Big picture thinking.

Americans aren’t well known for it. China has a 100 year plan and others in increments of decades while Americans just vote year to year, based on their current satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their lives and the incumbent President and their party.

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 change so let’s give it a chance to see if it will work out”? Or did they vote to undermine the change they claim to have wanted just 2 years before because they “got scared” by the Republican’s fraudulent propaganda about “death panels” and hospitals and America going bankrupt due to the ACA?

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 and Barack Obama have won the presidency for the Democrats in all those years.

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 working class men, it wasn’t Trump voters, it wasn’t Republicans.

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 being energized to vote against Trump (those voting for him will be energized for the same reason…but are a smaller number).

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 77 year old man who will be 81 years old when it’s time for re-election is not long term thinking. In 2024, Republicans will have the anti-incumbent momentum and likely, a younger and more energetic candidate. As bad as things are now, they could be even worse under a Republican (Don Jr. or Ivanka?) in 2025.

How would an 81 year old Biden who may not have any big accomplishments as president, have a strong hand for winning re-election? Could fear and desperation in Democrats in 2020, to just get Trump out of power, really just set up another Trump or Trump-like Republican picking up in 2025 where Donald Trump left off? And destroying any progress a one-termer Biden may have made?

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?

90
Leave a Comment

Please Login to comment
6 Comment threads
84 Thread replies
11 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
twilson117Dajuan CandleKalimaMurphTheSurf3TOCB Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
twilson117
Member

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.

TOCB
Member

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???

Dajuan Candle
Member

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.

TOCB
Member

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!

Jake321
Member
Jake321

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.

TOCB
Member

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.

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

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.

TOCB
Member

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.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

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.

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

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?

twilson117
Member

Not with that kind of logic.

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

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.

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

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.

TOCB
Member

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.

Nonpartay
Member
Nonpartay

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!

Jake321
Member
Jake321

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.

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

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.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

And that is exactly what he wants given whom I think he likely is. As they say on CSI, there are NO coincidences.

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

What is that you think he “exactly wants”?

Jake321
Member
Jake321

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.

Nonpartay
Member
Nonpartay

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.

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

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?

TOCB
Member

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.

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

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.

TOCB
Member

Clinton endorsed (with vigor) the sanctions on Iraq in hopes of ‘regime change’ from within and in the interest of Big Oil.

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.

Nonpartay
Member
Nonpartay

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.

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

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’.

kesmarn
Admin

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.’

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

Yes and Yes!!!

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

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.

Nonpartay
Member
Nonpartay

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.

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

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.

Nonpartay
Member
Nonpartay

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.

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

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.

TOCB
Member

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.

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

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.

TOCB
Member

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.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

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.

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

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.

Nonpartay
Member
Nonpartay

::sigh::

Niemand
Member
Niemand

It’s digression but by degree, no real change: Moscow, though worth a visit-so I’m told, is irrelevant.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

What’s that supposed to mean?

kesmarn
Admin

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.

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

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.

kesmarn
Admin

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.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

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.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

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.

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

Jake… What is it with you and Russia? You seem obsessed. Please, try to address ideas instead of trying to smear the messenger.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

Maybe you should ask Mueller that.

Jake321
Member
Jake321

Some one seems to have removed my cold wind from Siberia post. Oh, well.

Daedalus
Member
Daedalus

Perhaps, Jake, because you seem to be a ‘one trick pony’.