Big picture thinking.
Americans aren’t well known for it. China has a
In 2008, Barack Obama was elected president. It was a historic presidency that offered big change. Despite all the odds, he delivered one massive change in the form of the ACA and how did voters respond? In 2010, did they say, “I’m not sure if it will be good for me but I wanted
Short term thinkers are more vulnerable to propaganda and fear mongering than long term thinkers.
So let’s try this again in 2019. We have a Democratic primary under way. As has been the case historically, the candidate who has had the highest name recognition and the longest and most visible career in Democratic politics, representing an unchallenging moderate view and closely tied to the establishment leaders of the Democratic Party, begins with the lead (at least we don’t have Superdelegates tipping the primary from the start this time).
As a few months have gone by now, that initial lead and poll numbers have shrunken for Biden and more effective campaigners have risen. The response by the establishment Dems is consistent with the past, they try to prop up their weakening candidate with the same variety of “electability”, “most qualified”, “safe” and “continuation of a past favorable presidency” tropes.
As I’ve documented previously, for the past 35 years, the Democrats have lost every time they have nominated an establishment, moderate Democrat for the presidency. Only the establishment outsiders, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton
Again, in the past 9 presidential elections, Democrats have lost every time they have run an establishment, moderate Democrat (hence, Trump). So that alone would seem to be a good argument to vote for a more outsider, inspiring candidate than Biden.
Another major argument by the establishment/moderate Dems is that in order to win in 2020, the Dem nominee NEEDS to win back Trump voters. That is simply not true.
Rachel Bitecofer, a political scientist who accurately predicted the 40 seat pickup in The House by Democrats in our last election in 2018, explains that the Blue Wave, record win in 2018 and takeovers of Republican districts by Democrats was brought about not by Republican voters crossing over but by the enthusiasm and voter increases in college-educated women, Latinos, African Americans, and Millennials…otherwise known as the Democratic base. It wasn’t white
It was enthusiastic Democrats turning out in bigger numbers who took over Republican districts and brought about a takeover of The House and a record win nationally. In the video below, Ms. Bitecofer explains turnout in 2018 and projections for 2020:
Ms. Bitecofer predicts a Democratic win of the White House in 2020 based on that same type of turnout, driven by what she refers to as “negative partisanship”, voters
While it would seem to make the most sense that the best Democratic candidate for the presidency would be the one most able to better excite the base and those voters most prone to really want to vote Trump out, which would not be a Trump-voter seeking Biden, whoever the nominee is has a probability of winning.
That means that we can take the bogus “electability” issue off the table and hand it back to the establishment Dems for their cynical use in the next election.
So if the eventual Dem nominee is likely to win in 2020 (likely doesn’t mean definitely so no one should take it for granted, we all have to work hard and drive the vote as strongly as we can to win the WH and The Senate and House), maybe we can try this time to look at the big picture.
Just consider 4 years in the future, that’s all.
Let’s say Joe Biden becomes the Dem nominee and wins the presidency. He is representing that he is not intending to make big changes if he is elected, he has repeatedly expressed that he wants to make incremental changes to the country.
In this election, Biden’s main argument for electing him is that Trump is in the White House, it is urgent to get him out and Biden is best positioned to do that. Okay, but in 2024, Trump will not (betting on the odds) be in the White House. This one reason for electing Biden, his raison d’etre for becoming president, would be non-existent in 2024.
He would have to run on his record, one of incremental change and rolling back the awful policies of Trump. If Biden succeeded in just restoring the U.S. closely to where it was before Trump with a few smaller improvements, would that be enough to really excite the base? It would be a relief but exciting enough to drive big turnout?
Would voters who may be left still wanting big changes and seeing that there haven’t been any in 4 years, be disappointed and discouraged or be enthusiastic to fight energetically for another 4 years of Biden? “Yes we can, eventually and incrementally, just be patient” is not a great campaign slogan for 2024.
Meanwhile, age is a big deal. In 2024, Joe Biden will be 81 years old. Nominating and electing a
How would an
In 2020 and especially in 2024, Democrats will need an incumbent president who can really rally and energize Dems and independent voters to re-elect him/her against the momentum that will favor Republicans. A candidate with vision who wants to accomplish big things, if they succeed to one degree or another, would have a greater advantage in 2024 when running on their record.
Who Democrats nominate in 2020 will also determine who they will run for the presidency in 2024, it’s a two-for-one, that’s the big picture. Democrats should consider, do they want a nominee with the best potential for holding the White House for 4 years or 8 years?
I’ve seen a number of respectable (and not necessarily respectable) folks around the interwebs trying to rationalize away Biden’s constructed story which he tried to pass off as true, about visiting soldiers in the field and trying to hand out a medal.
Their waving off of it as an issue is, “Aw come on, look how big Trump lies! This is nothing compared to that!”
The story was a fabrication, a combination and misrepresentation of separate incidents with different people.
It reminds me of when Hillary was hammered over the fabricated story about she and Chelsea being on a tarmac (in Bosnia?) dodging gunfire.
This is a sincerely troubling issue, Biden is intentionally spreading untruths he knows to be untrue and instead of apologizing, he brazenly attacks those who point it out by saying he was merely trying to express how valuable and honorable our soldiers are.
I can’t be the only one who looks at this and sees such a sensibility opening Biiden wide open to be slapped around by Trump as a liar and/or a sign of dementia (I’m not saying Biden has dementia, just pointing out Trump won’t hesitate to be so vicious as to say that).
We should not be grading Biden’s intentional falsehoods on a curve with Trump but hold him up against the other Dems running for the nomination and how truthful he is compared to them.
If Bernie, Warren, Kamala, Buttigieg, etc. were nailed for fabricating a story about them having a dramatic moment with a soldier, do you think for a moment that the media would be waving it away as nothing? Look at what happened to Buttigieg when it came to the way he dealt with the racial issues and the police chief in South Bend, he was knocked down and still hasn’t recovered.
This is dangerous territory to tread, rationalizing away Biden’s dishonesty and refusal to apologize because it pales in comparison to Trump. Biden comes off as having a glass jaw and Trump and the GOP (and Russians) aren’t going to ignore any untruths he proudly offers, they’ll swing hard at him and he could go down.
This incident makes me even more convinced that Biden, who has lost in both of the other attempts he made to win the presidency, could be far less electable and far more vulnerable than Dems should be comfortable with.
We should have a clear difference between the Dem candidate and Trump, especially when it comes to being untruthful, not an argument over degrees of dishonesty, we lose that very powerful difference then.
We should expect honesty from whoever the Dem nom is and if we recognize they have not been truthful, we need to see genuine regret and apologies from them so we can regain faith in them.
Biden has just chopped down my confidence in him and is just sitting on the stump defiantly.
AdLib I took the time to read Rachel Bitecofer’s report on the model she developed and has a great deal of pride in as evident on her numerous references to it as “my model.” I don’t fault her for that, after all she did develop it, but, she is leaving herself open to a great deal of heavy flak if her model is proven wrong. But, that is not the real issue. She has very clear message, “it’s about turnout stupid.”
What was clear to me, is those who want Trump out, be they Democrat, Republican, Independent, need to get out an vote in the general election. It is imperative that it be a high turnout of those voting for whomever is the Democratic nominee. That is clear in her report. For you can be sure that Trump supporters will be coming out in droves to keep him in office.
Here is an observation I need to make, that I didn’t get from reading her report but picked up from the Joy Reid show, when the Democrats get back in, they will need to fix things so the Republicans can’t come along and do a smash and grab like they did with Bush, and now with Trump. Every time the Dem’s get in office, they have to fix what the Republicans broke with their tax cuts, deregulation, foreign policy blunders, and just overall mismanagement of all and anything related to good governance.
When Clinton got the budget balanced with a surplus, Bush gave it away with a tax cut, and got us into two wars that were not funded. When Bush told Obama “this sucker could collapse” it was close to a depression. With Bush’s words ringing in his ears, he got to work pushing for a stimulus package the Republicans fought him on all the way. Balked at his plan to save GM, many Republicans saying GM should fail, too stupid to realize if it had we would have had a depression. Went big and pushed for the ACA, rolled back the Bush Tax cuts, was challenged every step, with Republicans holding the debt ceiling hostage every chance they could. Doing all they could to make him in McConnell’s words, ‘a one term president.’ He prevailed, things got back on track, and what have the Republicans done? What they always do, when their mess gets cleaned up by Democrats, they start all over again.
Now that Trump and his minions are in, things are falling apart again. Tax cuts, for the Rich, deregulation, selling off protected land for drilling and mining, inordinate spending on the military for weapon systems they don’t want or need, saber-rattling again by chicken hawks. We’re about to have Trillion dollar defect, we’re facing another recession – because of the tax cuts, and trade wars – all the while our infrastructure is falling apart. Not to mention the humanitarian crises we have on our Southern border, because of Trump’s racism.
As soon as the democrats come in an start fixing what their counterparts broke, the start claiming how fiscal irresponsible the democrats are, and that is why they need to be elected to manage the pocketbook. THEY’RE THE ONES STEALING ALL THE MONEY AND GIVING TO THEIR FRIENDS IN THE FORM OF TAX CUTS, LOOSE REGULATIONS, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, ETC. THEY’RE SMASH AND GRAB HOOLIGANS OF THE FIRST ORDER! THEY MUST BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE STARTING WITH THE ORANGE ONE! Ms. Bitecofer’s model doesn’t show that, which why turning out more democrats to vote is extremely vital.
I feel an article percolating.
A lot of people balk at a Second Constitutional Convention, but the trump presidency coupled with a corrupt republican party have highlighted some weaknesses in the checks and balances on the government as well as some antiquated/racist laws like the Electoral College.
Another thing that is sorely lacking is an awareness by Americans as to how the government is SUPPOSED to work according to the Constitution. Trump thinks he has powers as president that is more like a dictator. I think he really thinks he has these powers, and a stacked Supreme Court is not helping. Immigrants seeking asylum at the southern border is a national security emergency that allows the president to confiscate funds appropriated by Congress for other programs and divert them to a stupid wall? Even with a weak Congress, this should be a clear violation of the authority of the POSTUS, but the court says it is ok? REALLY???
twilson117, I wholly agree with you that turnout by Dems is critical for Trump to be defeated in 2020.
What I found most helpful in Ms. Bitecofer’s analysis of 2018 and 2020 goes to the competing propositions that Dems either need to win back the white working class men who voted Trump or they need to energize their own base voters to win.
The analysis of 2018 has been pretty clear as to massive Dem turnout and a historic victory. But the reason Dems won in red districts has been mistakenly portrayed as Repubs being won over by Dems instead of bigger Dem turnout.
Why this matters to me is because it makes a big difference as to which candidate would be the better nominee and what kind of campaign will be run.
The Biden campaign is betting everything on voters not being aware of what Ms. Bitecofer explained. Biden has made clear that his strategy for beating Trump is appealing to the white Trump voters to cross over to him. I think the data makes clear that this could be a path for failure. And pandering to the more conservative, white male voters supporting Trump (and unlikely to leave him) can be additionally destructive to Dem enthusiasm and turnout in 2020.
Will young voters, minorities and women who didn’t vote in 2016 be energized to come out and vote for a Dem candidate whose focus is on placating rural white voters who gave us Trump? Sure seems less likely.
So the logical conclusion would seem to be that Dems need to nominate someone who will excite the demographics of Dems that didn’t come out in 2016 and that would mean the more Progressive candidates.
As you say, in recent times, when the Dems come into power, they have to spend much of their time and efforts in fixing the destruction that Repubs have wrought, They have less time to advance an agenda that brings the people and the country ahead.
Some things that Dems could do if they win unified power in 2020, to prevent this cycle from continuing, are as follows. They could attack gerrymandering, voter suppression and election tampering in a new Voting Rights Act, key ways the Repubs keep winning power despite losing the popular vote. They could install campaign finance laws including transparency for SuperPACS. They could pass laws that restrain presidents from the kinds of abuses Trump has engaged in and a Dem president can permanently erase the OLC decision that says sitting presidents can’t be indicted. They could also enlarger the SCOTUS to allow the Dem president to take back the stolen seat given to Kavanaugh and give majority control to reasonable judges. Then such things as Citizens United, the Heller decision and other horrible decisions from the court that have damaged the country could be overturned.
I would like to see the Electoral College ended but changing the Constitution is a tall order and could open the door for Repubs to try to make constitutional changes that could forever harm the nation. So that’s a double edged sword.
No matter what, Dems must beat the GOP and Trump in 2020, my focus is to spread the info about what kind of candidate would have the best chance at beating Trump AND having coattails to help Dems win the Senate and keep the House…a candidate that will energize the Dem vote and not mistakenly chase after Trump voters instead who will never flip in the end.
I haven’t decided who to give my full support to yet, but I have decided that it will not be Biden. He needs to move off into the sunset. They only way I will vote for him is if he is the Democratic nominee. I still believe the chances of the Democrats nominating a fresh face for to run in the general election for President is most likely.
It seems apparent that Biden is being heavily propped up by the Dem establishment. His arguments are devoid of substance and aren’t really about his traits as a candidate at all.
1. Polls show I have the best chance to beat Trump.
2. I was President Obama’s VP.
Neither argument says, “I will make a good president,” or “These are the main issues I will fight for as President.”
IMO, Biden is a cypher for the Dem establishment and an empty vessel that worried Dems can fill with their fears of Trump’s re-election.
At the same time, if he was the Dem nom, I will vote for him without hesitation because it’s either him or Trump and there is no comparison of awfulness.
I do think a fresh face will give voters added enthusiasm for voting Dem, that is more often the case. Though Biden may be leading in the polls at this point, it appears that he has a low ceiling of support and some of the support he does have is soft enough to have evaporated overnight when he had a poor debate.
Jake…
Forget the ‘sarcastic or snide’ and try going for more descriptive (rather than evaluative). Sarcasm may be ‘clever’ and ‘cute’. It’s ‘fun’ and earns ‘brownie points’ with those who happen to already agree with you, however it simply muddies a descriptive discourse. It solidifies a clique, but also isolates.
I haven’t posted here for maybe a few years, but back in the day, this site was a bastion of rationalism. Please help to keep it that way.
It was, and thanks for remembering that. It will be again. Sorry that some have no respect for anything written in our Terms of Use. The rest of us do.
You have every right to state your opinion without being attacked.
He of course can state his opinion and I can give my opinion of his opinion I would assume. Anyone whose opinion it is that we should vote third party because Biden is no different than Trump helps Trump. And it is my opinion that they are no better than Trumpites or Russian Trolls playing Trumpites.
Thank you, Daedalus! So few sites really believe in free speech and the Planet has always been one — right from the beginning. Your call for rational discourse is much appreciated. Stay with us!
If Biden wins the nomination, I believe he will beat trump. I also believe Warren will beat trump if she wins the nomination. Americans are fed up with trump and the republican party. So the question is do we settle for a cautious approach to going forward, or do we take bold calculated progressive steps. I am an old Democrat who has been labeled a “radical” for most of my life. I appreciate the work the so-called “establishment” Democrats have done. In point of fact, I don’t buy into the myth that there are any “establishment” Democrats. I think this is a term that was concocted by Sanders supporters in an effort to take over the Democratic Party.
The problem with American politics and government for decades have been the republican party and how effective they have been in propaganda campaigns and influencing people who are more aligned with the values of the Democratic Party to either vote for republicans or not vote at all. This was more of choice than it was related to voter suppression. In other words, we have seen the enemy and the enemy is us.
Many republican voters have been upset with republicans in government since Bush 43 because quite frankly they have not been racist and misogynistic enough for them. Many people who would vote for Democrats, IF they voted, are upset with Democrats because Democrats have not done the things these people have wanted them to do. However, for the most part the REASON Democrats have not done these things is because they have not controlled the majority in the government since 1994, except for two years during the Obama administration, when even then there were quite a few blue dog Democrats (Democrats elected in conservative states) to contend with.
There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that if Democrats were the majority in the federal government we would have common sense gun safety laws, a healthcare insurance program the provided basic affordable healthcare for all Americans, no unnecessary wars, an economy that lifted all Americans, equality for a diverse population and the elimination of racism, bigotry and misogyny. The ONLY reason our society doesn’t reflect these values today is because of the influence of republicans beginning with Nixon. Had the so-called “establishment” Democrats not been in Washington all of this time, we would be in even worse shape than we are now.
If you want more progress, it is pretty simple. ELECT MORE DEMOCRATS!
Let me begin with where I agree with you. As I wrote, I think Biden, Warren or whoever the Dem nominee is will be likely to beat Trump in 2020. However, you didn’t respond to my main point, do you think an 81 year old Joe Biden who hasn’t supported big changes, would be in a strong position to win re-election against a younger, more energetic Republican promising big change in 2024?
I also agree that Republicans have only been effective in their propaganda, not their governing and many who vote for them have voted themselves into worse lives.
I also agree that to get progress on the really important issues facing Americans and the world, Americans need to vote Democrat.
Where I disagree with you is in portraying Democrats who aren’t moderate or conservative and don’t support the DNCs moderate/conservative leadership as all being Sanders supporters. IOW, not loyal Dems. It may make it easier to discount fellow Dems who don’t share the same perspective by portraying all of them in such a way but it simply isn’t true.
It is unusual to hear it said that there is no establishment in a long established organization such as the DNC. That is the very nature of longtime organizations, they have establishments that provide a continuity year after year. What longtime organization doesn’t have an established leadership structure? Longtime organizations never bring in a totally unconnected group of people to take over power. I don’t understand the theory of an established organization not having an establishment.
Anyone who has been a part of any organization, business, etc. knows that there are always competing groups of members/execs who share a perspective, vying to get and maintain control for themselves and their allies. Surely, the DNC isn’t unique among organizations as utopian, where there is perfect equality among all members in decision making and those who have power happily hand it off to others they disagree with?
Politics is about power and a political organization is very much about who wields that power and keeps that power.
The DNC has been run by many of the same longtime Democratic Party operatives for some time, a moderate/conservative clique. Would anyone claim that the DNC has ever been run by liberals? They would be mistaken if they did.
The DNC has been run by an establishment that has consistently operated to maintain it’s dominance. One glaring example is superdelegates (until the DNC establishment negotiated with Progressives to put them aside after the 2016 election…and how could the DNC negotiate with Progressives if Progressives were already part of their power structure?).
In 2015, as in previous Dem primaries, the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton, started off with 359 Superdelegates in her pocket. Long before a single vote was cast by a single Democratic voter, in a single caucus or primary, Hillary already had almost 20% of the total amount of delegates needed to win the nomination.
Such a slanted primary system was designed to help a particular type of candidate. The DNC had to have decided upon and voted to institute that system, knowing it would only benefit a candidate who had deep institutional ties and widespread relationships with Democrats already in office and positions of power. They had to know that outsiders, like Barack Obama, would be at a big disadvantage in such a system while someone like Hillary Clinton, who had a long term relationship with the DNC and many Dem politicians, would have a big advantage.
Here is a sampling of DNC Chairs, for the past 38 years, plenty of longtime conservative, moderate and corporate-friendly Dems but not a single liberal one:
Charles Manatt 1981–1985 California
Paul G. Kirk 1985–1989 Massachusetts
Ron Brown 1989–1993 New York
David Wilhelm 1993–1994 Ohio
Debra DeLee 1994–1995 Massachusetts
Chris Dodd
Donald Fowler 1995–1997 Connecticut
Roy Romer
Steven Grossman 1997–1999 Colorado
Ed Rendell
Joe Andrew 1999–2001 Pennsylvania
Terry McAuliffe 2001–2005 Virginia
Howard Dean 2005–2009 Vermont
Tim Kaine 2009–2011 Virginia
Donna Brazile 2011 Louisiana
Debbie Wasserman Schultz 2011–2016
Donna Brazile 2016–2017 Louisiana
Tom Perez 2017–present Maryland
So when I refer to Establishment Dems, I’m referring to the moderate/corporate wing of the party that has dominated the DNC year after year.
As is probably pretty clear, I do not think that the moderate/corporate/incremental sensibilities of those who have consistently run the DNC will bring the country to where it needs to be. Millions of Dems share that view and they are just as valid Dems for having that view as those who support the DNC leadership and moderates.
I think they’re wrong and that the positions and candidates they support will not end up helping Americans as urgently and profoundly as Progressive positions and candidates. But I would not make an effort to discount them or deem them not real Democrats because I think going down that path displays a degree of denial and is not unifying.
You and I agree on many issues, we disagree on certain things but I respect your perspective and know that many Dems feel similarly to you. We are all in this together, what we disagree on and debate though is just the best way to get to the same destination.
I agree with MOST of your positions AdLib. I don’t even disagree that Hillary had an advantage in the delegate count over Bernie from the start, although I don’t think that was a bad thing. For one, Hillary was a Democrat running under the rules established by the Democratic Party long before she ran for president. Bernie was not a Democrat, but he knew or should have known the rules of the party he chose to run for the nomination in.
I was and still am a HUGE Hillary fan and I think we lost a great opportunity to have one the greatest presidents in our history when she did not become president. I also like Obama, but I thought he did not have the experience needed to lead the country in 2008 and he was not as effective as I would have liked. In point of fact, the DNC actually changed its rules in 2008 to benefit Obama. I thought at the time that if Hillary had won the nomination she too would have won the general election. If she had selected Obama as her VP, we would have almost certainly had sixteen years with a Democrat as president.
I think we are in a similar position in 2020. I think the person who is the most bold and can generate excitement in a progressive electorate is Elizabeth Warren and she has the savvy, compassion and wisdom to lead (a lot like Hillary Clinton, in my opinion). I think if she chooses Julian Castro as her VP, we will have another opportunity to have sixteen years of a Democrat as president.
This of course is just my opinion and everyone has an opinion that is just as valid as my opinion.
The Democrats WERE in charge during the first two years of the Obama administration. All we got was more war and an Heritage Foundation ‘health’ plan that made insurance companies richer.
Harry Truman dropped the ‘bomb’ on Hiroshima. LBJ totally dived into Vietnam.
It’s not about ‘Party’, it’s about policy.
You seem to have sped past the truths of why the ACA turned out as it did to justify your slam of Dems. Facts do matter.
Obama worked with Repubs to get bipartisan support for the ACA. They betrayed him after he incorporated some of what they insisted on to support it.
Obama then pushed the public option as far as he could but without the needed 60 votes in the Senate, he had to decide between passing the ACA and its protections (which have saved the lives of people I know) or acting like a purist and failing to get any improvement to healthcare passed. Joe Lieberman was the final vote Obama needed to pass the ACA with a public option and Lieberman refused.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-barack-obama-us-healthcare
It’s easy for purists to insist the impossible should have been magically accomplished somehow but reality isn’t changed by wishes and foot stamping. And purists are not the ones (or thinking of the ones) who were suffering and who would have lost their lives along the way without the ACA passed.
And to those with perspective, it can be seen as a step forward towards single payer or Medicare For All which voters will be able to support in the current Dem primary.
So slamming progress towards and saving the lives of many people as we get to single payer isn’t principled, it seems uncaring of real people, those who had and have serious medical conditions that couldn’t wait many years until the perfect could be achieved.
Hey…
I remember, very early on, Obama announcing that ‘single payer is off the table’. This was before the so-called negotiations took place. No negotiator announces a capitulation before talks even begin. Instead, a savvy one sets out an extreme position so that the ‘middle’ is at least a possibility.
I voted for Obama twice, but he only produced a Heritage Foundation health care proposal in the first two years (when he had a majority in both the Senate and the House). True, he didn’t have 60 in the Senate, however that hasn’t stopped the Republican juggernaut. Why did it stop Obama?
You and I disagree on whether the ACA is a ‘step’ toward universal, single payer healthcare. I think it’s more of a ‘juke’. When a right wing think-tank comes up with such a plan, I can only conclude that the purpose was to mollify the protest against our crummy health care system. We don’t need a ‘step’, we need radical change.
That being said, Obama was the first Black (as defined in the US) President, which was a huge step forward. But, I think he was weak.
On a personal note,… It’s good to see that your blog appears to be attracting more interest (finally!). As you say, ‘It’s better…’ and so on. Thanks for your persistence.
LOL…that increased interest comes from Murph’s efforts to get some of us old timers from very progressive Yabberz to come here when it closed down. But the old timers here are having a problem with at least one of us, it seems. One who had one of the highest up vote ranks of any non-Pundit there.
I’m beginning to see why Yabberz closed down. Please don’t do it to Planet, as well.
No worries, Daedalus.
I think I addressed the fact that Democrats were the majority in Congress for the first two years of Obama’s first term. I also recognized that there were several blue dog Democrats in the Senate that were elected in conservative states who voted as their constituents wanted them to vote, and that Obama favored the republican plan adopted by the Heritage Foundation because he wanted a bi-partisan plan. I agree that plan was more to protect the private healthcare insurance industry than to provide adequate affordable healthcare coverage for all Americans, and although most Democrats did not favor it, it was better than what we had before, and it was an acceptable first step to universal single payer, given the make up of Congress at the time.
Yes, Truman made the decision to use an atomic weapon to end WWII, however your history is wrong related the Johnson and Vietnam. The USA actually became involved in Vietnam in 1955, although Johnson did escalate the war with the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
I never said the Democratic Party was or is perfect. It is the responsibility of the people to hold the stewards of the government accountable. Although we basically have a two-party political system BECAUSE the people CHOOSE to support two parties more than they do the other over 250 parties, the policies of the parties actually DO MATTER, IMHO.
The policies of the two major parties have evolved. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Democratic Party was the party of racists and bigots, but they were also the party that supported the economic interest of working people (or more accurately, working white people). By contrast, Republicans were more supportive of civil rights but they supported the economic interest of the wealthy and well connected even then. In my post, I mentioned the positions of the two major parties beginning with the Nixon administration that has resulted in the bigotry, hatred and division we see today.
Absolutely agree. My only point is that we must beat Trump decisively not just beat him. We want him out. If it is close, he will not accept the outcome and then it may be up to a two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove him. Please consider that when thinking about this since the average of the polls for a long time have indicated that so far Biden is the only one who beats Trump decisively. They indicate that Warren is a borderline win at best and Bernie might be a win but not a decisive one. It’s early and thus can change. But the risks are just too high to go on a narrative, a wish and a hope. I want t see real decisive support from the voters in the numbers.
I agree with Warren that Democrats should figure out the right thing to do, and fight for it, and not be afraid to fight for what we believe in.
But there are ruminations that Biden may only run for one term. That his prime goal is to remove Trump and offer the bulk of the voters what they want most, a rest from all the incessant excitement generated by the Drama Queen, Infant Terrible in the White House. And Biden has said he will have a really great VP, indicating most likely a younger progressive non-White women, who would be in a great position for 2024 AND 2028. So best to vote for Biden to both get Trump out and have Dems in the White House through 2032. Nice counter narrative.
Actually, I don’t think Biden has a ‘snowball’s chance’ to win against Trump in 2020. People like me will vote third Party, or simply not show up (as they did in 2016).
When faced with a choice of ‘Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee’, why waste the energy? I consider my vote to be reflection of my political views, and I’ll not vote for a corporate shill from Delaware. Yes, I know that in the State that has almost as many corporate residents as actual people, the only way to win a Statewide election is to cater to the ‘corps’ (‘corpse?’), but those who do so lose almost all respect from me, unless they immediately turn around an bite the corporate owners in the ‘nether parts’ when they get a chance. And Biden hasn’t even remotely shown that propensity.
After Biden loses to Trump, will we even get to vote in 2024?
Daedalus, I’m simply curious, and I’m asking this without any sort of agenda: is there any particular candidate in the current Dem field whom you’d prefer to vote for? Just trying to get a sense of which way the wind is blowing here. Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts.
Some one seems to have removed my cold wind from Siberia post. Oh, well.
Perhaps, Jake, because you seem to be a ‘one trick pony’.
My top choice (most policy positions I agree with coupled with political experience) is Bernie. Second choice, Tulsi (great positions and way more experience in government than ‘Pete’ or Yang, and a coherent record as a legislator. Warren worries me because she seems to blow with the wind (no real cutting edge legislation introduced when she had the chance). I like her talk, but not her recorded walk so far. I’d probably vote for her if she got the nomination, however. Particularly so if she chose a left-of-center running mate.
I remember, however, how Warren had a chance to endorse Bernie in the 2016 primary and, instead, refused to endorse, perhaps hoping for a ‘sure’ cabinet position under Hillary.
Warren doesn’t have a promising history, in my book, but I like her talk. Unlike Obama, however, unless I saw her immediately deliver, I would never vote for her twice. Obama ‘delivered’ only a health care plan promoted by the Heritage Foundation, and yet I was stupid enough to vote for him a second time hoping that being ‘freed’ from running again, he would finally act in a way consistent with his rhetoric. I won’t make that mistake again.
Truth is that we now obviously live in an oligarchy. I prefer a democratic republic.
Sure, and why you advocate things that would help keep Trump as Prez. As an aside, the only Dem candidate the Russian sites, bots and trolls openly and consistently support is Gabby. Last time they focused on helping Bernie in the Dem Primaries. And are doing similar less openly supportive things today. So if I’m wrong and you are not a Putin Troll, Lenin was correct.
Jake… What is it with you and Russia? You seem obsessed. Please, try to address ideas instead of trying to smear the messenger.
Maybe you should ask Mueller that.
Thanks so much, Daedalus, for your well-considered and calmly stated reply — especially considering the occasionally overheated rhetorical tone that’s been blowing in and out from some quarters recently.
I have a fair amount of contact with voters in the 18 – 39 age group, and I think your position reflects what many of them are thinking. They feel they’ve been burned (but not berned) in the past, and are very wary of doing reruns of any of the election experiences of their lifetimes. In fact they feel that their lifetimes have been full of betrayals on everything from health care to student loan debt to being sent off to die in stupid wars and beyond.
I’m seeing zero enthusiasm from them about Biden.
I was a Bernie supporter last time around, and he’s my current favorite — largely because he originated much of what now is considered the mainstream Dem candidates’ platform. But he did it back when he was consistently called a communist for doing it. Following Bernie’s gracious lead, I opted not to be a permanent grudge-holder over the way he was treated by the DNC in 2016. What good would it have done anyway? There’s no way (yet) to go back in time and amend things. At this point I think Bernie’s facing some headwinds, but that could change. I guess my sense is that it would be great to have the genuine original, rather than the later arriving “oh yeah, guess he was right on that” folks. But I don’t want to get too intractable on that one.
I’ve seen Tulsi in person and she is wonderful. She’s facing Jeff Bezos and his WaPo machine though, which is going to be tough. They’ve identified her as a supporter of Putin and Assad, when in truth what she did was meet and talk with them. Quite a lot of other politicians have as well. I’ve never heard her endorse either one of them as fine human beings. She does question whether the US has the right to decide who should/shouldn’t be the head of state in Syria, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, Israel, etc. etc. Especially when we Americans get so agitated (legit) when some other country tries to do that to us. Her odds of getting the nomination seem to be near zero, though.
I could definitely vote for Elizabeth Warren, partly because I think the GOP, Big Health Care and Wall Street are actually pretty much genuinely afraid of her. The fact that she threatens them is a hopeful sign. She’s got a lot of energy. She’s smart. And — unless I’m deceived — she actually has — mirabile dictu — a moral backbone.
Having heard the news today that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is fighting another battle with (this time pancreatic) cancer, I have to say that I’m reluctant to sit this 2020 election out though. If they get the entire SCOTUS, needless to say, we are screwed.
Thanks again for your explanation of your current stance on 2020.
Yep, give credos to someone who has advocated voting a third party which will help keep Trump in for maybe life. Damn, will he get to determine the SCOTUS then. But then, he will be so entrenched as authoritarian ruler the SCOTUS will be superfluous. And again, Gabby is Putin’s choice as well. Real choice, not just a gaming choice like Bernie was to cause Clinton grief and help Trump. Generally, you can get the latest RT and Sputnik Party Line right from her without having to go to them. It’s spooky…and worrisome. Hope Biden doesn’t make the fatal mistake of picking her as his VP. From the last debate, she is clearly running to be his VP even though her politics are so very different.
While I agree that Biden should not be nominated by the Dems if they want an inspiring and winning candidate over the next 8 years and the kind of big change so much of our government and social structure needs in this country, I do see a very big difference between having a racist madman Repub or a corporate-friendly establishment Dem in the White House. It may be the better of two evils (though I don’t think Biden is evil) but voting 3rd party or not voting at all is simply helping Trump get re-elected and, as you suggested, maybe setting us up for him to fully destroy our democracy.
However Biden may serve corporations, he certainly wouldn’t be a threat to our democracy. Just the opposite, it would be in his interest and the Dem party to confront the gerrymandering, voter suppression and Russian attacks on our elections.
So, would 4 more years of Trump be the same as 4 years of Biden? Would the country and its people be better off with Trump in the WH until (or possibly past) 2024 then with Biden? I don’t see how that argument could be made.
I do think that Biden would not be able to win re-election so voting for him in 2020 is cutting off one’s nose to spite Trump’s face. It’s putting Don Jr. in the WH in 2024.
That alone is a good enough reason not to support Biden. But his coziness with corporations, his focus on pandering to the white male Trump voters while simultaneously insulting Progressives and Dems who live on the coasts and his rejection of the big changes we badly need at this point in history makes him absolutely the wrong person to represent the current diverse and conscientious Dem party…and the nation.
Yep to most of the first part of your post. But on the last part, for some strange reason, our non-White, Jewish and White Catholic voters like Biden why more than any of the other top candidates and especially better than Warren. Go figure…
As time goes on, I expect that will change. He’s familiar. But Warren is younger than he, a woman, and “has a plan for that.”
Anything is possible. Warren is about where she was in the average of the RCP polls almost several weeks ago while Biden is up a few points.
See chart of RCP averages at:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
There is no question that a while ago Warren had strong momentum but it has been on hiatus for many weeks now at least in terms of who our voters say they will vote for in the Primaries.
But she sure is familiar in Massachusetts. Still the RCP polls show both Bernie and Biden, the two old White men, well ahead of her in her home state. Maybe familiarity is actually NOT Warren’s friend.
Well, it’s still pretty early. You never know what might happen. Heck, those two old white men could end up with health problems that preclude their actually running for the office. Like you say, anything is possible. And Elizabeth Warren is very impressive. After all, she was a brilliant debater in college! But let me repeat, I will vote blue no matter who in the general. It’s just that we got cheated out of a woman the last time. It’s about time we got with the equality program and had at least one woman president.
Let’s watch the “polls” when people actually start voting.
We can at least look at the latest polls and longer term trends as indicators.
Here is the latest poll out today from Monmouth that shows Warren and Sanders tied at 20%…and Biden in 3rd at 19% after a big drop.
Warren is the only candidate showing strong upward momentum during the past 3 months in Swing States and Other States though Sanders ticked up strongly in Other States.
“3-Way Lead as Dem 2020 Picture Shifts”
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_082619/
I think IF these polls are accurate, it is more the result of the media promoting the idea of a safe white male to defeat trump, than people supporting the candidate they agree with.
Remember, the corporate media is STILL controlled by old white males. I support people voting for who they think best represents their interest. That is why I don’t have a problem with bigots voting for republicans. However, I DO NOT support Democrats appealing to bigots for their votes. YES, call me a purist, but I would rather lose an election than to appeal to trump voters, ALL OF WHOM were at least tolerant of bigotry in casting their votes in 2016.
Maybe. But any Democrat is better than what we have now. I do wish everyone would try to remember that in their desire to have the purest of the pure running on the Democratic ticket. I don’t care who the Democrat is, Republicans aren’t going to vote for him or her. But there are more of us than there are of them so the important thing is to freaking vote for God’s sake and not be so bloody picky about it once the choice of the nominee is made.
It’s not a matter of purity for most Dems who support a candidate other than Biden. And most of them, including me, will vote for whoever the Dem candidate is as a massive improvement over the insane racist in the WH now.
I have seen pundits on the news channels scolding Democratic candidates for trying to compete against Biden, calling it “a circular firing squad” and destructive.
What they have amazingly forgotten is that it is a primary. This is where candidates should be promoting themselves and explaining why leading candidates aren’t a better choice. This is how a primary works and always has.
If a candidate has baggage, that should come out in the primary. If they can address it successfully, they’re better prepared for the GE if they win. If they can’t, better for it to sink them in the primary than the GE.
And at the end, as always, Dems will unify and vote for whoever the candidate is…aside from the few actual purists who put their self-importance above responsible behavior.
Jake, Wake Up!
The ‘Red Scare’ was in the 1950’s! Get a grip.
What makes you think the “Red Scare” hasn’t come back? The lastest Congresswoman to favor impeachment said it was because she read the first half of the Mueller report, which was all about Russian interference in our elections. Are you going to claim they had nothing to do with anything? The first page of the Mueller report states
To quote Malcolm Nance, we were attacked. It’s now the 20 teens! Get a grip.
Ah! So McCarthism is now fashionable, but among Democrats! Who would have imagined? How sad.
Please explain. And btw, your use of the term “Red Scare” confused me. I had forgotten what it originally meant as I was very young when McCarthy was having those hearings. Your term, “Red Scare,” seemed like it was about Russia’s interferance in our elections. I still don’t understand, however, what you’re talking about when you said “McCarthism is now fashionable.” In whose world? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, McCarthyism has “since become a byname for defamation of character or reputation by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations, especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges.” Who’s doing that?
I’m old, and remember watching McCarthy and a HUAC hearing on TV as a kid, where the witness ‘took the fifth’ over and over. I didn’t know what was going on at the time, but I do now.
Also, I barely escaped working in the weapons industry and became well aware of the furor over the ‘Manhattan Project’.
Yes, my use of ‘Red Scare’ was a reference to those days, however it also was meant to relate it to what’s happening, today.
Now, think about it. When did Russia try to invade the US? Yet, ‘Russia’ has been invaded over and over from Western Europe. Do you remember the ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’? In that incident, Russia appeared to be trying to be aiding a sovereign island country (Cuba) by giving them missiles. However, it was WE who went ballistic! Yet, we have missiles and more aimed at Russia from territory close to and connected with the Russian border. We have no reason to be afraid of Rusdsia, but our actions certainly show that Russia has reason to worry.
Now, to the present. The McCarthy era Republicans have used the ‘Red Scare’ for a long time to consolidate power. They did so as vassals to the wealthy who were miffed by the actions of Roosevelt. They controlled the Republican Party far more tightly, in those days. Once the ‘Soviet Union’ collapsed, they went in search of a ‘new enemy’, however the earlier ‘Red threat’ had been so successful that it never quite went away, and now (apparently) it’s the new boogie man.
Did Russia try to ‘influence’ our elections by sending messages to Americans? Probably. But does our ‘intellegence community’ do the same to other countries? Most certainly. Did Russia have any real influence on the outcome? Probably not, and far less than other players. So, why focus on Russia?…
Because Russia engaged in cyber-warfare against the USA, AND with help for trump and republicans, MOST LIKELY installed a Putin selected puppet as POTUS.
Putin is a threat to democracy all over the world. But he can only win if democratic nations allow him to win. Like trump, he is an egotistical dictator, only he is a lot smarter than trump.
I give Gorbachev a lot more credit for ending the cold war than I do Reagan, but Putin has put Russia back into a position of being a threat to world democracy.
In the Cuban Missile Crisis, Russia was the aggressor who was attempting to place missiles 90 miles from the U.S. border. I think JFK responded correctly to that threat.
Cyber Warfare?
What a concept! Killing people via internet!
And, concerning JFK, how should the Russians respond to our missiles pointed at them and our support of hostile regimes on their borders? One doesn’t need missiles that close, of course, but we have them in South Korea, Ukraine, and elsewhere. Are you protesting those missiles?
Personally, I think JFK had the potential to be a spectacular leader. Same with RFK (although he had a more authoritarian streak). When JFK refused to invade after the Bay of Pigs failed to generate a promised popular uprising in Cuba, he was a dead man.
You need to stop considering warfare as only a matter of soldiers with guns killing or bombing other soldiers with guns. Warfare is often conducted through other means, propaganda, for example. And people have been killed via the internet as they have been radicalized online to become ISIS fighters or white supremacists. The internet was thought to be a means of uniting the world. Instead, nefarious interlopers have taken over parts of it and used it for evil. Cyberwarfare is warfare, even if it doesn’t kill anyone outright. But when it enables someone like Hair Furor to be “elected” to the US presidency, which in itself has resulted in many deaths, including children, you need to rethink your definition of what war is.
Yes, things done in cyberspace can cause people to die. REALITY CHECK!
I am not that critical of misinformation campaigns conducted by Russians, as republicans have been doing that for decades, and it is the responsibility of consumers of information to discern the value of it. What I take issue with and I think is tantamount to an act of war is a country interfering in our democratic process by purging voter registration rolls of changing ballots or other things that directly affect the outcome of our elections, and that is what Russia did in 2016, and I am not convinced that republican operatives did not assist them in that endeavor.
Russia is a sovereign nation and has the right to respond in any way they see fit to threats to their national security, as does any nation. A more civil way of resolving disputes is by using diplomatic tools. At some point humans will evolve to this level of sophisticated civility.
Because, having found their influence to have been effective with the election of the most divisive president we’ve ever had, one who is Putin’s puppet, it is likely they will continue to interfere, especially in the areas of voting machines, manipulating voter roles, propaganda on social media, etc. Maybe that doesn’t bother you. It bothers me.
AdLib if Trump wins reelection, some of the distopian novels we’ve all read just may become reality.
This thing we call democracy is a very fragile thing, based on an idea that some people had because they didn’t want live under a monarchy, they somehow believed, the concepts of the Greeks and Romans marinated with a bit of English Law, they cobbled together a government for the most part has withstood it’s challenges.
However, it is in extreme danger, from within by a man with authoritative desires, who has shown he is mentally incapable dealing with anything beyond the complexity of a single cell amoeba. But, relishes power, ultimate power at that.
Should he win, we clearly lose, and lose big. Democracy as we know and understand it, will die. And as Socrates said,
“Finally, Democracy unfolds in Tyranny which is a state of chaos where power is seized by one person that is capable of doing so and is then hated by the people he rules.”
twilson117, it is an existential election. If Trump was to win, it would be the end of our democracy as we know it. I know that may seem dramatic but we are already witnessing the destruction of our government and democracy in real time by Trump daily.
Attacking our intelligence agencies, turning the DoJ into a Russian-like loyalty organization, assaults on our free press, using our tax money to enrich himself and his family, undermining our allies and trying to pull us closer to the tyrants in Russia, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.
And all of the deceit, lying constantly to the American people and hiding so many truths from them. Not to mention putting unqualified extremists in the courts.
Trump has proven how fragile our democracy is, all it takes is one madman who refuses to obey laws and rules and a party that only really cares about money, power and winning re-election.
Most of the safeguards on our democracy have been disabled. And IMO, Pelosi and her team have voluntarily surrendered the primary one, impeachment, due to political calculation and putting power first and country second. Law enforcement is compromised and won’t protect the country from Trump’s criminal and unconstitutional behavior nor will some courts. All we have left to stop Trump is The Press and our votes, that’s it.
So we have to make an effort like we never have before, to get the vote out in Nov 2020 (and a big help with that is having a presidential candidate that inspires people to come out and vote for her/him).
Whenever anyone on the Net comparing Trump and Biden says Twiddledum and Twiddledee, and suggests voting third party or not voting at all, I wonder how’s the weather in Moscow.
It’s digression but by degree, no real change: Moscow, though worth a visit-so I’m told, is irrelevant.
What’s that supposed to mean?
Isn’t it odd, Jake, that you would bring up Russia?
There are many entities, Jake, that have far more influence on our elections than Russia. You might start with the ‘corporate elite’ that brought us NAFTA and the TPP. In terms of countries, you might want to look a bit south.
Any neocon militarist to me is the same. Trump is simply more obvious because he’s more arrogantly clueless and overt. However, more ‘brown’ people have died under the Clintons. Remember the half a million in Iraq that Albright said was ‘worth it’? Remember the support of Hillary for the overthrow of Assad by supporting the radical ‘opposition’? Remember our support of ‘Al Kaida’ as they fought against Iraq? Where was Biden at the time? Check out his vote.
Surely you know, Jake, that lapsing into name-calling is an indication that you are on intellectual thin ice and feel the need for rhetorical tricks as a last desperate attempt.
Did I say I ‘took pride in giving us Trump’, Jake? No, I did not. And, you demonstrate yet another rhetorical ‘trick’, the invention of a ‘straw man’, to put it politely, or the presentation of a lie, to be more blunt. It seems that you and Trump have something in common.
Who are you, ‘Jake’? Are you a youth, or are you a foreign agent? Let’s have some background from your own fingers so we can evaluate the response.
You sure seem to have taken pride in how you opposed Clinton last time using methods outlined by US Intel, Congressional reports and noted by Mueller used by the Russian disinformation campaign to undermine Clinton and help Trump. They worked. And now you clearly stated you would do things that most everyone else here seems to think would help Trump yet again, like supporting a third party. And you make an argument that is never made by Trump supporters or Dems, that there is no difference between Biden and Trump. Overwhelming, the only places I’ve seen that are Russian propaganda outlets, bots and trolls. Oh, and a few Looney Toon Far Left sites.
My posts are public here as are tens of thousands under my same tag on Disqus. Figure it out for yourself.
::sigh::
So people like you are such purists, you would ensure another four years of Hair Furor just to have your revenge against the rest of us who think Democrats should win no matter what, that we should vote blue no matter who? You don’t know Biden would lose to Don the Con. Personally, I think any Democrat could beat Delusional Donnie, no thanks to people like you who have to have your purity tests before you will go to the trouble of casting your very important vote, something you give such little consideration to that you would vote for someone who is destroying our government and our country before you’d vote for a Democrat that didn’t quite meet your very high standards. After all, if you don’t vote, you’ve voted for the twittering idiot. Give me a break.
I live in Tennessee. My vote made no difference, but was designed to send a message to the DNC. Apparently, it had no effect there, either.
Of course not. I’m always amazed that so many people think their negative vote will send some sort of message to the DNC or whoever it is they have issues with. You’d have better luck by joining your local Democratic organization and getting involved—if you haven’t already.
Curiously, I did just that. In fact, I served on the DP County Executive Committee as Vice Chair (after being a ‘member’ for a while) for several years. I spent innumerable hours ‘organizing’ my district, and made many friends among the local populace as a result.
You have no idea how many hours I spent (over a a five year period) lobbying to get a meager environmental bill passed in the State legislature. And, oddly (with last minute opposition from the Chamber of Commerce), I succeeded.
Few people have put in more unpaid hours fighting for ‘liberal’ causes in a practical way. One thing I learned, however, is that many organizations that ‘advocate’ do so only to raise money. As I said, I did it for free.
But, the DP is (currently) a ‘top-down’ organization, determined to impose the ‘wisdom’ of the ‘leaders’ down to the State and County level. That ain’t a ‘democratic’ Democratic Party. The Party is authoritarian, and now ruled by big money.
Instead of supporting that situation, in my opinion you need to fight it.
If you are, as you claim to be, the only one who was fighting for the causes you wanted, well, it takes more than one, usually. I’m happy you worked so hard. You made friends, which is great. It must have been somewhat rewarding. Seems to me the trick is to get more people involved if you want to change things. Top-down organizations like this are usually amenable to change if there is enough support for it on the bottom. Recruit some more people to your cause, and get them to recruit more people, and it might help your fight.
Perhaps you misread my comment. Nowhere did I say that I was the only one fighting for the causes I wanted.
You are correct that it takes coalition building in order to bring about political change. I know that from having done it. Also, one can’t build a coalition without first establishing mutual, one-on-one trust. Those on this website that demean others will never be able to accomplish much because they are dividers, not uniters.
We should not be afraid or discouraged to air our differences and our opinions, as long as we come together at the end of our debates for the common good. We are a diverse people with diverse opinions and diverse interests. Because of that, we have to always be willing to compromise, WITHOUT sacrificing our principles.
We have to recognize the even the racists and bigots are citizens of this nation and they have their rights. However, the majority of this nation who ARE NOT racists and bigots SHOULD NOT allow the racists and bigots to control our country.
I can’t see much to disagree with in your statement. Only a minor ‘quibble’ concerning ‘principles’
Principles need to be re-examined often in the face of ever-accumulating new information.
Now, humans (as I see it) have managed to populate the biosphere because they have a capacity to ‘adapt’ using their nervous system instead of their rather slow reproduction rate. All large animals do this to some extent, however humans seem to excel. Only time will tell if this is a viable long-term benefit. I’d put my money on bacteria.
However, ‘standing on principle’ more or less eliminates, short-circuits the learning process that has brought us into ecological prominence. It assumes what you knew in the past was ‘the Truth’ and invites you to close your eyes and ears.
I was primarily addressing moral principles as opposed to scientific principles. I agree that scientific principles are adjusted according to new knowledge. However, moral principles should stand the test of time. It is just as morally wrong for humans to kill each other today as it was in the beginning of time. However, scientists are continuously discovering that what they thought was how the universe worked is not how it actually works and they adjust their principles accordingly.
Madeline Albright (Clinton’s Secretary of State) was asked if killing half a million children in Iraq was worth the price of ‘regime change’. She paused, and then responded, “Yes, I think it was”. That’s evil on a colossal scale.
Secondly, the vote is controlled by the ‘electoral college’. I live in Tennessee. I’m probably far to the left of you, but I’m not so sure getting rid of the electoral college is a good idea.
Thirdly, how do you suggest reforming the Democratic Party so it actually reflects the People’s interest rather than that of their fat-cat donors?
I’m not sure. I’m not even a Democrat but an independent. I will say, however, that we don’t have to get rid of the electoral college. All we have to do, and Common Cause is working on it, is get the states to change the rules for the electors that they have to vote for the winner of the national popular vote instead of just the winner of the vote in their state. That would not require a Constitutional Amendment. This rule has already been adopted by a few states, plus there are some who have decided they will once enough states are in that they total 270 votes or more.
The whole Iraq war thing was disgusting. I knew it was a scam and couldn’t understand how so many Democrats could vote for it although their constituents might have been urging them to because everyone was so unnerved by 9/11. But I knew Iraq had nothing to do with that, so basically, America attacked another country under false pretenses and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, including more than 4,000 of our own, and for what? And the damage that wor did. Oh. My. God. I don’t know what to make of Albright’s answer.
Non…
I wrote you a long message somewhere below and pointed out that the wealthy first ‘reclaimed’ the Republican Party. This was a bit odd, because that Party was, after all, the Party of Lincoln. However, Roosevelt was a Democrat (I’ve heard the argument that he actually saved the butts of the wealthy, since the US was on the brink of a populist revolution when he came into office, and I think that argument has some merit). However, today those same would-be (actual?) oligarchs have also put themselves in charge of the Democratic Party as well. Clinton signed NAFTA into law. Why?
Yes, Iraq was disgusting. Sadam (a secular ruler) was once our ‘ally’ against Iran (a religious State in part because we helped overthrow a democratically elected ruler and install a brutal king, the ‘Shaw’) But, you see, Sadam wanted to keep more of the oil proceeds for Iraq. So, ignoring the obvious lesson that should have been learned in Iran, we tried to do the same in Iraq. But, you see, ‘It’s all about the Benjamins’, and those that have ’em call the shots. Bush (the latter) went truly off the rails in service to Big Oil by producing the Colin Powell testimony.
Perhaps the Democrats can recover and become at least a Liberal party once again, but it seems a long shot.
Three suggested readings:
1. ‘Manufacturing Consent’ (Noam Chomsky). This was written shortly after the Vietnam War, and the thesis (presented in the first chapter) is then backed by example after example in the rest of the book. It explains today’s broadcast media today, and I can’t think of a modern example the contradicts the original.
2. ‘1984’ (George Orwell… and it’s even older, but easier read than Chomsky)
3. Morris Berman’s ‘Dark Ages America’.
At the risk of presuming to add to that reading list: Sinclair Lewis, ‘It Can’t Happen Here,’ and Howard Zinn’s ‘A Peoples History of the United States.’
Yes and Yes!!!
I think you take Albright’s comment about regime change in 1998 out of context. Further, there was no regime change action taken during the Clinton administration and I DO NOT BELIEVE Clinton or any rational president would have invaded Iraq in 2003. Madeline Albright certainly did not support the “rush to war” in Iraq, and I don’t believe her position was that the war was EVER a sound foreign policy move.
The electoral college was always a racist and misogynistic policy. It provided for even the will of the average white male landowners to be circumvented by a few supposedly more knowledgeable white male landowners. ANYTIME a candidate receives 3 million more votes than her opponent, and yet loses the election, THAT is a break in the system.
Clinton endorsed (with vigor) the sanctions on Iraq in hopes of ‘regime change’ from within and in the interest of Big Oil. Government sanctions are the modern equivalent of siege warfare, an International war crime. I’m sure it was considered a more politically acceptable option to invasion that would have had the same effect.
Today, of course, we use that tactic all the time. Consider (recently) Venezuela. Consider our support of the Israeli treatment of Gaza. Consider our policy toward Iran. Also consider our former actions against Cuba and our early actions against the Haiti, newly free from French control. The list goes on and on.
Albright supported starving Iraq into submission, and in her statement she confirmed her understanding of the consequence (a rare glimpse). How does starving half a million people (mostly children and elderly) or causing them do die of disease differ from dropping a nuclear bomb on them? In the case of starvation or disease, the pain suffered by the victim is often greater.
Albright didn’t invent that policy, however. She was only supporting the leader of her Tribe with the intellectual tools she had at her disposal. I don’t think of Albright as an evil person, but rather as one who was ‘flawed’. But we (as social animals) all have similar flaws, eh? In today’s world, we had best be able to overcome that flaw and move beyond the ‘my team’ mentality if we are to survive as a species much longer.
It helps to tell the whole story. Sanctions against Iraq during the Clinton administration began in 1990 after the first Gulf war. Btw, in 1990 as well as over a century, “big oil” has supplied the world’s energy needs, as they continue to do TODAY. Whether you know it or not, oil companies are LEADERS in developing alternative energy sources, as these companies are more “energy” companies than they are “oil” companies.
So Clinton continued the USA’s participation in financial sanctions against Iraq. That is a far cry from invading the country. Financial sanctions are typically used to force the government of a country to engage in activity that is beneficial to its people, and is an alternative to war. That is what the UN was doing related to Iraq after they invaded Kuwait.
Albright was responding to a hypothetical question related to tactics. Would sanctions actually result in the deaths of 500 thousands Iraqis? That is something Saddam and the Iraqi people would have to decide.
Ah…the “conscience voter” whose high mindedness shares significantly in the defeat of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. Yeah…that worked out well.
Doesn’t your own concludng statement alter your position….are your “principles”such that you are willing to lend your support to a Trump presidency because that is what not voting or voting for a third party does. You write: “After Biden loses to Trump, will we even get to vote in 2024?” Are you really willing to accept such a notion as the price one pays for voting in the way you describe here.
The ‘lesser of two evils’ argument has brought us Trump. A bit of spine a few years ago might have kept the Democratic Party from becoming the sad shadow of Roosevelt it now is.
SO Biden is an evil? Really? In the same league as Trump? Really?
Sadly…..That kind of thinking gave us Bush II. It also gave us Trump because of those who were just not happy with Clinton. If Biden is the nominee then anyone who does not support him will be complicit in the reelection of the worst president in modern (and perhaps the entire) history of the presidency.
And that is exactly what he wants given whom I think he likely is. As they say on CSI, there are NO coincidences.
What is that you think he “exactly wants”?
For Trump to win again to cause maximum chaos in our society, political system, institutions and generally throughout the country. This whether he is or is not a Troll. The Russians want that to weaken the US. The Lefty political purists want that because they, similar to Bannon, are functional Leninists who believe in “heightening the contradictions.” They believe that because of the collapse from the chaos they cause they will be called on by the People to be the Vanguard to bring back Order. And thus they get to rule and impose what they would never be
allowed to do otherwise.
And I have yet to see a Democrat who is really evil. I was amazed at how people viewed Hillary Clinton as such without a shred of evidence. All they had were the lies told by the right against her for decades. We all have to be careful to make sure about our facts before we make mistakes like voting for Delusional Donnie because he was the lesser of two evils! As if!
It was very intentionally magnified by the massive Russian disinformation campaign and unfortunately way too many of the Bernie supporters were gullible and fell for it. This helped magnify it even more and gave us Trump. Expect at least the same this time as Mueller warned.
Even the caricature republicans created of Hillary Clinton is a thousand times better, no a million times better than trump. What brought us trump is hatred and bigotry on the part of a large segment of white voters, Putin and a very flawed election system. Hillary was in fact one of the best candidates in history to run for president. She did not lose. Americans lost.
I do not try to get that deep into the weeks. I challenge the ideas.
Not with that kind of logic.