenuous, at the very least, and at best, a failed attempt at snarkiness.
Republicans had no problem voting for a serial failed business owner who filed for bankruptcy six times.
3
These two petulant boys are doing their best to keep Liz Warren and Amy Klobucher in their shadows while they take their fight with each other to center ring. Please, voters, don't let this happen.
4
Speaking to other attendees at the Biden stop in Hampton, NH yesterday, it became clear that everyone will be voting for the nominee, no matter who it is. Will there be some democrats who stay home in November because their candidate isn't the nominee, of course, but are we assuming too much to think that more pragmatism will prevail this time around and more will vote for the democratic candidate, no matter who? Can a disappointed Bernie supporter still think four more years of Trump is the answer?
6
@Kvetch Bernie supporters will vote blue no matter who in November. We voted for Hillary in higher numbers than Hillary supporters voted for Obama. Any characterization of our support otherwise is grade A smear work.
Look around at all the moderates saying they'd never vote for Bernie, or just hoping and praying Republican GOP fundraising Michael Bloomberg pulls the rug out from under him. Look to the center, and ask them if they're going to vote blue no matter who.
2
@Marc I wanted Bernie in 2016. Saw him in Portland, ME July 5, 2015, with 8,000 other screaming folks, donated regularly, voted for Hillary in November.
Bloomberg is reinventing the process. It should not be novel for these other campaigns to purchase ads on YouTube, yet Bloomberg seems to be the only one doing so. Also not wasting time or money in these early races is a smart move. People are tired of these marathon campaigns. He or she that gets in the race last and blitzes the media, may have the best chance going forward. Does CNN 10,000 debates?
Counter-example would be Bernie Sanders who’s schtick has gotten very old. My fondness has grown into frustration because he’s basically been campaigning since 2015. Do we need to hear the political equivalent of “Who Let The Dogs Out?” for five years?
9
@Dudesworth should read; “ Does CNN need 10,000 debates?”
Nervous times, nervous typing.
@Dudesworth You must be pretty well off and comfortable if you don't know why his message hasn't changed, and why it's resonating with tens of millions more Americans no than it did 5 years ago.
4
@Marc this is part of the problem with Bernie’s supporters. All of the sudden I’m some kind of disconnected, wealthy oppressor because I think Bernie is a one-note politician? That’s some People’s Liberation Army stuff right there. Push too hard and we won’t see much of a difference between you and Trump supporters.
2
It's bizarre the you only mention Warren as an obstacle that Sanders must get past. She doesn't take big donor or PAC money. She does not personally criticize her rivals. She focuses on what can be done to help the greatest number of Americans.
Recently, most media, not just the NYT, seem to have declared her invisible. But she outperformed both the polling and Biden in Iowa and is well liked by voters who hear her. Stop handicapping her campaign.
21
@Norburt agree — looks like NYT has buried one half of its own endorsement from just a few weeks back. Warren has been holding steady against Klobuchar in the polls, for good reason. But the reporting is now so evidently skewed toward the center right candidate, it’s clear to see where the bias is.
4
@Norburt you don't think the wine cave attack (which was hypocritical) and her calling Bernie Sanders a misogynistic liar (which backfired) were personal attacks? Nobody has to handicap Warren's campaign, she is doing a great job by herself.
3
I agree! One thing this primary has taught me is that once the major media outlets have decided to no longer take a candidate seriously (or to even give them a fair shot in the first place) the campaign really struggles. Booker, Castro, Harris... any POC this time around...
For me, it is the first time I have understood why people would turn away from the “MSM” and instead look for news sources that talk about the things they are interested rather than what the media wants to talk about.
Clearly I am reading the Times so I am not dismissing the MSM, but I understand the residual anger of Bernie supporters AND how Fox was able to build trust with their viewers (trust they have since exploited, but not the point.)
3
After the Democratic debacle in Iowa, it now looks like "demolition derby" in New Hampshire. It seems to this life-long, 79-year old progressive Democrat the most destructive campaign among Democratic nominees I've ever witnessed with likable Joe Biden turning into a batterer; Amy Klobuchar becoming, as many feared, Amy Clubochar; Pete protesting; Bernie bashing; and Warren begging for unity. It's simply a disaster and makes one say, "A plague on all your houses!" Perhaps it's time to time say, "I like Mike."
5
It is repulsive for a billionaire to just walk in and buy a political office. The ego of billionaires is mind-boggling.
4
@Paul Wortman One of my gauges for a candidate is how they run their campaign, and the only one running it the way it should be run is Bloomberg. Definitely giving him a look.
@Ray Wulfe He has more authoritarian tendencies than Trump, and poured tens of millions of dollars into the GOP a few years ago, giving us the Senate gridlock we have NOW that I'm sure you really enjoy.
Ask NYers what they think about Bloomberg. No one asked enough of us what we thought about Trump and look where that got us.
1
Buttigieg would not be able to carry his own state, but he is running for the highest office in the land. He wouldn’t even be able be re-elected in his hometown which he is eager to leave while he still has a chance. He has a bunch of facile answers to all the questions put to him, but what qualifies him to be President? In terms of his experience and ideas he is like a child prodigy who says the cleverest things just like a grown-up, but in the end he can’t be taken seriously.
19
I am a registered GOP and cannot cast my vote tomorrow for Joe Biden. Instead I will write in Mitt Romney.
@Robert But wait! Aren’t you exactly the voter that Pete has been promising us he could win?
2
@Robert
Romney is a Great choice for the GOP primary.
3
Interesting how Warren is given next to no attention in this story, although she’s still polling in N.H. ahead of Klobuchar and Biden.
19
@Rip, yeah, the paper that plugged diversity and doing something other than party elite is now dissing Warren.
And what's with Hooksett? Every four years the NYTimes makes out like Hooksett is the bellwhether of New Hampshire voting. Are they too afraid of the North Country to go more than a few miles across the border?
The vote of the Democratic base is assured, no matter who ultimately emerges as the candidate. As a single voter, I would vote for any candidate's pet dog for president over Trump.
The fight is for independents and moderate voters in order to pull off a win by the Democrats in November. And it's important to remember that control of the senate may ride along with that candidate.
Electing a Bernie or a Warren will likely be too much for those two groups of voters to accept. Moreover, the Republican base will yammer unceasingly about "creeping socialism" in Democratic politics.
Moderation is what is needed above all else in order to win the presidency and senate. Klobuchar and Buttigieg, so far, have that base covered. Biden is seemingly fading. Bloomberg is a question mark.
The "experience argument" holds no water for me when I remember that one of our greatest presidents, Lincoln, had but a single term in Congress before reaching the presidency. In that regard, Buttigieg has even more executive experience than Abraham Lincoln dd in his day.
Lastly, age does matter. (Especially if you've had a heart attack.)
26
@Robert Burns
In the 2018 midterms, a huge surge in voter turnout under the age of 50 resulted in a Blue Wave for the House. Gen X voters favored Dems over Repubs by a ratio of 1.24 : 1. Millennials favored Dems 2.14 : 1. (Boomers only favored Dems 1.07 : 1.) Turnout among voters under 50 is key to a Democratic win all the way down the ballot. Take a look at the 2018 turnout: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/29/gen-z-millennials-and-gen-x-outvoted-older-generations-in-2018-midterms/
15
@Robert Burns I read an interesting piece the other day talking about how when liberals disavow themselves of liberal policy (like anything Sanders or Warren is saying) then they give strength to Republican candidates who are not disavowing any part of their platform.
Instead, we should be touting the economic benefits of liberal policy. (Better schools, more productive workers, etc) rather than focusing on the social benefits.
Not disagreeing with anything you said here re: candidates, but it was an interesting way of looking at it.
I bet a ton of Warren supporters are nodding their heads vigorously along with this saying, “see! That is what we have been saying!”
5
@Robert Burns The whole premise of your point dies when you look at Independent polling and see that Bernie is the most wildly popular candidate among Independents. Every point you make after lying about that is based on a lie.
7
Mr. Sanders will fail to enlarge the voter base he now has, has had for years. He's very old. His medical status remains clouded by his refusal to share medical records. His ideas are so radical as to turn upside down the American economy, the role of government in people's lives. His class warfare strategy can only play so far before enlightened voters see its cynicism. His army of youth voters failed to appear in Iowa. His almost blank record despite decades in the Senate will finally raise eyebrows that were never raised in placid Vermont. Being a socialist doesn't have the appeal in most of America as it does in college towns. Having earned millions by running for president makes his attacks on the rich seem dishonest. He's never received the scrutiny he deserves, that others have received. It's coming now as the campaign gets more competitive. It's about time.
11
So, what are the worries? If he didn't expand his base, he will not win the nomination. So, you don't need to worry about him.
2
@blgreenie -- And should he ever by some stroke of fate win the nomination, voters like me will either stay home or do a write in.
@blgreenie Your comment is Trumpian-level disinformation and gaslighting.
Bernie polls best among Independents and 3rd Party voters.
His "radical" ideas are the most heavily supported by the American public in poll after poll.
He earned a million bucks from a book. If he hadn't, you'd probably say "he's never run a business or made money, how can we trust him?"
1
Lol...IT'S THE PRIMARY people.
Chill.
We do this every 4yrs.
Play hard, play fair, leave it on the field.
Perspective guys. Relax.
Unity and Blue come next Nov.
Till then let the horses run.
18
@Dobbys sock Fair point, but as you know things didn't work out so well last go-around
@Ray Wulfe
I'd say someone couldn't unite or excite the voters she needed in the right locals.
THAT is the nominee's only job. WIN VOTES.
Nobody controls voters. Especially a primary candidate not in the GE. It's down right silly to keep scapegoating someone not running. If we go down this rabbit hole, should we be having a primary this time? Is Biden hurting perspective nominee Warren? Maybe Pete is hurting Amy, Bernie-Mike, Mike the whole party. The blame game can then then be played out endlessly.
The nominee has one job. One job only.
Win voters...or lose.
Pointing fingers anywhere else but at the top is a fools game.
1
The Democrats need to remember Churchill’s remarks when the Soviet Union, his sworn enemy, was invaded in 1941. Asked by a member of the opposition why he now proposed giving Stalin military aid, his response was “If Hitler invaded Hell itself I would at least make a favorable comment on the Devil in the House of Commons.”
Defeating Trump is not the most important thing; it is the only thing.
5
@John Graybeard
EXACTLY!!!!
Every comment containing the three letters “DNC” is from someone who helped elect Donald Trump in the first place. Don’t ever forget that.
1
Stop with the two person race already, NYT. It makes good headlines but doesn't contribute to democracy. No one has voted yet. Remember your mistakes from 2016 when you gave Trump lots of free advertising and you presented false equivalencies between Trump and Clinton.
BTW, I am voting for Klobuchar. She's got lots of experience, is very realistic and practical, and she's tough.
9
What's hysterically funny about this is that after whining about how 2016 was a coronation, Democrats are panicking because they finally are running a democratic primary. People should just chill out and see who actually wins the primary before declaring defeat.
19
For the last 3 years, Dems have been laughing and being ironic with Stephen Colbert and their social media echo chambers about how Republican Robert Mueller was going to serve a fatal blow to the Trump presidency, about how "decent" Republicans in the Senate were going to do "the right thing" in the Trump impeachment, etc., to notice that 9 months before the election we do not have a viable candidate who will unify us in defeating Trump in November.
I guess this is why Republicans were making the argument about "letting the voters decide." Even though each Dem candidate would be superior to Trump, and begin to right the ship, it is as clear to them how divided we are.
7
This is clearly not a 2-person primary, when the top candidate has less than 30% of the vote.
Furthermore, one of the major candidates (Bloomberg) is not even on the ballot.
We need to wait until after Super Tuesday (March 3rd ) before such declarations make any sense at all.
16
We all love to prognosticate. In this case considering the gravity of the situation we’re in we should let everything play out in these early states before declaring a winner before Super Tuesday.
2
We have Mayor Pete on record for everything he stands for and also everything he doesn't stand for. Wait--the 2018 and 2019 Pete are different from the 2020 Pete. If someone who can flip flop on his policies so quickly as soon as the red meat of Wall street comes knocking, can actually convince the voters that he is not already bought and sold for, I really shudder for our country.
Why wait on Bloomberg to show that our elections are bought and paid for when you have a telegenic candidate like Pete?
When the history books are written, I think the 2020 elections will go down as the first election to show to the American public that we are not a democracy. And never have been one.
20
@FurthBurner
I feel your despair. But all is not lost...yet. There is a candidate who has received more individual donations resulting in more money raised than any democrat in history. He continues to draw huge and enthusiastic crowds.
His name is Bernie Sanders.
Not Him
US
1
of course like anyone I do have a current preference - HOWEVER, I will vote for whoever the majority of Democrats select to run - the madness has to stop!
10
in this election, the VP choice the ultimate Dem nominee makes will be critical—and it won’t be about geography as it normally is. This is because all of the candidates have significant, potentially politically fatal weaknesses that the VP will need to shore up. That is why the Dem establishment is so worried about Bernie—as a true believer in Socialism, he will not pick a VP that will be palatable to many Democrats who are capitalists. Pete can pick an older Dem with good name recognition and pick up votes.
1
@ehillesum
This has been my fear about Bernie too-who his pick for VP and who would do it?
Media headlines remind of a Enquirer tabloid headlines at the supermarket checkout. 4 years ago the Republicans were touted as a mess of conflict. 4 years later the Republicans have a solid massive voice. Not my voice, but do not believe this headline. It’s way to early to narrow the field.
17
Have no fear. The Democrats have been working very hard to make sure none will be elected. They haven't the foggiest idea of what leadership means. They do not understand it is not the "agenda" that stirs voters. All they need is orange hair and a lot of money, preferably someone else's.
3
NYT keeps going this narrative about Klobuchar having momentum. The numbers say differently. She has been stuck in the single digits the entire time. Left Iowa in 5th place. Her African American support is the lowest of any candidate but the NYT never mentions that. Pundits declare her every debate performance as stellar and a game changer but voters obviously disagree because the predicted surge always fails to materialize. Time for her and other low achievers to step down and let the contenders with a real chance at the nomination work it through sooner than later.
41
@AJBF
Klobuchar is being pushed mainly by the anybody-but-Biden crowd... they want to use her to damage Biden, and once she has served that purpose, she'll be kicked to the curb. I have nothing against Klobuchar, but she is not a general election winner for the Dems.
5
Yes. Just like all of the disagreement during the republican primaries four years ago destroyed republican unity...
11
This sounds a lot like the whole 2008 argument that the race between Hillary and Obama was tearing the Party apart; some Clinton followers ( PUMA) even vowed to vote for Mccain if she didn't win the nomination.
Then there was the GOP 2016 Never Trumper phenomenon that was supposed to doom Trump.
It's all nonsense; the Dems will eventually have a winner and Dem voters will support that nominee.
So relax, stop the hand-wringing, vote for your preferred Candiate...then support the nominee.
34
Party unity?
You mean like when Trump was saying his was bigger than theirs during the 2016 campaign?
Good grief.
7
GOOD MORNING......Much attention is being giving as to who can beat Trump. It is necessary to determine which of the candidates if elected would be the most effective president.
Pete and Bernie and Elizabeth are too far to the left. Joe Biden appears to be too hesitant and too unfocused. Amy Klobuchar appears to be most in charge of things as does Michael Bloomberg. I could accept a Bloomberg- Klobuchar ticket. It could well win.....What do you think?
2
Oh the irony of it all. Sanders and his supporters are showing their sense of entitlement. The same sense of entitlement they accused Clinton having. The unity he professed has now dissipated in the heat of the campaign. Warren,Klobuchar,or Buttigieg. No offense to Vermonters, but it is a rather small,homogeneous state and Sanders' experience with nuance and complexity is not much more than say, being mayor of South Bend.
27
Being a senator from Vermont is no less complex than being a senator from California. Each senator is appointed to several committees. Sanders currently is on the health, environmental and public works, budget, energy, and VA affairs committee.
28
@Tim Lynch There's no question that we're racially and culturally homogeneous, but politically, we're about 1/3 liberal, 1/3 conservative and 1/3 independent. We even have a "Democratic-Republican" party. Bernie's origin story here is as the mayor of Burlington...the main "city" in Vermont. College town, historically very liberal relative to the rest of the state. Frankly I think we sent him to Washington to get him out of of the state for most of the year.
5
@Fran
Yes, that is a common sentiment of Vermonters. Vermont does have two very fine Senators though and ,hopefully,they both remain in the Senate. Unfortunately, Pa has only one good Senator,Bob Casey.
In November we need to take back America from this madness. We need to defeat Donald Trump.
Look at the leading democratic candidates, who can actually stand up to Trump, and to the Trump supporters? I love Bernie, but America isn't going to vote for a socialist. Unfortunately, the same for Elizabeth Warren. We all love Joe Biden, but, sadly, time has passed him by; he's just not what he used to be. And Pete Buttigieg has a long, bright future ahead; but he's just not ready yet.
That leaves my number one pick to defeat Donald Trump; Amy Klobuchar. She's 'young' at 59, has a record of accomplishments during her ten years in the Senate that is truly impressive, working with Democrats and Republicans, she is quick and funny and smart on the debate stage (aren't those qualities we need in our president?) she is "Minnesota Nice" and would be a very tough target for Trump's name-calling and vilification, and she has demonstrated that she knows how to win in red districts all across her state. And think of her background; her grandfather was a coal miner, her father had substance abuse problems, and she grew up in a middle class family. She is one of us!
She has the perfect combination of experience and youth, intelligence and down to earth beginnings, humility and decency. Decency. Decency. How I long for decency again in the White House.
Our number one priority in November is to defeat Donald Trump. Amy Klobuchar is the number one candidate to do it.
69
@thetruthfirst I went through the exact same reasoning and will vote for Amy Klobuchar tomorrow. She is a moderate like Joe and Pete but she has more experience and networks to work with than Pete and is younger than Joe (I am 70). I like Elizabeth Warren a lot but she may not get swing voters. Bernie could be a spoiler for the Democrats as his bros won't come to the center.
4
@thetruthfirst I think Bloomberg has the best chance to beat Trump.
8
@thetruthfirst The youth, progressives, and minorities are not going to turn up and vote for Klobuchar. Republicans and conservative-leaning independents aren't defecting from Trump. So who does that leave? She has a smaller base than Hillary did.
Bernie consistently beats Trump in the battleground states, has an large diverse base, and an online army to fight right-wing trolls. If you're concerned about electability, why would you choose anyone else?
10
The year is 2051, college fresman in 100 level political science classes will be discussing political history of tbe last 50 years, and the demise of the elder statesmans influence due to the passing of term Limits in 2026
The conversation starts off dicussing the self inflicted implosion of the democratic party and their lopsided loss to the Bizupblican Party that now dominates what was Republican Party remade by Donald Trump, the Billionaire who became a trillionaire after his second term ended in 2025. As part of his separation package Donald Trump and his ancestors were given a grant of ownership fpr all the lands and islands of Greenland. Trump LLC moved its corporate business empire their in 2032.
The implosion of the Democratic Party and permanent break up is attributed to the carrer politicians of Sanders a d Biden who in their zeal, forgot their base couldnt win a. electoral college based national election
on due infighting of old white men Sanders, Biden,
2
@Thaddman you are right.
remember the whigs? of course not. no one else does either.
With the DNC holding meetings about how to block Sanders, how can there be unity? And I’ll vote for whoever the candidate is, but with a repeat of the DNC’s shady tactics from 2916, they’ll have NO ONE to blame but themselves if people vote third party. Period. Stop playing games with democracy.
47
@Brooklyn Dog Geek I'm a Sanders supporter, but this is nonsense, no one is stopping anyone from voting for Bernie. He has the most money and the most donors; if he doesn't win it's because he didn't win over enough Democrats.
8
@Brooklyn Dog Geek
And if you'll remember, Buttigieg was actually at one of those "Block Bernie" meetings last year. Just further proof that he is a establishment hack who hides behind pretty platitudes to avoid having to say anything of substance to the American public.
5
@Pat Ryan
Was it nonsense that in 2016 the path was cleared for the chosen candidate? That debates were scheduled to try to ensure a small audience? That the chosen candidate was given advance notice of debate topics?
Is it nonsense that in 2020 that the DNC is openly conspiring with select candidates and mega-rich donors to try and derail one candidate? I haven't even mentioned the Iowa debacle. Nor the fact that a previous candidate continues to make vitriolic comments about the current front runner.
Is it nonsense that the debate rules were changed after one of the richest men on the planet bought his way on stage with a large donation to the DNC?
I completely agree that it is ultimately up to Sanders to win enough voters. But to not accept that there is an open conspiracy to deny him the nomination is to have ones head buried in the sand.
This article highlights why this should NOT be a two person race now. There are reasonable arguments saying neither Buttigieg nor Sanders should be the candidate, although it may emerge that either might be. For me living in NH it is clear that each voter should vote his or her conscience (for me that is Klobuchar) and let the emotions cool and the democratic process work as best it can. Remember Churchill's dictum that democracy is the worst form of government (read: it is not perfect), except for all the other ones. now is not a time to allow bullying.
15
@danby
everybody is going crazy after IOWA?? IOWA represents so little of US voters now.
Pete and Bernie may be distant memories in 2 months.
Wait a bit.
The person who is doing the most to attack other Dems is Biden.
His whole thing is, I can beat Trump.
After his performance in Iowa and his expected dismal one in NH and possibly Nevada he has decided to attack.
Bernie says he doesn't attack but just watch him in the recent debates denouncing Pete for taking money from wealthy people.
Pete seems the most positive, as usual.
And then there is the person who hired experts to figure out which red state congress people could be flipped, funded them and gave us a Dem majority in the current Congress: Mike Bloomberg.
He aims all his attack ads at Trump.
Mike is an engineer who has built his career as a problem solver. He is using his money to support causes ( climate change, gun control, lgbtq rights, minority power- Greenwood Plan,++) that he believes in.
Currently, Trump has many times more money for 2020 than the Dems. Sure, it is nice to have people raise a few million dollars via tiny contributions but we are going to be up against the Koch brothers and other Republican billionaires.
We have our own billionaire who is running to save us from Trump.
We need to fight fire with fire and win this thing.
Add to that Mike's challenging Trump in every state where Trump is and, currently, the Dems are absent, his many years of being the best mayor of NYC and actually turning the city around, his decency and honesty, his refusal to curry favor with others, and you have the ideal leader for us.
Mike will get it done.
25
Bloomberg/Klobuchar
2
@Simon Sez
Michigan will not vote for Bloomberg. If he is nominated it will be another electoral college loss.
4
@Simon Sez
Mike Bloomberg spent 12 years selling New York out to his rich buddies at the expense of the working class. I refuse to see him do that to America for 4 years.
3
Sorry, but this point of view is dead wrong. Your person vs Sanders is not about the left and the center; it's about Sanders vs Hillary's stand-in. And if Sanders is the left wing of the perty (you got that right) Hillary/Peter are not the center, but the Democrats' far right. She and Buttigeig represent big money and positions of the old Republican center.
That most of his money comes from a lose-knit group of LGBT billionaires a super-rich does not make Buttigeig center , modern, or more civil rights oriented than Sanders, it just means he is what he openly says he is, gay. There are gay supporters of Trump, too. Hillary has prepped him (to lose again) with this incredible system that put him where he is today: http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=MYCrrddo9IR4zShIAgfPlkdjlQwdiuGZ
7:54 EST
17
@Anonymot
The fact that there are wealthy gay donors supporting Buttigieg should not be a surprise. Some work on Wall St. Big deal. There is a limit to personal contributions, and they have every right to support whichever candidate they want.
Bernie wants everyone to raise money according to his terms. Is he really going to reject those same donors if he gets the nomination?
Tell us now Bernie, so we know what we’re in for with you in the general.
2
It’s getting ugly - the attacks the Democratic candidates have been engaging against each other has been totally disheartening. Bernie prematurely declaring victory In Iowa- his embarrassing interview on Face the Nation - Ms. Warren’s apologizes for the events in her Nevada campaign - everyone’s attacks on Bloomberg- Biden minimizing Mayor Pete’s accomplishments in S. Bend....I’m hearing and seeing such negativity, it’s alienating.....it’s not good for me the Democrats and is eerily reminiscent of 2016. If unity doesn’t happen soon, it will be too late.
2
Two unelectable candidates. Sanders, "my way", has been in the Senate a long time, but hasn't been able to convince the mainstream to join him. He is would be a party of one, except he proposes free Medicare and free student loans. Right!
Buttigieg has no obvious agenda. Decriminalize drugs is his idea, the rest he borrows from Biden. He has youth and wears a white shirt, big smile, what else? Oh, he's gay? Just what Trump wants.
Representative Jason Crow made a huge impression in the Impeachment. He and Rep Shchiff would make great candidates. Joe Biden is the obvious choice. He could restore the Country that Trump destroyed. Warren could tackle the economic revolution we need. Put them both on the ticket and win!
2
Don't clash. UNITE!
Democrats should work together and run as an Administration composed of the top centrist and progressive candidates to take on Trump as a team.
Sanders and Mayor Pete with Warren, Biden, Klobuchar and Yang in the Cabinet. Consider Tulsi, too.
Do not forsake their supporters!
4
let's get one thing very straight, here. There may not be unity at the top, while the primaries are on, but ask any Democrat, progressive, or thinking person, and they will tell you the first priority, well above all else, is to remove Trump from the government, and to remove McConnell, Graham, Collins, and a whole host of other GOP liars, thieves and crooks.
I prefer Warren. I also preferred Harris, as it would only be fitting to book end Trump at both ends with minority presidents. n In the end, as a non-aligned voter, I will vote for any candidate that wins the nomination, as they will be a darn sight better than the Banana Republicans currently occupying the Oval. It is simple: We need to take our country back, and teach these crooks they are no longer welcome here. If they like the current form of Russian government so much, they can go there.
18
We should have been down to four a long time ago. And for all the Bloomberg fans, why are we nominating a lifetime Republican for the Democratic primaries? I doubt very highly he's had a come to Jesus moment in the past 10 years. That incompetent person is just about a shoo-in for re-election.
2
I have not a doubt that the slow rise by Amy Klobuchar (the best candidate) is because she is a woman from the midwest.
Woman? Um, no...
Midwest? Um, no...
Best shot for Democrats? Um, yes..
.
.
29
Biden beat Klobuchar by several points in Iowa...why would his supporters be fleeing to her because of his weak performance?
7
Supporters respond as much to momentum as snapshot numbers. Biden is just not catching on in the way many including him, had expected. The unsurprising acquittal of Bonespurs last week will put that knave in a stronger position to go after Biden & Son’s Ukrainian vulnerability. I think he’s dead but just hasn’t realized it yet.
10
What we have here in this two-stage campaign, Sanders v. Buttigieg and Warren v. Biden, is a clash of socialism v. capitalism.
3
Has Bernie released his tax returns this time around?
1
@ml
10yrs. worth.
https://fortune.com/2019/04/16/bernie-sanders-tax-returns/
2019 are due this April.
Like Trump, Bloomberg has refused to release his.
3
No mention of Bloomberg?
1
@Gary Cohen Just what we need: Republican vs Republican. A lifelong Republican is now the Democrats savior? I don't think so.
4
@Rich
And Warren was also a lifelong conservative Republican ... until the late 90s.
People can change, of course, but you have to wonder how she could live through her formative years of the 50s & 60s without waking up, with the civil-rights and antiwar movements. And then live through the Reaganist 80s and 90s, before having her Eureka moment.
What's that all about?
Why does she constantly recount her origin story like an Honest Abe rail-splitter tale, and not say anything about her "conversion" from a right-winger? How important to her was this seeing of the light, really?
Yes, who can rise to the occasion to animate and unite the American people?
Bernie was thoughtful, reflective and visionary last Thursday night on CNN, with Anderson Cooper doing an excellent job at digging into his politics and persona. His responses seemed more common sense than radical - and he blunted the hysteria around socialism by explaining how Scandinavians ensure free health care, affordable housing and low cost higher education - while "corporate socialism" has showered oil companies with hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and funneled some $800 million in government cash and tax breaks to Trump - to construct high-priced NYC luxury condominiums. Bernie should make this a mantra of his campaign - I was surprised he didn't use it in the Friday night debate.
Buttigieg seems too calculating, speaking in platitudes that don't really advance the conversation about what needs to get specifically done. He needs to roll up his trademark shirt sleeves to answer Walter Mondale's enduring question to Gary Hart in 1984:
"When I hear your new ideas," Mondale said to Hart, "I'm reminded of that ad, 'Where's the beef?"
59
@Jake1982
right. canned and insincere are words that come to mind. the inflection in his speech reminds me of the lead character in the movie "american psycho"
11
@True Believer Pete has bold policy positions that can actually get done...and his supporters see a calm, measured brilliant mind who also has empathy. That seems to scare Bernie supporters. We don't find it necessary to name call Bernie because we disagree on some of his unrealistic policies...let's leave petty behavior to trump, and stay civil. Vote blue no matter who.
It's not reasonable to view the national Democratic race through the lens of New Hampshire, whose electorate is saturated with elite university students and granola hippies... i'm willing to bet good money that neither Bernie Sanders nor Pete Buttigieg will end up being the Democratic nominee, but here both of them are, eating up mountains of media coverage. Let's wait until a few more important states begin voting before we pass definitive judgement, shall we?
14
Stop with the over-the-top headlines! The simple fact is that, Iowa failure or not, the Democratic Party is in a state of flux. To shut that down would be a HUGE mistake for the party to make.
Unity among Dems will surely happen if a centrist wins the primary, and *may* happen if Sanders or Warren wins. Bernie supporters in 2016 were no less fickle than Clinton supporters were in 2008. Believe it or not, some people still vote candidate, not party, so switches are inevitable.
28
@MZ
Assuming there will be "unity among Dems" if the party shoves another centrist down our throats again is a very naive and dangerous assertion.
3
The Democratic field isn't going to narrow until Super Tuesday or beyond. Amy Klobuchar is on the upswing and may give them a run for their money. Then everyone left standing will have to deal with Mike Bloomberg. It's going to be a wild ride.
16
Remember that this is the primary process, and this is the way it's supposed to work! Members of the same party compete with each other to determine where the party wants to go. That's not hard to understand, is it?
Unity makes no sense until after the nominee is chosen. Then it becomes critical.
79
The alternative is Sen. Warren. She's smart, experienced and committed to the middle class.
49
@Ed I'm betting she has already borrowed Hillary's hot sauce.
3
Warren offers a possibility of an economic revolution, but her PC responses over decriminalizing alien border "crossings" will not win a general election. Medicare has been earned by Seniors. Come up with a new plan for a public option. Don't touch Medicare.
3
@Ed The 'alternative' is Amy Klobuchar; she's smart, experienced and grew up in the middle class. She has more accomplishments in her ten years in the US Senate than any other candidate, she's won in red districts all across her state, and she's "Minnesota Nice" she'd be a very tough target for Trumps name-calling and vilification. Our number one priority in November is to defeat Donald Trump, and, in my opinion, Amy Klobuchar gives us the best chance to do it. I like Elizabeth Warren, but I think America is ready to swing back towards the center. I think we're tired of the far right vs far left fighting. We need a moderate; like Amy.
4
I think former Mayor Pete's private meeting(s) with Mark Zuckerberg is quite concerning.....why so secretive and do we really trust a wannabe candidate who is in financial/social media/tech bed w/ Zuckerberg/FaceBook? That is just one of his big donors. I see him as just another corporate DNC status quo guy with virtually no life experience (both personal and professional) outside of his job resume and education. Most importantly he has no vision at all, just platitudes and sound bites that mean nothing. So I think it is best to beware of Mayor Pete, I don't think he is to be trusted with our future and has no plans or vision.
92
@Sandra Garratt: Yeah, you're right. I mean, deploying to a war zone? What kind of life experience is that? No lessons for a potential C-i-C to be learned there.
24
@Albert D'Alligator And he could have moved to NYC or LA and made even more money but he settled in flyover country. He may be too young and unseasoned at this point but he's going to be part of the new guard.
10
Trump won the 2016 campaign partly because of his digital advertising so I would recommend all of the Democratic candidates figure out what to do in this area rather than burying their heads in the sand. My preference would be Facebook doesn’t allow digital ads, but until that happens this is the reality we live in.
2
Pete Buttigieg is starting to look like a scary guy.
While the Iowa caucus was ongoing and the woes of that caucus result were becoming known,
Buttigieg, astonishingly, claimed victory.
This behavior is the kind of behavior that signals a defect in personality and in professionalism.
I would highly recommend folks pay attention to these details.
Claiming victory in a situation that is completely unknown is a frightening trait.
102
@Michael Except it wasn't a situation that was completely unknown. It was the result of disciplined, well-trained staff and volunteers. In every precinct, they took a photo of the final tally and texted it to the campaign headquarters. They had the results long before the IDP. That's good planning, good leadership and good execution. I know because I was there.
38
@Michael
sorry to say this but he has not one chance in winning the general. there is no way the country ready to put gay person in oval. no way. no way. no way. fatally flawed, can not win no matter how good his ideas are. sure i would vote for him but my vote just one vote. it isn't responsible for him to run under the current conditions. he is only hurting the people he should be caring about instead of his own ambition
6
@Michael,
Oh good grief. Where do I begin?
The situation wasn’t “completely unknown.” That is a lie. Caucus votes are open, so Buttigieg’s own campaign staff was able to count how many votes he had—more accurately than the Iowa Democratic Party, FWIW—and so they knew up front that he had won. And they were right.
Nothing nefarious happened, and nothing resembling a defect of character (?!) was displayed. But I think you already knew that, and are simply trying to sow chaos....
38
I really don't understand why people keep saying billionaire or oligarch, when neither describes the essence of the matter. The correct word is kleptocrat or even simpler thief.
18
How about plutocrat?
4
Bernie may be a big guy in Burlington and Bennington. The question is who -- if anyone -- among the Democratic candidates can win over the swing voters in Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida. Whoever wins those electoral votes goes to the White House in 2021. We wish that were not true, but it is I fear.
43
@Willy The Quake Amy Klobuchar fits the bill. She's young yet experienced, intelligent yet from a middle class background. She's shown that she's quick and funny and nimble on the debate stage; qualities that we need in a president. She has an impressive record of accomplishments during her ten years in the US Senate and she's won in red districts all over her state. And she's "Minnesota Nice", she'd be a tough target for Trumps name-calling and vilification. As you say, our number one priority in November is to defeat Donald Trump. I think Amy Klobuchar gives us the best chance to do it.
6
@Willy The Quake Why do moderates continually fail to recognize almost every Sanders/Trump head-to-head poll since 2016 showing Sanders ahead of Trump in most cases by almost as many points as Biden and, again in most cases, performing better than any other Democratic candidate? Bloomberg is also out-polling Trump, but do we want a politically expedient former Republican/Independent/now all-of-a-sudden democrat, Guliani-supporting billionaire at the head of the party?
22
@allseriousnessaside We are still in a state of shock over what happened in 2016, when Hillary won the national popular vote by 3 million, but lost the electoral vote in The Heartland.
Sanders and Buttigieg should be the party's ticket for for first and second chair.
As to who should be in the first chair is what the party needs to figure out.
2
@BTO Former small town Indiana Mayor Pete is so highly unqualified to be in this race it is head spinning. Being president is a very big deal and Pete does not have a vision plus he has virtually no life experience (personal & professional)....everything is not relative, he is supremely unqualified and he is over reaching with his personal ambitions. No vision, no plans, just polished platitudes driven by raw personal ambition (reminds me of Nixon actually) with no authentic desire or history to serve.
51
@Sandra Garratt Sounds like you are describing Trump.
8
@Sandra Garratt
No one in the UK had really heard of Pete Buttieg until very recently.
My impression as you have so aptly set out, is that he is definitely punching above his weight and appears to be a candidate who does not really stand for anything.Perhaps this is why he is so popular with billionaires.
7
It is disheartening to see the top five candidates begin to increase their attacks on each other rather than the real target of this presidential election. The debates offer nothing more at this point than a forum for each of them to put down their fellow candidates in an attempt to increase their own standing.
This plays directly into the hands of Mike Bloomberg, whose very directed, and highly effective, ad campaign focuses exclusively on the President. Super Tuesday will determine the Democrat nominee and it may, very likely, not be one of the five current leaders.
35
@JustinC Plays into the hand of Trump do you mean?
I would like to point out that Pete is still running a positive campaign. He was the only one on the debate stage that did not attack the others while all the other candidates and the moderator attacked him. He is calling out the policy differences and defending against the other attacks, but all above board in my opinion.
4
@BNewt Minus the "my campaign helped fund an app run by some of my campaign staff that blew up the Iowa caucus results in a way that helped my momentum and still hasn't been fixed (numerous errors are still in the numbers, as reported by NYT, that would show Bernie as the winner)" kurfuffle.
2