The moderate wing of the Democratic Party is obsessed with the idea that the way to win this election is to be "Not-Trump." Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, that's their whole brand. A key component of the "Not-Trump" concept is the stated or implied notion of moral superiority: it is, in a different iteration that admittedly should be somewhat more compelling given Trump's obvious moral and ethical deficiencies, the same losing message of the 1992 President Bush re-election campaign: character and moral values are important in a President. It didn't work for him, the sitting President, because of a lousy economy; why would it work to defeat the sitting President in a superficially great one?

No - if either character or moral values were in any way important, Trump surely would have lost in 2016. Hillary Clinton tried the same message, and lost. I know that some will say the answer to that is that in Hillary the Dems ran someone who was uniquely poorly positioned to be the standard bearer of that message, because she had a lot of baggage and so it was easy to paint her as part of the corrupt establishment, even if they exaggerated or outright lied in doing so. The problem is, anyone who chooses to make "Oooooh! Look at him! He's corrupt! We need to be rid of him! Vote for me!" the central message of their campaign, and who has been around long enough, is susceptible to that "Whataboutism" line of attack. Indeed, that message is a two-time proven loser. Why would it work now, with a booming economy?

So this is a problem, in particular, for Biden (and to a lesser extent, Klobuchar and Bloomberg, since they have been around for awhile), as his name and family are directly tied to these impeachment proceedings. What was true of Hillary will become just as true of him. Buttigieg is the only one who has any shot with this message, and I think it is a lousy one anyway.

Warren and Sanders are at least FOR something, not just against Trump, and their message isn't merely, "I'm not Trump," and as an important corollary, their primary messaging has not been, and likely will not be, "Trump is an amoral unehtical *-grabber."

Although that is true, if it were going to work it would have done so already. Nobody cares about the moral rectitude of someone they elected knowing full fucking well was a charlatan, cheat, liar, and abuser of women. They elected him despite that, because of his promises, because of their belief that he as a businessman would know how to pump up the economy, because he was speaking their racist truths, whatever.

No, the winning message, if there is one, must be that the promises he made have gone undelivered upon, and in the mean time your life has not gotten materially better: Mexico didn't pay for any wall, he only made the Iran situation worse, and the opiate crisis in your town is just as bad as it was, and the coal job you had did NOT come back, and you STILL don't have health care or a decent wage, and he has done NOTHING to advance either of those.

And for the "tell it like it is" crowd, shots at Wall Street and Banks and Corporate shenanigans are important - something Sanders and Warren are willing to do, and the "moderate" wing shits its pants at the thought of.

Warren's candidacy seems like a dead letter at this point. Too bad, I wanted her. Biden's message, and the message of any moderate, is boring and doesn't work anyway.

Bernie should win; and increasingly I think he will.

Sanders/Warren 2020

Did anyone watch the Parnas video of the Trump dinner or meeting or whatever? I didn’t; I did read though that they discussed the 2016 election and Trump was glad that Bernie wasn’t the candidate he had to face and then they went on to discuss 2020 and someone said they hoped Biden would run and everyone started laughing.

Again, I didn’t see it myself, but it goes to moz’s point about electability.

does anyone like Abrams as a possible running mate with Warren or Sanders?

The Parnas group may have been laughing about Biden because they know something. By attacking him, the are helping him. They have to know that.

Abrams will be a good VP for any candidate in my opinion.

The moderate wing of the Democratic Party is obsessed with the idea that the way to win this election is to be "Not-Trump." Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, that's their whole brand.

This thesis is a gross oversimplification. It serves no good purpose to belittle other Dems’ views and intelligence by painting them as one-issue, obsessive morons. Even if it were true one could just as easily say that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is obsessed with the idea that the way to win this election is to be “Not-Moderate.”

It’s not 1992 or even 2016. Analogies to Bush or Hillary are deeply flawed. Yes, being incorruptible is not going to change any Trump supporter’s vote, but neither is having a plan or being FOR something.

The key to winning will be mobilizing as many Dems to vote as possible and that’s the issue here. Younger progressives point out that they’re the ones likely to do the most legwork while older moderates point out that they’re the ones with the money and, even more importantly, they’re the ones who actually vote more.

As long as Dems keep fighting with one another, as long as we are petulant enough to imply that it’s gotta be my candidate otherwise my friends and I won’t work hard and might not even vote, as long as we continue to disparage our own candidates, the election of any one of which would reverse the existential threat now threatening our country, we will, as they say, get the government we deserve.

As for me, I voted for Bernie in 2016 and I’d be happy to do again. But it it ends up being Biden or Bloomberg or anyone else I’ll be happy to support him or her fully and have no intention of giving succor to the opposition by criticizing my own.

#bluenomatterwho

All the local groups I go to (Swing Left, Turn PA Blue, etc) I am normally one of the youngest people there and I am in my mid-30s.

JFLNYC wrote:As long as Dems keep fighting with one another, as long as we are petulant enough to imply that it’s gotta be my candidate otherwise my friends and I won’t work hard and might not even vote, as long as we continue to disparage our own candidates, the election of any one of which would reverse the existential threat now threatening our country, we will, as they say, get the government we deserve.

For the record, I didn't say any of this, nor did I imply it, nor did I even think it. I was simply making my analysis of the situation, which was meant to get at who would be most electable in the current environment, which is what we all want.

JFLNYC wrote:The key to winning will be mobilizing as many Dems to vote as possible and that’s the issue here. Younger progressives point out that they’re the ones likely to do the most legwork while older moderates point out that they’re the ones with the money and, even more importantly, they’re the ones who actually vote more.

To this point, and keeping electability, and only electability, in the forefront of my mind, the ideal candidate, proceeding from your own observation here, is one who is a Democrat, who has proven s/he can raise money from a variety of sources from across the age demographics of the Party, and who excites young people, since old people, as you point out, will vote anyway. The candidates who tick all of these boxes are, then, Warren (again, my preference) or Sanders.

JFLNYC wrote:As for me, I voted for Bernie in 2016 and I’d be happy to do again. But it it ends up being Biden or Bloomberg or anyone else I’ll be happy to support him or her fully and have no intention of giving succor to the opposition by criticizing my own.

#bluenomatterwho

Glad to hear it, and I agree with the hash tag. I have a young child and a wife who has taken on a lot of side projects so this is not a cycle where I can knock a lot of doors whether the nominee is someone who makes me ecstatic or someone who leaves me cold. If I had the time I would knock either way, because unlike Bernie, I am a Democrat and it's my party and candidate win or lose. Relative to the crew I spend my time with, in fact, I rather like Joe Biden. He is likeable, more likeable than Hillary, I think objectively so.

In politics as with so much, timing is everything. Candidates have their times and moments. I think if Biden could have run in 2016, he would have won; it wouldn't have taken much extra to beat Trump, and Biden is that extra bit more likeable. But, playing the what-if game, you could argue that Obama screwed all of this up by jumping the line in 2008; if Hillary wins the nomination in 2008, given the circumstances at the time, she easily goes on to win the general too. But does she win re-election? Maybe. I think she is someone who would have been more popular as president than running for president, as I have no doubt of her talents for administration and getting stuff done. But that's a counterfactual we'll never have an answer to.

If she gets re-elected in 12, then you have Obama in the chamber for 16, and there is no doubt in my mind he and his people take Trump down, particularly if he is a first-time general-election Presidential candidate, and brings that magic with him.

But that ain't the way it went down. Biden's last best chance was in the reality we lived, in 2016. What was needed then was the caretaker concept, someone people trusted to just ride the status quo and stay away from the instability and craziness that Trump represented. He couldn't do it, for family reasons. Hillary was the next best thing that Dems had for that message in 2016. But her negatives made her not quite good enough.

Now the moment for "stay the course" has passed. Trump is president, and despite all the drama, the economy is fine for the most part, or at least good enough that many will be reluctant to screw with it. And beyond that, Trump is exciting. Deep down, people like drama. If it's not affecting their wallets, they've got little reason not to continue the "fun."

Unless you give them one.

While I agree that beating Trump is the priority, that's not really a winning message. Keep in mind, the winner of the election also has a job to do once the election is over, and I think it's good long term for the Democrats and the nation that the person who wins will be good at being President.

The one problem I have with Biden (I'm not sure how much this applies to other moderates) is that he thinks the Dems can work with the Republicans. I don't know if he really believes this or if he just wants us to believe he believes it, but it seems he things we can return to a 1980s kind of world where partisanship hadn't quite metastasized over our whole government and political system.

Somewhere there was a discussion about what is electability (could not tell you what media source). It seems that there are plenty of choices as to a definition making that a hard argument for a single candidate.

i think bootyjudge is the only single candidate

Bucky wrote:i think bootyjudge is the only single candidate

He's married, homophobe.

There are some satellite caucuses in the D.C. area. Philly too. More international? Paris. Less sophisticated, then the Republic of Georgia might be for you. The whole caucus thing is mysterious to me, and maybe more so now. Some are open to the public to go watch.

TenuredVulture wrote:While I agree that beating Trump is the priority, that's not really a winning message. Keep in mind, the winner of the election also has a job to do once the election is over, and I think it's good long term for the Democrats and the nation that the person who wins will be good at being President.

The one problem I have with Biden (I'm not sure how much this applies to other moderates) is that he thinks the Dems can work with the Republicans. I don't know if he really believes this or if he just wants us to believe he believes it, but it seems he things we can return to a 1980s kind of world where partisanship hadn't quite metastasized over our whole government and political system.

Obama said/believed the same thing. IMHO, bipartisanship is a worthwhile pursuit; it is certainly preferable to the shit show we have on extended run currently. Biden may go into his term hoping to work with the GOP but I am confident he will go around or through them when he figures out that they are not interested in playing nice.

It's a primary. You're allowed to disagree. That's the point.

Bipartisanship is dead, folks. There's one party interested in governing. That's it. The primary is the election for who you want to govern to defeat the fascist wannabe. It's important to figure out who would be best to fight him and his party!

OK then.

thephan wrote:

OK then.

link please

as i said in an earlier post... i was late to this clinton conspiracy thing. i know it's kinda late to hop in on it, but damn this shirt would give me so much cred.

I snagged it from the BSG ad rotator! I just copied the image location, and didn't click on the link (sorry BSG - sadly the next one was for AARP). Google Image search has it available at warrior12.com/products/they-cant-suicide-us-all

Good luck.

Queen B and Jay-Z are getting pummeled for having a seat during the National Anthem. One of the yard barkers tweeted they are part of the 'Ruling class hacks deserve to be exposed'.

Same folks on Z&B are crying about the halftime show being R rated.

Now if someone would just tell Jay-Z that his hat game is a bust, that I could get behind.

thanks... i googled the image and didn't come up with anything the first time.

gotta love the bsg banner ads. usually i just get the ones for asian dating websites.

hopefully purchasing a shirt doesn't go to supporting some cause.