The Race for the 2020 POTUS elections

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,905
Ratings
2,615
I keep hoping that Republicans who are anti-Trump will make an effort to re-take the party and put it back to the kind of party it was under Bush-Dole-McCain-Romney. One wonders why this isn't happening. Is it really that the Tump supporters so totally control the party with their primary votes? I'm not convinced this is true and that if some Republicans get some courage they could much more easily push the Trump-Nationalist-Nativists out of control of the party than they currently seem to believe.
Winner-loser-loser-loser



Few people were considered more racist than mccain! Palin and mccain said gooks a lot! I mean he really didn’t stop

Than few people were considered more racist than romney! Mormonism prevented black leaders and the self deportation

Now few people are considered more racist than Trump!

With the total commitment by democrats to call every republican racist they got desensitized! Bush was considered an extreme racist too. HWB because of Willie Horton and WB because he wouldn’t sign hate crimes laws. “All crimes are hate crimes” he said

They no longer believe in racism

OR!! They just embraced it totally! “Yes we are totally racist people! Totally racist! Deal with it jerks!!!!”
 
Last edited:

Karen-W

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,943
Ratings
2,092
But, anyway, I am confused because I thought you voted for Trump because of the Supreme Court. Now you are saying it is because of Clinton corruption? Any excuse will do, I guess.
No, I clearly stated that I was never willing to vote for HRC but my vote for Trump in 2016 was not an either-or vote since there were other candidates on the ballot or leaving that office blank.
 

jeffisjeff

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,824
Ratings
5,443
No, I clearly stated that I was never willing to vote for HRC but my vote for Trump in 2016 was not an either-or vote since there were other candidates on the ballot or leaving that office blank.
Ok, thanks for clarifying.

But what about Clinton's corruption made it absolutely disqualifying, while Trump's corruption (coupled with his bigotry, xenophobia and misogyny) didn't prevent him from winning your vote? As you note, you did have alternatives.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,434
Ratings
28,285
I don't know about other folks here, but I believe a leftwing version of the Trump phenomenon is possible. It would not be the same obviously, but there is plenty of emotion and irrationality (we all see it on our FB feeds) on the left. I think most people in the US believed "it couldn't happen here" left or right but now we've seen someone unfit lifted to the presidency on the right; everyone left, right, or center needs to be on guard not to fall into following a phenomenon that ends up with authoritarianism and/or chaos.

I think that the conservatives have been preyed on by a long-term campaign that by repeated emotional appeals has led many to support Trump. Beginning with talk radio and carrying on with the utter confusion sown by FOX News, people ended up in a place they didn't necessarily ever think they would be.

There isn't anything comparable to this on the left but that doesn't mean it won't manifest in a different way, especially in the over-heated atmosphere of emotion people feel against Trump. We all need to be on guard.
 

MacMadame

Cat Lady-in-Training
Messages
28,294
Ratings
21,376
There isn't anything comparable to this on the left but that doesn't mean it won't manifest in a different way, especially in the over-heated atmosphere of emotion people feel against Trump. We all need to be on guard.
Agreed.

Back around the election time, people who create click-bate as a living said that they tried creating misinformation for the left but it would be immediately debunked and not spread so creating it for the right was more profitable. I saw many people on my feed on the left patting themselves on the back about how "rational" they were. But as the Trump presidency progressed, I saw more and more misinformation being globbed onto by the left. We are not immune from this and need to be careful.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,905
Ratings
2,615
I don't know about other folks here, but I believe a leftwing version of the Trump phenomenon is possible. It would not be the same obviously, but there is plenty of emotion and irrationality (we all see it on our FB feeds) on the left. I think most people in the US believed "it couldn't happen here" left or right but now we've seen someone unfit lifted to the presidency on the right; everyone left, right, or center needs to be on guard not to fall into following a phenomenon that ends up with authoritarianism and/or chaos.

I think that the conservatives have been preyed on by a long-term campaign that by repeated emotional appeals has led many to support Trump. Beginning with talk radio and carrying on with the utter confusion sown by FOX News, people ended up in a place they didn't necessarily ever think they would be.

There isn't anything comparable to this on the left but that doesn't mean it won't manifest in a different way, especially in the over-heated atmosphere of emotion people feel against Trump. We all need to be on guard.
The biggest thing is the total personal destruction by the media of people like mccain and romney by the mainstream media I think! That’s what they say!! Mccain did choose Palin to be president in waiting and however bad that was did he deserve total personal destruction in 2008?! And mitt Romney too. He said 47% were takers and did that mean he deserved total personal destruction in 2012? And he was mean to dogs! And his sons were nice! And he wasnt a Mormon who actively oppose their ban on black leaders!

Mccain and romney ignored all the attacks saying they were horrible racist bigots of no values! They didn’t engage. But trump fought back!
 

Karen-W

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,943
Ratings
2,092
Ok, thanks for clarifying.

But what about Clinton's corruption made it absolutely disqualifying, while Trump's corruption (coupled with his bigotry, xenophobia and misogyny) didn't prevent him from winning your vote? As you note, you did have alternatives.
Honestly, I thought that a lot of what he was saying on the campaign trail was just that - campaign trail rhetoric. There wasn't anything in his background that led me to think he was doing much more than pandering to the base in a very populist manner. His style wasn't my cup of tea during the primary season but I figured he couldn't very well play to his base (which is not entirely synonymous with the religious right) by saying he didn't give a rat's behind about a person's sexual orientation or the color of their skin or their gender as long as they did the job he was paying them to do and did it well, and I really thought being a wildly successful native New Yorker (and not just a New Yorker from upstate but from NYC) that there was no way he really was as much of a low class, common boor as he's proven himself to be.

I do think, though, that it's a huge mistake for the left to continue attacking and needling him. He's proven to be remarkably thin-skinned and any criticism provokes more kneejerk reactions out of him. And, as caseyedwards observed, Trump's base really likes him fighting back.
 

jeffisjeff

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,824
Ratings
5,443
Honestly, I thought that a lot of what he was saying on the campaign trail was just that - campaign trail rhetoric.
Ah, yes, the we ignored the bigoted, sexist and racist language because it was "just campaign rhetoric" excuse! Like the fact that he's running for President of the United States while saying these awful things makes it OK, rather than even more alarming and disgusting! :eek:

This kind of "rhetoric" was not new for Trump, it didn't simply appear for the campaign. His problematic attitudes towards race were well-known, as were his questionable comments about women. Some of the quotes in the compilations below go back quite a ways.

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racism-history

https://theweek.com/articles/655770/61-things-donald-trump-said-about-women

https://www.politico.eu/article/15-most-offensive-things-trump-campaign-feminism-migration-racism/

And, of course, let's not forget the Access Hollywood tape. But that was just campaign rhetoric, right?

I do think, though, that it's a huge mistake for the left to continue attacking and needling him. He's proven to be remarkably thin-skinned and any criticism provokes more kneejerk reactions out of him.
Ah, yes, Trump's behavior can be blamed on "the left". :rofl:

Oh, yeah, one other thing: What about Clinton's corruption made it absolutely disqualifying, while Trump's corruption didn't prevent him from winning your vote? As you noted previously, you did have alternatives, you didn't have to vote for someone known to be as corrupt as Trump.
 

allezfred

Hatrið Mun Sigra
Staff member
Messages
54,478
Ratings
46,496
I do think, though, that it's a huge mistake for the left to continue attacking and needling him. He's proven to be remarkably thin-skinned and any criticism provokes more kneejerk reactions out of him. And, as caseyedwards observed, Trump's base really likes him fighting back.
That’s kind of like giving advice to a person in an abusive relationship to not provoke their abuser. Don’t stand up for yourself and it’ll all be fine. How very libertarian of you. :p

I’m not even going to start on citing caseyedwards as a voice of reason. :rofl:
 

Reuven

Official FSU Alte Kacher
Messages
15,157
Ratings
12,152
HRC has been a bundle of controversial going back to her days as Arkansas' First Lady.
Started by Clinton-hater Richard Scaife and his magazine Weekly Standard. Then all kinds of baseless stories kept going for decades by other right-wing outlets until it came to be a given the Clintons were corrupt. Which brings us to:
There are a lot of people, myself included, who have huge issues with the corrupt Clinton machine
Do tell. What corruption would that be?
 

rfisher

Looking for the next avatar
Messages
57,321
Ratings
51,148
Ah, yes, the old Clinton was corrupt back AR First Lady argument :blah: I'm from Arkansas. People outside the state have no clue about internal AR politics. How things are decided at a "Coon Supper" held every year in a tiny town. Where the $$$$ controlling AR politics determines the outcomes. Bill understood and played the game. HRC, OTOH, didn't understand that the wife of the potential Gov (and that was ordained when Bill was elected as AG. That was the progression) was supposed to be quiet and just drink a lot (understandably so. I'd have done the same) like the other wives did. She was the first to actually have a job. Horrors! People also don't understand the hatred Sheffield Nelson, then head of ARKLA Gas, had for Bill Clinton. It was personal. Nelson funded millions of dollars into a campaign to discredit the Clintons in some way or another. Most of it was made up. A good friend accepted a law clerkship with a prestigious firm in Little Rock. This was to be a boost to her future legal career. Except her job was to dig up dirt, any kind of dirt, on the Clintons for a handful of people. She quit after a month and dropped out of law school in disgust. Not at the dirt she found, but at the systematic effort to undermine Bill Clinton. This was long before he ran for POTUS. So, yeah, they were corrupt. Except there has never been one shred of evidence to prove that in spite of millions of dollars being spent to do so.
 

Andora

Skating season ends as baseball season begins
Messages
11,105
Ratings
3,141
It's sad that @Karen-W thinks her posts are enlightening and helpful, when all they are doing is cementing that even "smart" conservatives are about as self-serving as I thought.

Why consider voting for someone who's survived BS investigation after BS investigation, who's more than qualified for the job, when you can vote for the blustering walking-hate machine? After all, he's only talking to his base and completely normalizing the kind of rhetoric those on the edges of society hold dear to.

Jesus weeps.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,054
Ratings
23,088
The whole idea of Hillary being the “corrupt” candidate in the 2016 election is :rofl::rofl::rolleyes: when practically every week, more stories emerge about Trump’s corruption--his tax evasion schemes, the Trump family’s rent inflation practices, his attempts to close a Moscow Trump Tower deal with the Russians even while running for President. Not to mention the fact that he probably only won the Presidency due to Russian interference in our elections (on his behalf). But oh yeah, Hillary was the one who was "corrupt." :rolleyes:
 

Karen-W

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,943
Ratings
2,092
*Sigh*. You know, I'm just going to bow out of this discussion about 2020 and read it from time to time. I stated in my initial post, and others have also stated, that this is not about re-living the 2016 outcome or why anyone chose to vote for Trump instead of HRC.

I've offered my insight and opinion on the potential 2020 race, as someone who DID vote for Trump and isn't happy with his behavior and conduct. The rest of you can choose to keep re-litigating the 2016 race, questioning and deriding why ANYONE would vote for Trump, or you can truly "get over it" and ask the important questions of people like me who held their nose and voted for Trump, "what will it take to get your vote?", "what kind of candidate would appeal to you?", and "how likely are you to vote for Trump again?" As far as I can see, most of you are still stuck in reaction mode from 2016, even when theoretically talking about the Democratic field for 2020. Perhaps this thread should be re-named "The Race for the 2020 Democratic Party POTUS nomination" because it certainly isn't a discussion about the overall race when most of the people posting attack anyone who dares to say "Hey, I voted for Trump in 2016 and here's how I see the 2020 race."

If I wanted to wade into a conversation where I had to defend my 2016 vote, I would have done that 2 years ago. The sad thing is, I'm not sure I see much a difference from the left's reaction to the 2016 election than they had 2 years ago. The parallels to the right's reaction to Obama's election in 2008 and the left's reaction to Trump's election in 2016 are astounding. While 2020 is not likely to be an exact repeat of 2012, I won't be one bit surprised if Trump does get re-elected. There are factors that many of you in this discussion are failing to consider and calling people names like "racist", "bigot", or "misogynist" are NOT going to endear you to them. For all of our collective disregard for much of what caseyedwards says in the figure-skating focused discussions, casey makes a good point about the desensitization that occurs when those words are tossed out against every single GOP politician. Those words lose their power when they are used so frequently by the progressive left against any moderate or center-right candidate - to the point where it is very easy to dismiss those words even when being used against someone who IS all of those things. My word of caution to all of you is to think very carefully before you toss those words out in a conversation or discussion. Most people are not racists, bigots or misogynists and getting called those things, especially on an internet forum, almost begs for a kneejerk "and I'm out because, clearly, you are not capable of rational, measured, thoughtful, DISPASSIONATE conversation on this topic." So, hey, you've got it. I'm out. I've tried to offer my thoughts on 2020, from a non-progressive/Democratic Party position, and I've been basically told to go pound sand because my opinion is not worthwhile.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,434
Ratings
28,285
The truth is that Hillary Clinton's corruption was that of every other mainstream politician: our system requires raising money and engaging in personal relationships with rich corporate interests. So with the selective perception of a desire to bring down Hillary, every link she's had to someone wealthy and influential becomes utter corruption. But its just the way our politics goes in a system that is skewed toward the rich.

The irony is that the "libertarian-leaning" Republicans have done more to make sure this system stays in place by opposing campaign finance reforms and regulations that limit the power of influential corporate interests.

Its boring in any case, the ad-hoc case as to why we hate Clinton that is based on an emotional reaction that people don't even remember the origin of. She's not president. She's not going to president.

For the sake of argument let's assume she would have been worse as president than Donald Trump. So the fck what? She isn't president and he is. He's the guy in the oval office tweeting policy on a whim. (How do you think someone in the military who recently learned he would be deployed to Afghanistan next spring and has uprooted his family to go to Californina for training feels in the face of a tweet that half the troops are going to be brought home but NO actual policy being put in place? I didn't make this up, its what my former co-worker's husband is facing right now.)

The Republican party can remove Donald Trump as its leader and make him a one term president. Why do so many Republicans seem to think if they don't prostrate themselves in front of Donald Trump, Alexandria Occasio-Cortez will take over the country?

You don't want a left wing Democrat? Support change in the Republican Party, support a challenge to Donald Trump. He could be brought down with any serious opposition.

I really do not understand how it is Republicans refuse to oppose him WITHIN their party.
 

jeffisjeff

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,824
Ratings
5,443
There are factors that many of you in this discussion are failing to consider and calling people names like "racist", "bigot", or "misogynist" are NOT going to endear you to them.
**Double sigh.** I have no interest in cultivating Trump voters as my friends. Most of us want friends who share our values, priorities and interests, right? Anyone who voted for Trump clearly has values, priorities and interests very different from my own.

***Triple sigh.*** I also don't see any reason that the Democratic Party should seek to convert Trump voters, particularly those in his base. Instead, they need to fight to get people to actually come out and vote (this includes encouraging both increased turnout and fighting voter suppression tactics and gerrymandering). There are plenty of ways for the Democratic Party to expand its base without having to recruit voters who respond best to racist, misogynist and xenophobic rhetoric.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,434
Ratings
28,285
In the overall vote in 2018 Dems won by a landslide. There are of course structural issues that make it harder to actually win the presidency and the Senate even though a majority of voters favor the Democrats.

But yeah, sorry, Democrats have no interest in being loved by people who vote for Trump. If people are offended when Democrats call racism what it its, so be it. Until the Republican Party recognizes that the problem IS that it is being lead by racists like Trump it will lose. The Party is nearly all white as it is, there are not enough white votes left for the Republican Party to squeeze out. Huge percentages of black, Latino, and Asian voters go Democrat now. Until Republicans revolt against the Trumpists and revive some of their own party's traditions, suppression of voters is going to be the party's only hope.

Being offended that people call out racism in the Republican Party isn't going to get the Republican party to where it can win more than the Trump rump.
 

BittyBug

And the band played on
Messages
21,279
Ratings
18,961
I don't think the Dems should be focused on trying to win over people who voted for Trump; they should be focused on turning out people who sat out the 2016 election. Trump won despite losing the popular vote by over 3M because he prevailed by some 80K+ votes in 3 key states - that's what determined the outcome of the election, yet SHS has the audacity to stake claim to "the American people."

The Dems need a candidate and a ground game that is going to motivate people to go to the polls. I'm not yet sure who that candidate is yet, but I think it has to be someone inspiring, like a Stacey Abrams, Beto O'Rourke or even Joe Biden with the right running mate (there's chatter about Biden / Harris). And I think it's important that the ticket be diverse from more than one angle - culturally, generationally and possibly gender.

On a different note, I don't know why AOC sets off the right as much as she does, but they seem desperate to make her the new boogey(wo)man of the left. Yes, she's inexperienced, but at least she has a fresh perspective. And she's one vote out of 435 - she's hardly leading the party. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

SpeedySucks

Well-Known Member
Messages
426
Ratings
450
The Republican party can remove Donald Trump as its leader and make him a one term president. Why do so many Republicans seem to think if they don't prostrate themselves in front of Donald Trump, Alexandria Occasio-Cortez will take over the country?

You don't want a left wing Democrat? Support change in the Republican Party, support a challenge to Donald Trump. He could be brought down with any serious opposition.

I really do not understand how it is Republicans refuse to oppose him WITHIN their party.
Those in the media and elsewhere who continually argue that Republicans just need to stand up and oppose Trump don't understand the following about why so few Republicans oppose him vocally:

1) While they may dislike his style, most Republicans agree with Trump on many core issues, including (most importantly) the appointment of conservative judges and taking a harder line on immigration. The corporate tax cut was also extremely popular amongst the donor class that bankrolls the party.
2) Increasingly, Republican lawmakers come from states that are much older and whiter than the country as a whole. Trump remains very popular in those states.
3) Even if they despise Trump, the majority of Republican lawmakers are shrewd, power-hungry white men who understand the demographic changes taking place in this country and know that this is their last, best opportunity to rig the system (through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and packing the courts with judges who support both) to stay in power.

The demographics of states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa have changed significantly since the Recession. Many college-educated, Democratic-leaning voters have left these states for better jobs on the West Coast and also in cities like Atlanta and Dallas. As a result, working-class white voters now comprise a greater share of the electorate in these states. While working class whites supported Democrats for most of the 20th century, they also tend to live and work in white spaces and hold marginal racial views. Couple the lack of economic progress since the 1980s with these racial views, and you have a group of people who were very susceptible to Trump's racist arguments that immigrants and minorities are to blame for that lack of progress. Trump and the Republican enablers understand this very well, and they're going to continue to focus on maximizing these voters until states like Texas and Georgia flip to the Democrats. They may very well be successful with this strategy for at least one or two more election cycles.

We can wish for someone like Charlie Baker or Larry Hogan (or even Kasich or Romney or Flake) to stand up and oppose Trump from within the Republican Party, but the more moderate Republicans have zero chance of winning primaries in the very conservative states that form the backbone of Trump's base, nor are these candidates appealing to the working-class whites who supported Trump in the Rust Belt states.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,434
Ratings
28,285
Those in the media and elsewhere who continually argue that Republicans just need to stand up and oppose Trump don't understand the following about why so few Republicans oppose him vocally:

1) While they may dislike his style, most Republicans agree with Trump on many core issues, including (most importantly) the appointment of conservative judges and taking a harder line on immigration. The corporate tax cut was also extremely popular amongst the donor class that bankrolls the party.
2) Increasingly, Republican lawmakers come from states that are much older and whiter than the country as a whole. Trump remains very popular in those states.
3) Even if they despise Trump, the majority of Republican lawmakers are shrewd, power-hungry white men who understand the demographic changes taking place in this country and know that this is their last, best opportunity to rig the system (through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and packing the courts with judges who support both) to stay in power.

The demographics of states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa have changed significantly since the Recession. Many college-educated, Democratic-leaning voters have left these states for better jobs on the West Coast and also in cities like Atlanta and Dallas. As a result, working-class white voters now comprise a greater share of the electorate in these states. While working class whites supported Democrats for most of the 20th century, they also tend to live and work in white spaces and hold marginal racial views. Couple the lack of economic progress since the 1980s with these racial views, and you have a group of people who were very susceptible to Trump's racist arguments that immigrants and minorities are to blame for that lack of progress. Trump and the Republican enablers understand this very well, and they're going to continue to focus on maximizing these voters until states like Texas and Georgia flip to the Democrats. They may very well be successful with this strategy for at least one or two more election cycles.

We can wish for someone like Charlie Baker or Larry Hogan (or even Kasich or Romney or Flake) to stand up and oppose Trump from within the Republican Party, but the more moderate Republicans have zero chance of winning primaries in the very conservative states that form the backbone of Trump's base, nor are these candidates appealing to the working-class whites who supported Trump in the Rust Belt states.
This is the conventional wisdom to a T but I think its flawed. Democrats won WI, MI, and PA races in 2018 so the notion that there aren't enough liberal Dem voters in those states anymore isn't true. Those states as well as other mid-Western states like Minnesota and Illinois are all Democratic-leaning states.

There is no path for a Trump win in 2020 except voter suppression and the use of social media campaigns to disrupt the Democrats. Are those going to work as they did in 2016? Perhaps but its going to take more and more contorted and potentially illegal efforts for the Republican Party as now constituted to win elections. They nearly lost Georgia and Texas this last time out.

Are Republicans all stupid Trumpian bigots and amoral power-mad people like Mitch McConnell? I actually don't think so. I think a lot of Republicans wish things were different but there's no leadership taking them in a different direction.

Republicans cannot win with older white people. They are going to have to face that reckoning sooner or later. And younger politicians are going to see a path to power in the party by challenging the dying leadership.
 

MacMadame

Cat Lady-in-Training
Messages
28,294
Ratings
21,376
I really thought being a wildly successful native New Yorker (and not just a New Yorker from upstate but from NYC) that there was no way he really was as much of a low class, common boor as he's proven himself to be.
This says to me that you bought the Trump hype and didn't do much, if any research. If you had, you'd know that (a) Trump wasn't wildly successful until he became a TV personality (And even then it's debatable exactly how successful he's been.), (b) is hated in NYC because he's such a jerk. And when NYC hates you for being a jerk, you KNOW you are a class A jerk. (c) NYC is not a place where genteel people are standard bearers. They somewhat pride themselves on being what you call low class.

Growing up on the East Coast, a few hours from NYC, I can tell you that it was well known that Trump was (and probably still is) mobbed up, is a racist, and a boor.

I've offered my insight and opinion on the potential 2020 race, as someone who DID vote for Trump and isn't happy with his behavior and conduct. The rest of you can choose to keep re-litigating the 2016 race, questioning and deriding why ANYONE would vote for Trump, or you can truly "get over it" and ask the important questions of people like me who held their nose and voted for Trump, "what will it take to get your vote?", "what kind of candidate would appeal to you?", and "how likely are you to vote for Trump again?"
The problem with that is that you've already stated what it would take to get your vote. You voted for Trump to get an anti-abortion judge or two on the Supreme Court. Please tell me what potential Democratic candidate is anti-abortion? That's right... there is no way to get your vote. Hence, I will turn my energy elsewhere.

On a different note, I don't know why AOC sets off the right as much as she does, but they seem desperate to make her the new boogey(wo)man of the left. Yes, she's inexperienced, but at least she has a fresh perspective. And she's one vote out of 435 - she's hardly leading the party. :rolleyes:
Hey, it makes a change from always bashing Pelosi and Warren. :D
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,164
Ratings
8,913
I don't think the Dems should be focused on trying to win over people who voted for Trump; they should be focused on turning out people who sat out the 2016 election.

The Dems need a candidate and a ground game that is going to motivate people to go to the polls. I think it's important that the ticket be diverse from more than one angle - culturally, generationally and possibly gender.

On a different note, I don't know why AOC sets off the right as much as she does, but they seem desperate to make her the new boogey(wo)man of the left. Yes, she's inexperienced, but at least she has a fresh perspective. And she's one vote out of 435 - she's hardly leading the party. :rolleyes:
I completely agree about the direction of the democrats should go. They have to engage more progressives(left leaning) to vote for progressive democratic candidates.

If they are going to engage voters of a diverse demographics they need diverse candidates.

I think AOC scares many GOP and some centrist democrats because of her authenticity She's not playing the usual game that many politicians play. I believe she is really there for her constituents. She's not looking to be a career politician. I just hope she stays on her toes because there are many out there looking to trap her into some egregious stuff.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,434
Ratings
28,285
This isn't a particularly fair (to Sanders supporters) column by Jonathan Chait but it makes a point:

Why the Bernie Movement Must Crush Beto O’Rourke
(New York Magazine)

Sanders labels himself as a socialist and frames his rhetoric in Marxian class terms, which sets him apart from other Democrats. (Even a progressive like Elizabeth Warren calls herself “a capitalist to my bones.”) Socialists — at least those who aren’t willing to settle for the incremental advances traditionally held out by liberal Democrats as their only option — see Sanders’s presidential candidacy as uniquely compelling.

The rise of Beto O’Rourke poses an obvious threat. The Texas congressman has replicated aspects of Sanders’s appeal — his positivity and refusal to accept PAC money — while exceeding it in some ways. Sanders is charismatic in an unconventional way, the slovenly and cranky but somewhat lovable old uncle, while O’Rourke projects a classic handsome, toothy, Kennedy-esque charm that reliably makes Democrats swoon.

“What I liked most about his race was that it didn’t feel constantly poll-tested,” Obama said. “It felt as if he based his statements and his positions on what he believed.”

What Obama is describing here is O’Rourke’s ability to speak naturally and with apparent conviction — one never knows if a politician is expressing genuine conviction or just performing it well — without taking hard-left policy stances. O’Rourke’s short career has allowed him to avoid being pinned down on every item in the party platform. He generally occupies the center of the Democratic Party, and often expresses broad sympathy for left-wing policy goals while suggesting he favors a more pragmatic alternative.
I'm not a socialist but I feel some of the same concern over O'Rourke--that he is a vehicle for the Democratic Party pro-corporate establishment that will sweep people up on his charisma and seeming authenticity and be able to be all things to all people (rather like Obama who people saw as a peace candidate even while he advocated intensifying the war in Afghanistan as a candidate).

What concerns me is that O'Rourke may be a stealth candidate for the status quo even while seeming to be all about change because he is the anti-Trump.

We cannot afford a candidate who is going to mollify the corporate elite, which is what the Dem establishment is used to doing, because that means mollifying fossil fuel companies, it means talking high mindedly about the problem of climate change while watering down policy to meaninglessness in this era when only treating climate change as an immediate emergency that requires an end to the use of greenhouse gases is adequate.

I'm highly suspicious of O'Rourke and I think the "Sanderistas" are well worth listening to on this, even if I differ ideologically from them.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,905
Ratings
2,615
This is the conventional wisdom to a T but I think its flawed. Democrats won WI, MI, and PA races in 2018 so the notion that there aren't enough liberal Dem voters in those states anymore isn't true. Those states as well as other mid-Western states like Minnesota and Illinois are all Democratic-leaning states.

There is no path for a Trump win in 2020 except voter suppression and the use of social media campaigns to disrupt the Democrats. Are those going to work as they did in 2016? Perhaps but its going to take more and more contorted and potentially illegal efforts for the Republican Party as now constituted to win elections. They nearly lost Georgia and Texas this last time out.

Are Republicans all stupid Trumpian bigots and amoral power-mad people like Mitch McConnell? I actually don't think so. I think a lot of Republicans wish things were different but there's no leadership taking them in a different direction.

Republicans cannot win with older white people. They are going to have to face that reckoning sooner or later. And younger politicians are going to see a path to power in the party by challenging the dying leadership.
The republicans were The open borders and amnesty party! Reagan signed biggest amnesty ever. They were because it was great for businesses getting cheap labor. Unfortunately their poor and lower middle class White supporters began blaming all the immigrants for their problems! Now you have McConnell and cornyn and almost all the republican leaders in Congress being open borders extremists because it’s pro business while the president is stridently against illegals and open borders.
 
Last edited:

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,434
Ratings
28,285
Well, I'm not one to let purity be the enemy of good. That worked out soo well last time.
Not sure what you are referring to, but I think its way too early in this race to be talking about "purity." That becomes an issue when there is a front runner, or a nominee that people then refuse to support because they don't think that candidate has a perfect record or agenda. At this point in a campaign when no one has even announced yet, it makes sense for people to push for a candidate who will be strongest on the issues they care about. I don't think that is "purity."

Its also interesting that no one ever calls centrists for "purity" no matter how much they refuse to support candidates because they are too far left.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 5, Guests: 3)

Top