As many know far too well by now, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election by around 2.87 million votes, a margin of victory over Donald Trump of 2.1%. And yet, our archaic and anti-democratic system of the Electoral College handed the White House to this loser (of the popular vote and in so many other ways too).
The number of votes that swung three swing states into Trump’s column, to give him the electoral win, was less than 80,000 votes combined. So, putting aside the polling that categorically shows Trump has lost a great deal of support and is underwater in all of those states right now, the challenge for the eventual 2020 Democratic nominee is to perform similarly to how Hillary Clinton did in 2016 but winning at least 80,000 more votes combined in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Hillary Clinton lost in Michigan by 10,704 votes out of a total of 4,824,260 votes cast. In Wisconsin, she lost by 22,748 votes out of a total of 2,976,150 votes. In Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton lost by 44,292 votes out of 6,166,708.
That means that adding a minuscule gain of .03% of total voters in Michigan and .08% in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to Hillary’s 2016 totals would lead a Democratic candidate to beat Trump in the Electoral College and take the presidency. Less than 1% in each state…a fraction of how much more President Obama won in these states.
This is not a big hill to climb. Also, the voter suppression unleashed against Democratic voters in these swing states that the Republicans alongside The Russians employed in 2016 should be tempered by Democratic takeovers of the governorships in Michigan and Wisconsin (and a Dem governor who was already in PA), getting that fraction of votes should be more viable.
Yet…the Moderates in Democratic leadership, in the media punditry (along with the Never Trump Republicans who are quite generous with their advice about how the Democrats should adhere closer to more conservative positions) and those Moderates running for president insist that the only way to win against Trump is to go after the white, racist, wholly committed Trump voters.
Despite the easily obtainable data that shows that merely getting out a little more of the available Democratic vote from those who didn’t vote in 2016 would win them the presidency, these (mostly older and white) conservative/moderate Democrats, espouse that struggling to pry the white Trump cultists away from him is the only path to victory. “Appealing to
What does this say about these Moderates? On one hand, there are voters who are Democrats, many of whom are younger or African American, who would absolutely vote Democrat if they came out to vote. On the other hand, there are white, rural men who are committed to Trump and unlikely to abandon him to vote for a Democrat for president. Which group represents the easiest and most likely path to Democrats winning?
There’s no question that Moderate Dems want the Dems to win back the presidency. So faced with these options, why are they insisting that the worst option is the only path?
It’s hard to avoid the issue of race in this. What may be perceived by inference is that the valuable voters are white, even when they are diametrically opposed to what Democrats stand for and highly unlikely to vote for them. The message being sent is that chasing the votes of these adversarial white men is more worthwhile than reaching out to younger and African American voters who are already prepared to vote Democrat.
What may also be a factor is the leverage they may think it represents for Moderates, spreading their false meme as an absolute truth, enforcing the belief that only Moderates should be entitled to the nomination because they are the only ones who can appeal to white rural men whose votes are the ones that must be won to beat
Consider this observation from The Capital Times in Wisconsin after Trump won the state in the 2016 election:
Republican Donald Trump received about 27,000 more votes than Democrat Hillary Clinton. While his
performance didn’t stray far from Mitt Romney’s in 2012, Clinton’sfell significantly short of President Barack Obama’s.Milwaukee County is an area that tends to see vacillation in turnout from
midterm to general elections, Burden said, but this year broke the mold.
Preliminary exit polls show that turnout dropped in particular among young voters and African-Americans, Burden said.
This was echoed in Michigan and Pennsylvania as well. It’s not that Trump won because he gained many more voters in 2016 than Romney did in 2012…it’s that the younger voters and African American voters didn’t turn out in the numbers they had in the previous presidential election. Yes, voter suppression contributed to this but so did voter discouragement. Hillary Clinton’s high negatives and lack of campaigning in these states, not generating voter enthusiasm, contributed substantially too. So why isn’t appealing to these Democrats the priority for Moderate Dems?
And are the Moderate Dems unaware that by being focused on praising and pandering to the “white working class”/”good people on both sides” crowd, they are insulting, taking for granted and alienating the very Democratic voters who are younger and African American that they need to actually win?
It does seem that there is an element of race in their chosen view that the path to the White House for the Democrat only goes through white rural neighborhoods.
In the debates and the campaign speeches of moderate Democrats including Joe Biden, John Delaney, Tim Ryan, etc., there are constant criticisms and dismissals of Progressive Democrats as being “coastal elites”, “leftist extremists” and “not reflective of the party”.
Democrats should be celebrating and energizing the youth vote, the African American vote and the Progressive vote. With these segments of Democrats joining moderates and all other Dems at the polling booth, Democrats will win as they did in 2018 and have done so in the past. However, taking these voters for granted in 2016 didn’t work out so well (Senator forced to turn pundit, Claire McCaskill of Missouri spends her time now on MSNBC dismissing Progressives and insisting that only a moderate who appeals to Trump voters can win…despite her attempting that very same strategy in her 2018 re-election and in a year when Democrats all over the country had record wins…she lost by a big margin…having neglected African American and youth voters in her state so she could chase after Trump voters…who ended up voting against her in the end.).
Do these Establishment/Moderate Democrats really believe in what they’re saying and doing? That these enraptured Trump cultists are somehow going to start making cakes for gay weddings and celebrate Black History Month? That the most pragmatic path for Democrats to win in 2020 is to convince zombies to give up eating brains for kale?
Meanwhile, are there other voters than Trump cultists, in addition to Democrats who didn’t vote in 2016, who the Democratic candidate in 2020 could pursue to help push her/him over the top and into the White House?
Using a three lettered affirmative word that was also the name of a Progressive Rock band in the 1970s…”Yes”.
3rd Party voters in 2016.
Those who didn’t like Trump back then and didn’t vote for him. Yes, they didn’t vote for Hillary either but Hillary isn’t going to be the candidate in 2020 so some of those 3rd party voters who won’t vote for Trump are in play. Some will be just as upset about Trump’s horribleness that he’s displayed over the past two and a half years and want to vote for the Democrat in 2020 to get rid of him.
Remember, 2020 will not be the perfectly awful storm of 2016 that made 3rd party voting more viable. Both candidates will not start out with high negatives (just Trump will). There will not be a campaign-long email scandal (unjustified as it was) that the FBI cooperates in and reopens against the Democratic candidate just days before the election (after Trump’s and his cronies’ own ongoing violations of leaking
3rd party voting flourishes in elections when there is no incumbent and when it’s possible for voters to look at both candidates as a choice of “the better of two evils”. When an incumbent president is running on being the worst of all evils, that kind of diffuses the 3rd party argument. Instead, voting to get rid of the Resident Evil is more convincing.
So are there many 3rd party voters that Democrats could draw on, who could be low hanging fruit because they clearly expressed they didn’t want to vote for Trump in 2016? Are there enough to make a difference?
Look below at the comparison in those three pivotal states between the margin of loss for Hillary, that a Democrat would need to cover in 2020, and the number of 3rd party voters that could be pursued.
As is apparent, the Democratic candidate in 2020, apart from winning by just improving a tiny bit on the black and youth Democratic turnout, could also win each state merely by winning a fraction of the anti-Trump 3rd party vote.
The trick here is that those who voted 3rd party did not want to vote for the moderate, establishment Democrat in 2016. They wanted an outsider with a big vision who wasn’t beholden to the establishment and generated enthusiasm. While the argument could be made that they made a very poor choice that year to vote for candidates who never had a chance and opened up the path for Trump to win, a segment of those voters who now recognize what’s at stake in 2020 could easily find a level of comfort with the Democratic candidate…especially if they represented change and not a return to the establishment/status quo that they voted against in 2016.
The more a candidate can excite voters with their vision and is not an icon of the political establishment, the more likely they are to attract the 3rd party voters and Democratic base voters who didn’t turn out in 2016.
So the truth is, a Progressive Democrat with a real vision for improving the country has a bigger base of potential voters to draw on than a Moderate
Democrats could be best positioned to win the presidency in 2020 by nominating and supporting a presidential candidate who doesn’t just want to make things marginally better, offers only incremental change and represents the establishment that many Americans see as having failed the people repeatedly and put them last after the interests of corporations and the wealthy.
A fresh candidate that inspires (even strong supporters of Joe Biden don’t represent that he will excite voters) will energize voter turnout in a way that no Moderate Democrat could. The Democrats have an unfortunately long history of nominating establishment moderates who have lost big elections (i.e. Humphrey, Gore, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, Hillary Clinton). But it was the “surprise” Democratic candidates that have won, including Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton (Clinton was a moderate but a brand new face) and of course Barack Obama.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. A better definition of insanity is going down any path that makes the re-election of Trump more likely.
Instead, it would seem more advantageous to choose a quality Democratic candidate who can generate the needed enthusiasm within the biggest potential voting base to defeat Trump in the swing states and in the process, make clear to Democrats of color and younger voters that they are valued as Democrats and relied upon to make the difference in winning the White House (and Congress!) in 2020.
Whoa – moderate Dems aren’t the demographic that will secure who our nominee is – to begin with. Our party is 51 percent liberal – and that number is growing. So it’s liberal Democrats who will VOTE WITH INTENT as to “choice” – not with ulterior motive. Straight on vote based on our list of priorities- because all things in D.C. have to change – not just dumping Trump out. Democrats heading to caucuses across the nation – know all of that. I know we do. Let’s get REAL ABOUT IT. Main stream news and political anaylsts paid by corporate entities to opine – need to sit back and observe the process. The people’s process. It’s not tied to the status quo’s playbook – anymore.
Here’s a 538 article that might help in terms of our recent discussion:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-analyzed-40-years-of-primary-polls-even-early-on-theyre-fairly-predictive/amp/#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s
Nate Silver predicted a Hillary victory in 2016.
And so did you, I bet. If you missed it, this study is not a prediction but a statistical analysis of past primary campaigns. Oh, you can check with Murph, last time out I said my numbers indicated Trump had a good chance of winning. But I didn’t believe them and like you and Nate Silver, was sure Hillary would win. Unfortunately, my numbers say a similar thing this time based on who gets the greatest increase in turnout especially in the swing Rust Belt States. We need a candidate who can do well there. And like it or not, Biden does by far best there against Trump. But it is still early…
Here’s an article that touches on both our positions.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/588613/
The comparison of the 2016 Democratic campaigns to the current political arena does not provide justice to the realities encountered by every citizen right now. And after two and a half years of enduring the almost daily denigration of American values and the blatant abuse of power within the so-called federal government by Trump and the GOP, there is a far greater unity for all Democrats than from any one sector.
Progressive, Moderate, Centrist, Far Left, Liberal – whatever nomenclature is put upon different sectors within the Democratic party, one truth remains above all else. It is a Democrat who needs to end the malicious mayhem of this atrocious administration. From travel bans to children dying in cages, Democrats are far more united against the inhumane cruelty caused by Trump and his continuous disregard for our Constitution than as portrayed by the hyperbolic create-a-conflict punditry and media platforms.
This nation is not the nation it was in 2016. Besides the absurd actions by Trump, the GOP have been cohorts in legislative and judicial manipulations that put their party first before our country. – Over the next fifteen months, much may change even further in that political arena with consequences which cannot be predicted by numbers alone.
Although who-best-can-defeat-Trump is obviously a factor, there is still this significant consideration with all Democratic candidates…..who actually has the qualifications to best fulfill the duties of the office of the President of the United States of America.
Aquarius 1027, I like your perspective on this and I would hope that no matter who the Dem candidate is, she/he will benefit from the kind of party unity you describe.
I’m approaching this though without factoring that part in, as a purely strategic exercise. I do think that turnout for Dems will be big as it was in 2018 and that should be enough to push any Dem candidate over the top.
But we have to subtract from that, the Russia meddling, Trump meddling and Repub voter suppression and dirty tricks that will undermine the natural Dem advantage in 2020.
So putting all of that aside as all of it balancing out each other, the question I’m trying to answer is, what type of Dem candidate would be the most likely to pile up the most possible votes?
By analyzing the Dem candidates who have succeeded and failed in recent times, over the past 35 years, there does seem to be a profile for which type loses and which type wins. My concern is that Biden’s type of candidate has lost every time in that entire time frame.
So playing it safer, I would like to see Dems pick an “outsider”, that is, not an establishment Dem moderate. If they are a moderate but still a fresh face that can excite voters, I would be okay with that too.
As for who can do the job as President, I think President Obama proved that a smart, principled and organized person can be very successful in the office even without executive experience.
And Trump has proven that even a moron who’s a criminal and a racist can figure out how to use the power of the office. Which is why we have to throw him out in 2020.
Very well said, Aquarius!
Good to see you again, AdLib! And it’s great to see after the time I’ve
been AWOL from Planet POV, you’ve lost none of your fire and verve! In
this very well thought out and documented article you make it plain to see
why a better definition of insanity than that attributed (although with no
verifiable evidence he actually said it) to Albert Einstein is “going down any
path that makes the re-election of Trump more likely.”
Barry Goldwater said in 1964 “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice;
moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Depending on one’s
political orientation, it’s a very famous — or infamous — quotation.
As a guiding principle of life next only to “Discretion is the better part of
velour,” I firmly follow “Moderation in all things — including moderation.”
Therefore I find the word “Extremism” in “Extremism in defense of liberty
is no vice” a tad, well, extreme. But “moderation in the pursuit of justice
is no virtue” rings far truer to me.
I can, and will if asked, give examples of how moderate approaches did
pass Congress while more progressive ones would likely have failed. But
since moderate measures can only yield moderate results, blowback from
the failure to make crucial big changes can, and often is, very damaging
to the effort of implementing significant strides toward a better America.
So nice to see you too, NoManIsAnIsland! Hope all has been well with you!
The Goldwater quote really is a dichotomy. The first part of the quote is off the rails but the last part of it is pretty insightful. Extremism is indeed a vice because it can always be justified by the extremist as noble…as the mass killers this weekend no doubt did. However, as Pelosi has been sitting on her hands when it comes to impeachment and emboldening Trump’s destruction of our society and institutions, it proves that moderation is also no virtue when it comes to justice.
I agree with you, moderate proposals are always the easiest to pass in Congress because you often need the lowest common denominator to get a bill passed.
Elections are different though, especially for Democrats. Voters want and expect the party out of power to be offering something strong, even brash, to accomplish what the current administration has failed to do. They want to be inspired, they want change (in every election or incumbents would be always-reigning kings) and they want vision. They want compassion too, a candidate they respect and can look up to for their principles.
Inspiration gets apathetic Dem voters into the voting booths. A candidate who runs on returning the country to where it was with the president before, incremental changes to existing policies, who is another in a long string of establishment, moderate, older white males who have done the same dance time and time again, is not going to provide that kind of inspiration.
What I think is important is understanding that what Dem voters want in a candidate and what policies can actually be passed are two different things. We should be focused on the candidate with the best potential to both win and once they have, fight to pull bills over as much as possible to helping Americans.
What will be a sure one-termer Dem is someone who comes in as a moderate and negotiates and agrees to compromise greatly with Republicans (to stay moderate) on bills addressing urgent issues Americans face. Such a Dem President would fail and discourage Dem voters and their loss the following election will be inevitable.
The more passionately Progressive a candidate is, the more chance I think they have to beat Trump and the farther away from the right and right center they’ll pull policy.
Thank you, AdLib! I’m fine and hope all has been well with you, too!
In my post above, I concentrated on what I think is the folly of thinking a moderate Democratic presidential nominee would have the best chance of defeating trump next November — despite the indisputable evidence of history which tells us, as you pointed out above, no moderate Democratic nominee has been elected president in the U.S. in the last 35 years.
If that 100% failure rate doesn’t teach us “Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue,” what in the world could convince us? Nothing, I say.
Of course those who disagree with this view have as much right to their opinions as we do to ours. They can and do offer statistics to back up their claims that only a moderate Democrat can defeat trump next November.
They make the same arguements that backers of all the failed moderate Democratic presidential nominees over the last 35 years have made to no avail nor any success. Their statistics are valid; but the assumptions which were based on the statistics proved to be invalid — just as similar statistics being used to bolster like assumptions to further Joe Biden’s and other moderates’ candidacies are equally invalid.
No one who believes in learning the lessons of history should place any credence in these questionable propaganda points nor support a moderate candidate who uses them to paint him or herself as the most electable person running.
I wish everyone who still thinks a moderate is the best person to defeat a literally raving maniac like trump ( and in this case, it is trump). could read your article and your posts concerening it. Even if it would change relatively few voters’ minds, that would be still be very worthwhile. And it could also encourage the politically dispirited to support the most progressive candidates in the primaries and could lead to the selection of a progressive nominee.
Hey NoManIsAnIsland!
The irony is that I think many of the Dem voters who are pressing for a moderate to be the Dem nom are doing so because they think it’s the safest choice when historically, it has been a path to defeat.
It might seem intuitive that by running the least controversial Dem, there would be less for Trump and the Repubs to attack but they will attack anyway and accuse even the most conservative Dem of being a socialist who wants open borders and Latinos stealing the jobs of white men and ending capitalism.
So at least, if the Dem candidate is going to be lied about by Repubs, at least let it be a Progressive who can inspire a greater turnout from voters already predisposed to ignore the Repub lies and vote Dem.
Also, there are moderate Dem voters who just want a moderate candidate who only offers incremental changes and will keep the status quo. Change is scary for some, it takes a leap of faith.
I hope the Progressives like Warren can address those concerns in the primary and win over enough moderate Dems to give us the best shot at winning in 2020 and bringing about the big change we really need.
Hey, AdLib!
It really is ironic that enough Democratic voters delude
themselves this way that, combined with even more of
the Democratic electorate who are afraid of change, they present a huge obstacle to the nomination of a progressive candidate.
And I doubt any of either group, who would never voluntarily submit to being strangled by an attacker, realize they’re in effect strangling their own economic freedom by deciding to play it safe by backing a
lackluster moderate nominee who is probably a Democrat in name only and will only offer them
bread crumbs when they deserve a whole loaf!
I’m certain Elizabeth Warren, who grew up on the edge of poverty and has street smarts as well as very high intelligence, is aware of this critical problem in the Democratic base. I’d be very disappointed in her if she doesn’t address it when the primaries begin; and if she doesn’t, there must be a way we can get this message to her!
Hey NoManIsAnIsland! Really glad you’re back!
I think that one big issue is that most people aren’t taught critical thinking in school. So the decision making process for some is based on impulses, ungrounded assumptions, conformity and of course, fear.
Knowing how to make thoughtful decisions is so important in politics and in life as a whole.
Some Dems look at the Repubs who vote against their own interests and shake their heads…then turn around and unknowingly vote against their own interests.
I understand why many support Biden, some Dems are very skilled at critical thinking and this is the candidate that they think would be best. Fair enough.
But I have seen others who have not really thought this through and have simply accepted the meme pushed out by the establishment that the establishment’s candidate is the most viable. Of course they’d promote that proposition, no surprise.
But it isn’t based on truth, it’s based on their self interest. They could gain power and career opportunities if their candidate is in the WH and able to hand out cabinet positions and such.
But is it best for the average American to have a candidate mired in the establishment in power? History proves that it’s not even a good idea to have them as a nominee!
Some Dems insist they want change but they choose to vote for someone beholden to the same big money, corporate interests and political establishments.
The only way real and profound change can reshape this entire, corrupted system of ours, is to run an exciting candidate that gets more voters out so they can win and who has a real, non-establishment vision for how America can be fixed.
The establishment candidates have gotten us to where we are and the alleged anti-establishment Trump is in truth more establishment and more corrupt than any before him.
He has put the lobbyists and execs from corporations in control of all the domestic agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from them. Trump is the embodiment of the corruption that has overtaken our establishment.
We badly need change and a moderate offering small, incremental change isn’t going to deliver that…and may end up being a one-termer disaster that puts a Repub back in power in 2024.
We need a real change agent and my pick for that is Warren but I will remain open to others if they step up.
Hey, AdLib! I’m really glad to be back, and I’m very
touched by the rousing welcome you and Kalima have
given me!
You’re onto something very important here. If critical thinking were widely taught in school here, it
could have a positive effect on a number of aspects of many students’ lives. And one very significant
result could be future voters would be less easily conned and misled by morally bankrupt and opportunistic politicians.
To make matters worse, the dumbing down of U.S. education over many years has also contributed to
the electorate’s disturbing tendency to be drawn to right-wing reactionary Republican demagogues.
On this point, three nights ago, MurphTheSurf posted to me a comment so germane to our conversation I quote it in its entirety:
“By and large most people re. ALL of government as
corrupt and both parties as dirty as sin. Mention corrupt Trump and they counter with a diatribe re. Hillary and Barack. As to checks and balances there is
hardly a person these days who has the foggiest idea as to how government is structured….40 years of
tearing away at an educational system that used to
teach civics and history as core curriculum to maintain responsible citizenry has wrecked havoc……which is why the actual fake news flourishes.”
Even in ordinary times, it pays to have an exciting candidate. But when the country is being torn apart
by ruthless Republican kleptocrats and their puppets
in Congress who back a Hitler wannabe like trump
who mesmerizes very low information, racist, and fearful people, only an exciting and charismatic candidate has any chance of being elected.
But if that candidate turns out to be Sen. Elizabeth
Warren, a real change agent such as one sees
rarely — if ever — in a lifetime, I think her chances
of being elected are quite good.
There’s a reason Trump went out of his way to boast during the campaign that he was favored by a majority of “poorly educated voters”. He said, “I love poorly educated voters!”
Of course he does. Of course the GOP does. Of course their campaign to defund education and discourage college educations is a big deal to them.
The more uneducated the voter, the more easily manipulated. It’s not like these mass killers or white supremacist groups are chocked full of scientists and brain surgeons.
I think that whoever the Dem nom is, will win. To beat out the candidates in the top tier, that person will have to be legit. But to give us the best shot at not only winning but winning big, as is important to crush Trump and the GOP for their racism and anti-Americanism, a Progressive like Elizabeth Warren would be ideal IMO.
We’re in complete agreement, and even Bernie Sanders
can’t match Elizabeth Warren in captivating and energizing Democratic voters.
And I don’t think any of the other candidates have the
charisma and power to motivate as many people to
vote to “crush Trump and the GOP for their racism and
anti-Americanism” as Senator Warren does.
Maybe. But there is no significant evidence of that in the polls yet. Both Biden and Sanders beat her in her home state of Massachusetts. Biden beats her in the swing states and Biden does better than her against Trump in all the polls, National and state.
I take and understand your point. I don’t know how
old you are and how long you’ve been following
politics and political polls; but the first presidential
election I was old enough to take an active interest
in was that of 1948.
And I’ll never forget the famous image of Harry S.
Truman grinning as, standing on the platform of the
observation car of his campaign train in St. Louis’
Union Station on Nov. 3, 1948, the day after his
upset victory over Thomas E. Dewey, he held up for
all to see the front page of that day’s Chicago Daily
Tribune — which, in the Tribune’s understandable
overconfidence had been printed ahead of time with
the banner headline reading “Dewey Defeats Truman.”
That said, If the results of the coming primaries do
reinforce Joe Biden’s standings in the current polls and
he becomes the Democratic nominee for president
(which I doubt will happen), then your reliance on the
significance of the polls — and you readily acknowledge
these are early days — will have been borne out.
We shall see what we shall see….
I’ve been around the block a few times. Well, way more than a few times. The first political events I recall were my mother having a break down when FDR died and my parents talking about packing up and leaving the US if MacArther came back and ran for Prez and won. Left Liberal politics was part of the family atmosphere. Polls back then I don’t remember. But as a numbers guy, I follow them nowadays and think they are generally a good sample reflective of the the sampled population at the time but of value only well beyond the error factor. And that it takes 6 to 10 of them averaged together to eliminate most of the errors. I used to also follow the bookies thinking the “market” would also be a good indicator. But no more since Brexit and 2016.
As of now, the polls significantly beyond the error factor show the nomination and Prez election are Biden’s to loose. And I think I know why. The Great Middle and then some just want some peace and quite. They are tired of the Drama Queen, Infant Terrible in the White House. Biden is kind of the Ford after Nixon. I would feel way more comfortable if he was 20 years younger. If he was, he’d be the next Prez with a very high likelihood. But he is what he is and far from a sure thing. Our problem is that he is the only one of our candidates significantly outside the error factor zone at present. But it is still early.
From what you say about recalling your mother having a breakdown when FDR died, it seems you may be fairly close to me in age, as I remember my own reaction to the sad news, as well as that of my parents — neither of whom ever voted for a Republican for state or national office, including the presidency — in their lives.
In fact, in more than 100 years I know of only one close
family member who did vote Republican, and it’s not
because we’re ardent Democrats. We’ve registered and
voted as Democrats only because since Teddy Roosevelt
was president, the Democratic candidates — though not
often enough the best choices — were always the
better ones.
I was born before Hitler’s blitzkrieg invasion and conquest
of Poland ignited World War II; and as four cousins of mine
fought in the European and Pacific theaters, I was more
aware of the war and its progress than most kids my age
who didn’t have relatives in the war.
I have vivid memories of the ritual of closing our Venetian
blinds every night to help keep our city hidden from the
view of periscopes of lurking Japanese and German subs
and overflights of Axis bombers.
It was something of a case of over-caution, if not overkill,
for we lived not far from the then geographic center of
the continental United States. As the crow flies, we were
almost exactly 600 miles from the closest part of the Gulf
of Mexico, almost exactly 700 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, and roughly 1,535 miles from the Pacific.
No enemy sub ever got as close to us as these distances,
and no enemy aircraft did either. And I still remember the exact spots I was standing when V-E and V-J Day were announced.
I hope I haven’t put you to sleep with these reminiscenses.
And while I’m not nostalgic for those perilous times when
the fate of Western civilization itself hung in the balance,
in retrospect we were in less danger then fighting external
enemies than we are now trying to vanquish the worst
internal enemies we’ve ever faced.
And who would ever have thought that these native born
American traitors and their supporters would be the
“spiritual” descendants of two of the architects of World
War II — Hitler and Mussolini?
But getting back to our current crisis. It’s clear why Biden
is the front runner now and may be for some time. And
I’d guess many of his supporters would still back him
even if they knew of his very checkered and spotty record
throughout the years — which I imagine you probably
know as well as I do.
You have a little bit but not much on me in terms of years. We also had the evening blackout but wonderful glow in the dark cut outs all over the walls and ceiling in our bedroom. But we were not far from the ocean were ships were sunk. I remember V-E Day and V-J Day very clearly. Not long after we found out all our relatives in Eastern Europe were dead at the hands of the N@zis in Poland and their Nationalist allies in Lithuania. Not one survived. From the time I learned of this, even while facing overt and blatant anti-Semitism here for many years including violence, I always took comfort from the idea that this was the US and nothing like that could ever happen here. Until Trump proved me wrong. So the only goal I have is to see Trump ousted before it is too late. Everything else is a dangerous distraction. So whomever the numbers show has the best chance of beating Trump has my support. Everything else can wait to be dealt with if we get him out. If we don’t, all the rest is meaningless.
If you didn’t live in one of the boroughs of NYC, I take it
you weren’t far from the city. If it hadn’t been for the
deplorable obstinacy and stupidity of CIC and CNO Adm.
Ernest King in refusing to order immediate blackouts
along the Atlantic coast, many oil tankers and other
vessels would not have been sunk and many innocent
lives would not have been lost.
My father’s mother was born in Lithuania, but I haven’t
yet been able to establish where his father came from.
It may have been Latvia, Lithuania, or even Belarus.
But his parents emigrated to the U.S. around 1895, and
my father was the first of their ten children to be born
here.
My mother’s father was probably born in Warsaw — as
he died when I was a little over a year old, I never got
to know him. My mother and her four siblings could
never explain to me why they didn’t know for sure their
father’s birthplace. While my mother’s mother had a
Norwegian surname, she was born in Lithuania, as was
my mother in 1902. The family and many of their
relatives came here in l904.
As far as I know, even years before Hitler came to
power, our only relatives who remained in Europe lived
in Warsaw. Even before Hitler declared his dictatorship,
my mother’s mother sent them letter after letter begging
them to leave Poland while they still could. They wrote
back claiming conditions weren’t as bad as reported here
and that they were in no danger. Finally about 1942,
several of my grandmother’s letters were returned to
her with the grim stamp on the envelope “Adressee no
longer at this address.” They were never heard from
again.
A good friend of mine, one of the youngest children to
survive not one, but two Nazi concentration camps, lost
about 100 relatives — starting with her mother, who
was taken at Lodz, Poland, and murdered at Treblinka.
With full knowledge that nothing I or anyone else can
say can convey in any adequate way what we feel, I
still must say how sorry I am for the murder of all your relatives in Lithuania and Poland!
And I have no words to say at learning of your horrific
experiences with “blatant anti-Semitism”! It was only
in my freshman year of college in Ohio when I had my
first — and only — exposure to it at all when a small
group of us in our dorm were in a lounge casually talking
and getting to know each other.
Sixty-three years after the fact, I have no memory of
why I happened to mention I was Jewish. But instantly
a very mild mannered guy named “Richard” — with an incredulous look on his face but without a trace of anger
or malice in his voice — said this: You don’t look Jewish,
and I don’t believe you’re Jewish. If you really are Jewish, then show me your horns!”
Shocked though I was that even a virulent anti-Semite —
which he didn’t seem to be — could be be so ignorant to
believe and confidently spout such ancient and malicious
nonsense in 1956, as soon as I found my voice I lowered my head so he could seen I was hornless and then even parted my hair in several places with my fingers so he could see my scalp — which of course, hadn’t even a trace of budding horns.
I explained to him that this was only one of many false
beliefs about Jews, but nothing I said could make him
come to reality and realize he had been deliberately
mistaught and misled. The discussion ended very
soon when I realized he’d been completely brainwashed
and was a lost cause. I told him I was sorry he couldn’t
face the truth, and he said he didn’t believe anything
I told him — including that I’m Jewish — and concluded
with “You don’t have horns, so you can’t be Jewish!”
I didn’t need to have had this rather bizarre encounter to
know of the historical evil of anti-Semitism and the discrimination and persecutions it brought to American
Jews from their arrival on these shores until today.
And by the time I was four years old, before some
American adults were aware of the Holocaust and its
dimensions, I knew that the Nazis and their minions
were trying to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Of
course as I got older, I learned more and more of the
full scope and details of their attempted genocide.
And because of my interest in and knowledge of how
demagogues gain and use dictatorial power through
scapegoating of minorities of every description, since
my early teens there hasn’t been a single second that
I’ve taken any “comfort from the idea that this was the
US and nothing like that could ever happen here.”
Thanks so much for sharing the experiences of both your family and yourself, NoManIsAnIsland. There’s nothing quite like first person narratives when it comes to understanding history. Your family endured through some truly horrifying parts of 20th century events. We’re grateful to have you here.
Thank you for your very kind thoughts, Kesmarn. All but
a very few of my family left Europe for the U.S. before
World War I; and as I posted above, several maternal
cousins of mine perished in the Holocaust in Poland.
The person I mentioned above who lost about 100 family
members, starting with her mother, is a good friend of
mine but isn’t related to me.
Jake321, also posting above, didn’t give the total number
of his relatives killed but said every single one of them in Eastern Europe was executed in the Holocaust.
And while I was directly exposed to anti-Semitism only
once in my life, Jake endured years of blatant forms of
it — including violence.
Of course I’m grateful for your compassionate words.
But as Jake and his family suffered proportionally far
more from anti-Semitism and Hitler’s Final Solution
than my family and I did, I’m compelled to say he
deserves the greatest share of your eloquent remarks!
I never knew the exact number but given the size of families there back then it must have been dozens since when some relative of mine went back to locate family they found no one but maybe a possible fourth or fifth cousin. Not all we knew of were executed. For example, a young cousin who was forced into a German Officers’ brothel jumped to her death or another cousin who was killed in the last resistance fighting the Germans in the Warsaw Ghetto. But most died one way or another in the Camps. NEVER AGAIN includes beating Trump…
We honor the lives and the memory of your relatives and all other innocent victims who perished in the Holocaust.
That Trump, another sociopathic malignant narcissist in the mold of Hitler and Mussolini, has taken evil root in the U.S. is a gross insult and mockery to all of those enslaved and murdered then and to everyone in and out of military service who fought against and finally defeated the Axis powers.
Trump’s election in 2016 was a catastrophe not only for
America but also for the rest of the free world. We
cannot and must not let him win again.
For sure…
A very gracious reply, NoManIsAnIsland. Thank you.
….And a very gracious thank you in return, kesmarn.
You’re welcome.
Lithuania/Poland…we’re Landsleit…don’t recall anything about the Holocaust until I found out about my relatives. All gone. From that point on just thought about flipping a coin as to whether I would be or not be. Became worse when I went to Scout Camp with some kids who had survived the Concentration camps. They looked like the living dead to me since they still were in a kind of shock. Anyway, I thought the US was different until Trump came along. Even McCarthy didn’t seem near as bad as Trump. Yep, NYC near the ocean. And nothing is more important than getting Trump out to save our country and democracy.
Yes, we are Landsleit. Though unlikely, it’s possible
some of our ancestors were Landsleit in the literal
sense of coming from the same town or district in
Lithuania and Poland.
Discovering what happened to all your relatives
in Eastern Europe during the Holocaust had to be
extremely traumatic, and your reaction to finding
it out was all but inevitable. I hope with time —
and at least until trump’s rise — you felt more
secure of your survival again.
I can empathize with your dismay at in meeting the
kids who survived the concentration camps in Scout
Camp. I attended away summer camp for the first
time in 1946. And although I was very healthy, I
was also very underweight. I was so underweight
that everyone who saw a photograph of me shirtless
in shorts said I looked just like a concentration camp
survivor, and I did — my arms and legs were very thin
and one could count every single rib in my thorax.
I agree with you that evil as Joe McCarthy was, trump
is worse. And the longer trump remains in office, the
greater the threat to our country and democracy.
Actually not very unlikely since a lot of the Jews who came from Lithuania were from Vilnius where my grandfather came from. And my other grandfather came from around Warsaw again where a lot of Polish Jews came from. The 50-50 was not a reminder of my insecurity but more a thankfulness that I came from the half of the family that made the move to the US and how easy it would have not to be around to think of flipping the coin. As I indicated, my comfort came from feeling it couldn’t happen in the US. That comfort is gone with the arrival of Trump.
It wasn’t a skin and bones look the kids had that was so disturbing and frightening but the vacant look in their eyes and their appearance of numbness and lack of animation.
We must get Trump out of the White House. All other issues are meaningless until that is done unless those issues increase our chance of winning or decrease his chance of winning and don’t increase his turnout in reaction to our issue or candidate…
My late mother was born 81 air miles northwest
of Vilnius in Ponevezh (in Yiddish). In Lithuanian
it’s Panevėžys and in Polish it’s Poniewież.
Thanks for explaining the significance of the coin flip.
I should have gotten it instantly as I can’t count the
number of times I’ve been told that or have read it in
the past. But I haven’t heard it in a very long time!
When I mentioned the photo of me at summer camp
that reminded everyone of a child in a concentration
camp, I was thinking of saying the happy expression
on my face made it obvious I could be nothing of the
kind; and I regret not having added that.
I’ll never forget your very chilling and poignant
description of your impression of the kids you met at
Scout camp:
“It wasn’t a skin and bones look the kids had that was
so disturbing and frightening but the vacant look in
their eyes and their appearance of numbness and lack
of animation.”
Over the last 70 years I’ve seen very many images —
still and in films — of kids in concentration camps and
after their liberations, including when they’ve come
and been settled in the U.S.
But upsetting and unforgetable as that is, having seen
that look in person and having been with those still
dazed and broken kids as you were, I’d think, had to
be as fresh and unsettling to you as you wrote this as
it was at the time you actually experienced it.
Yep, and I don’t see Trump rallies as much different from the Fascist rallies in Italy and Germany. Trump even puts on Mussolini mannerisms and facial expressions. They are studied and intentional. If he wins again, I’m afraid it is all over for our democracy and history will repeat itself. NEVER AGAIN will be again…
I don’t see any meaningful difference between
Trump rallies and the Fascist rallies in Italy
and Germany.
No one who’s even seen a single photograph
of Mussolini puffing out his chest and jutting his
jaw out can fail to notice how often Trump
strikes the same vainglorious pose!
We all have very good reason to fear the death
of American democracy if Trump wins again.
If whoever wins the Democratic nomination for
president can’t alert a majority of the electorate
to the existential threat Trump and his enablers
are to our liberty and freedom, “NEVER AGAIN
will be again…” and ultimately even many of
his followers will live to regret having voted for
him.
YEP…
Here’s a poll just released today that shows that Biden is losing his lead and not gaining voters:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-warren-gains-on-biden-in-iowa/ar-AAFwO9s
Numbers don’t lie. As for “numbers guys”…
Five months left, Warren has momentum and Biden doesn’t and she’s only 9% away from him now. Warren is the second choice among more non-Biden voters than Biden (which makes sense when he started as the favorite) so as candidates drop and their voters move, she will benefit more. Her room to grow is big, Biden isn’t showing any right now.
If I was one to bet on a race, I know who I’d put my money on.
I hadn’t seen this yet, and thank you very much for
for posting it!
It’s certainly encouraging to hear, and assuming
Warrren’s momentum increases its velocity, she’s
more than likely to pass Biden even before the Iowa
Caucuses and the first primaries.
Once she becomes the front runner, it shouldn’t take
take much longer for her to leave the disappointing
Joe Biden in her dust.
If I were a betting man — and I’m not — Elizabeth
Warren is the only candidate I’d put even a penny on.
I don’t bet anymore since losing in 2016. I only report what the numbers show and as of now Warren has a long ways to go to beat Biden and quite a ways to go to solidly beat Trump as Biden beats him in the swing states that will determine the election. But it is early.
Got it.
Good that you aren’t a betting man especially in terms of her electability in the General. At least according to this survey.
How’d you do last time? Anyway, one poll is meaningless. Among the Iowa polls at RCP, Biden is holding about a 9 point lead over Warren. And in places like S.C. which are important indicators of critical non-White support, Biden leads Warren in the RCP’s average by 3 to 1. In the average of the recent national polls, Biden still leads both Sanders and Warren by more than 2 to 1. And in the RCP polls of Biden and Warren against Trump, he beats her by almost 4 to 1 against Trump. Biden is the only candidate that leads Trump by more than we beat the Republicans in the House races in 2018. All the others are either beaten by Trump or do not beat him by near as much as we beat the Republicans in 2018. Oh, and Biden does way better than Warren in the swing Rust Belt States and beats her in her own home state of Massachusetts by about 10 points, almost 2 to 1. It is early but Warren has a very long ways to go to beat Biden for the nomination and further to go to indicate she can beat Trump where it counts most in the swing states. Anyway, that’s what the numbers show…for now…
The first national primary poll came out today showing Warren to be into a statistical tie for 1st place with Biden.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/mujbtdyiti/econTabReport.pdf
If we continue to see this or a lead over Biden reflected in subsequent polls, the whole argument for Biden crumbles. If he can’t maintain the facade of having an advantage of electability, he has no raison d’etre.
Interesting. Now when you have at least a half dozen actual scientific polls which show similar, that would be significant. If you missed it, this is NOT a poll but a survey. It is done totally on-line from folk who are self-selected and have nothing better to do than spend their lives answering some 150 questions. That might explain a bit about why Warren got that support. Another indication might be seen in the fact that the survey summary shows that among Blacks, Biden gets 38 and Warren gets 7. And Hispanics favor Biden by way over two to one compared to Warren. This gigantic discrepancy between Whites and non-Whites indicates yet another problem with this survey in claiming to be reflective of the Dem Party vote on average in the real world. But I have no doubt that Warren has some strong support among young White nerds. What else is new?
When the RCP average shows this, then you can crow. Oh, a bad sign even from this survey is that if Biden is the nominee, he is expected to lose to Trump but at least within the error margin. However, if it is Warren, she is expected to be trounced by
Trump. So restrain your euphoria for the time being…
When you’re right you’re right Jake. Currently my little vw golf and I are on a boat, destination Zeebrugge, 🇧🇪 Belgium. I know that you know that Zeebrugge is in Belgium. Have been fed and watered so now am at a loose end, reading emails and posting whilst the WiFi, my mobile allowance, is available. Looked at the weather forecast for the next five days and it seems that precipitation is likely-damn! Anyway, if it’s too wet to cycle we can take the old diesel burner and slip over to Brugge or other nearby delights.
Thanks…and I hope your Vodka allowance is also available…to help keep you warm in the chill… };o)
Reality, from YouGov’s website:
So, your claim is (once again) absolutely false.
I don’t understand your compulsion to make up “alternative facts” to dismiss information you simply don’t like. It only makes the info more legit and your protest against it less credible.
With that in mind, I guess I should say, “Thanks!”
Uh-oh, looks like the news media isn’t buying your “alternate facts” about YouGov polls:
So what? It’s not like MSNBC and CNN as well as FOX don’t cherry pick from surveys and polls to meet their narrative of the moment. The RCP average is Biden 30.3 and Warren 18.5. There is not one other poll or survey that has it so close. Generally, in stats when one sample is way different from the others it is considered an outlier and rejected. If you recall MSNBC and CNN went through the same cherry picking after the debates to show that Harris was about to overtake Biden. They failed to note the polls that didn’t show this and now the RCP average has Harris at
8.3 to Biden’s 30.3.
They did the same with the Impeachment polls. They kept headlining Impeachment support in polls in the 40% range. But they never noted that the question generally wasn’t just about Impeachment. It wa explicitly or sometimes implicitly about support for Impeachment AND removal. When one poll also asked explicitly about support for Impeachment that did NOT remove Trump, it got all of 5% support. As I recall this FOX poll was cited on MSNBC because it showed Biden leading Trump by 10 points. And it drove Trump nuts. Well, they also noted that the poll showed 37% for Impeachment without noting the removal part. And ignited the negligible support for Impeachment without removal.
You do need some help on these things and also on how to behavior yourself better and not falsely accuse someone of alternative facts and lying.
Maybe that in the future. But as of now only Biden beats Trump decisively in the National and most state polls as shown on RCP. Warren and Sanders have kind of leveled off at about half the Dem voter support Biden has with Harris’s support falling off a cliff. And Biden seems to have more non-White support than all three of them combined. It’s early but as that study I posted for you found, Biden is just about enough ahead this early in the campaign that he statistically has way more chance of getting the nomination than not getting it.
Oh, I believe Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were moderate, White male Southerners who also got strong support from Black voters. As did LBJ who also seemed to be a moderate White male Southerner. Oh, all three were kind of rural guys. Maybe I’m missing something but your narrative has a hole or two in it.
Jimmy Carter was not a moderate, he was liberal. Bill Clinton was conservative. But as I’ve mentioned, like Obama, they were “surprise candidates”, none of them were establishment candidates, they were new to most Americans when they ran and represented change, even if in Clinton’s case it was change to a more conservative direction. Also, all had a charisma that enthused voters.
There’s no way to put Biden or any of the other moderates into that category of winners.
Jimmy Carter had charisma? And then there was LBJ. And given how much charisma Trump has and his viscousness, our candidate won’t need much counter charisma. Now things can change. But until any of the other candidates gets strong non-White support, Biden has this in the bag. And Trump will be our best turn out the vote organizer for increasing our non-White vote. Would then be nice to get some of the Obama White Working Class support back as well and not have a candidate who kicks the rotten woodwork to get the Trumpites to swarm. But we still have plenty of time.
Yes, Jimmy Carter had charisma and engendered a great deal of affection from the American people when he ran for president. How else would an unknown peanut farming Governor from Georgia win the presidency?
As I mentioned below, Hillary had a bigger and more stable lead over Obama at this point in the 2008 primary so if we were back then, you would be claiming Hillary has it in the bag against Obama and your claim would have been proven to be as incorrect as I think this claim will prove to be in 2020 as well.
BTW, Hillary’s lead at this point in 2016 against Bernie Sanders was as high as 35%. By primary time, she had lost much of that, in a virtual tie with him at some points.
Knowing history helps, maybe graphics will help illustrate the truth about early leads evaporating as the primary goes on. Here are graphs of polling from 2012 and 2016, see if you notice a pattern for the front runner as time goes by:
Yep, what I notice is it’s 50-50. And that it appears Obama got his two big boosts in the first debates and didn’t fade. Warren got no boost in the first debate and then leveled off. Harris got an Obama type boost in the first debate and has been fading ever since. Biden totally recovered his commanding lead and then some. Bernie last time appears to have gotten his boost as the Russians went into full gear and the gullible Bernie Babies became their echo chamber. But he is still in second place this time with about half the support that Biden has. I think Bernie has seen his day and the old Trot won’t get to make his Revolution after all. I just hope he loses by so much that he won’t be tempted to make an independent run. And as I will always say at the end of these threads until the first primaries through California, it’s still quite early.
You don’t know how to read graphs.
Speak for yourself. What did I say that is not either in the graphs or implied by them? One shows the early front runner winning and one doesn’t. That is usually referred to as 50-50, not proof that in most all cases the front runner loses as you implied. Obama took two big jumps at what look like the early debates and then didn’t fade. You see something different there? Harris took a jump with the first debate and after a couple of weeks faded significantly. You see something different there? Biden has made up for all the lose from the first debate. You see something different there? Warren got no big jump from the first debate and had a steady increase until recently when she leveled off. Biden is still about twice any of the other candidates. You see something different? If you say yes to any of these, you need new glasses. Oh, you don’t like my Russian dig at Bernie and his Babies? Well, the Intel reports said the Russians targeted the Bernie folk and the swing states. And guess what? There were more than enough Bernie voters who voted in each of those states for Trump to make him Prez. Again, what did I state wrong about those graphs? You made a claim. Back it.
Remember the list I posted of how journalists determine if someone is being forthright or not?
One item is when a person changes the context of an argument to a different subject to be able to claim that they are proven right.
My assertion and the data in the graphs clearly illustrated that candidates leading by big margins in the polls in the early stages of the primary drastically lose their big leads as the campaign goes on.
To win your own argument with yourself, you constructed a completely different topic that it was “50/50” on who ended up winning.
Even Einstein admitted mistakes, it’s not a sign of anything other than one’s very human nature.