I think it’s probably good news that virtually no one watched the last Democratic presidential debate. I actually did watch it, but all it did was make me dislike each and every candidate a little more than I had before and raise my anxiety that none of them has a snowball’s chance in hell of preventing Trump’s reelection.
I don’t know how the Democratic Party can possibly be so hopeless and out of touch that they can have more than two dozen people run for president and not find anyone who has a good strategy for winning.
The assumption has to be at this point that the economy will still be strong next November, with record-low unemployment and a strong stock market. The Democrats are running as if we’re in the midst of the Great Recession and the people are clamoring for risky and disruptive revamps of the health care industry. Rather than focusing on the people and communities that are still losing in the current economy, they’re getting diverted into toxic social policy discussions that will kill them in the exact Rust Belt communities where they need to improve on their 2016 performance.
Virtually everything they are saying, regardless of candidate, seems almost perfectly calibrated to help Trump convince white working class America to give him close to 100 percent of their vote. At the same time, much of their rhetoric and a lot of their policies are going to sell about as well in the suburbs as lead balloons.
They seem to think they can win the election by losing support in their strong areas while solidifying Trump’s support in his strongholds, and their theory for why this will work involves little more than pixie dust.
So, probably the best strategy is to hold all debates on Friday nights or during the Super Bowl.
Why don’t they forget policy and focus on character? Geez. We all want a little peace and quiet for the next 4 years.
At this point in the process the candidates need the votes of dem partisans and their performances reflect that. The whole country has become more polarized than ever, so it’s natural for some of the candidates to veer left in the primaries. Here’s hoping that whoever wins the nomination can effectively shift their rhetoric to a more inclusive message in the general election. (Sanders won’t do that, by the way. His message hasn’t varied since 1980).
Democrats never seem to realize that when voters — particularly Republican voters — say they want candidates to “focus on the issues” rather than insulting each other, they don’t actually mean it.
I skipped the debates too but not for your reasons exactly. I think the debates are a dog and pony show that are not designed to inform the voters. I don’t share your pessimism about the primary. I support Sanders and believe in what he is trying to change. If he doesn’t end up being the nominee, I’ll put my energy into local races with people of a similar mindset about changing the institutions that oppress and alienate us from each other.
I’ve always respected your knowledge about the realities of our political system. The insights you offer are invaluable.
But I don’t choose to live my political life based purely on those realities. Nothing great is ever going to be accomplished without challenging the status quo – which is enormously unjust. What may seem like the reality we must be constrained by now, can, in the right circumstances and/or right combination of leaders / citizenry-engaged, lead to consequences not yet imagined. I’m not saying Sanders will be a part of that with any certainty but if we don’t try for the aspirational and if we don’t stand strongly for what is good and just, we’ll never know.
Reading this post of your was really kind of a downer. There is a lot more magic in the world and a lot more possibility than you seem to let on that you believe in.
If history (and memory) matter…most folks really aren’t paying any attention to any of this and won’t until actual votes are cast. Maybe I am too sanguine about the remaining candidates. I figure most of them would do fine in the general election. Unknowns – how much foreign interference will play a role, the state of the economy (a recession this coming year is far from impossible), the fallout from the recent impeachment, etc. 45 is louder and angrier than in 2016, but seems less sharp than he once was. And he has a record of sorts to run on. Maybe the “I suck but you have no choice but to vote for me” will play w/some, but I wouldn’t be so sure that’s a winning message. I’m not one to throw in the towel this early into the process. Be vigilant? Hell yeah. Have a game plan for getting souls to the polls? Hell yeah. Assume this has the potential to be a close race regardless of nominee? Hell yeah. Plan accordingly, keep calm, and do the work. All any of us can do.
Ok, Boomer🙄
‘Medicare For All’ May Not Be The Political Suicide Mission Moderates Say It Is
Great economy:
Most Americans have little to no savings, according to GOBankingRates’ 2019 savings survey
It has been like that for a long time. I read somewhere that the Great Recession was very nearly like the Great Depression in that both represented a collapse of credit. The difference was the quick response and quick reaction and deficit spending. It takes about ten years to recover from that sort of thing and many are still not back to where we should be. Income inequality has been with us for a very long time, decades even. Obama comes in for some of the blame since as soon as things improved he was looking for grand bargains and ways to cut spending and the deficit. He succeeded only in increasing the national debt and enabling the conservatives, although the debt doesn’t bother me at all.
I agree. It’s the economy stupid. And at the moment Trump owns the good times and he will be acquitted nearly for certain. So long as the economy stays this way it likely doesn’t make a hill of beans difference who you run against him. So get ready for four more years and, he will be on a holy tear, count on it. there is always the chance one of these like Warren or Klobuchar will catch on. ( I think most of the others will get chewed up pretty bad. ) Warren though has damaged herself maybe mortally with backing off M4A. You simply can’t decide to walk away from a big issue like that. Harris did and that ended her.
It’s actually not “the economy, stupid”. It’s at the lowest concern on people’s minds. Look at Gallup. Further, the economy isn’t why people are voting (for good and ill)
Unemployment is at the lowest in decades. The stock market sets new records nearly every week and inflation is low. That is a good economy. Let the market crash, inflation go up along with unemployment and it’s the economy stupid. Why should anyone vote for some liberal in that scenario. Who was the last liberal that helped you? People vote their pocketbooks. Most people don’t pay attention to unemployment or the financial markets. See your chart. But get in trouble and everyone will notice.
Warren and a few others had or have policies to help alleviate inequality and the health care and education crisis. But they are now scared shitless about the “ pay fors” . I have said here many times I think the way around Trump and the economy is to offer people something like a better life.
What’s that chart say 13% monitor the economy? What do you make of it? When unemployment goes up everyone will notice.
Michael Moore says on Rolling Stones that if the election were held today the democratic candidate would win the popular vote by more that three million votes but Trump would still win the same way and with more white votes. Sounds about right.
I hope they weren’t talking about reparations and decriminalizing border crossings again. Tell me they didn’t!
Despite being a political junkie I didn’t watch one second of the debate. Primarily because I was simply burnt out from watching all day coverage of the impeachment the day before. However, I asked my mom what she thought. She’s a typical mainstream Democrat, hates Trump and really wants him out of office. In previous debates she said she found them boring and while she likes Bernie Sanders and Mayor Pete, really wasn’t that crazy about the way the rest of them came off. However, this debate she said she found really interesting, very compelling, and came away liking all of them substantially more than she had previously, The exact opposite take that Martin had. I’m not saying one is right and what is wrong, I’m simply saying different people see it different ways.
I tuned in to Joe Scarborough the morning after. I remember during the first debate he pretty much was screaming the Democrats are trying to lose the next election because of how they were taking Ultra Progressive positions on things like making illegally crossing the border not a crime any longer. However, after this debate he said he thought they all came across really well was happy that a lot of moderate positions were coming to the Forefront and said he thought voters probably liked what they saw. Again the exact opposite of the take Martin had. Not saying who’s right or who’s wrong just that it seems like a lot of people didn’t quite see it the way Martin did.
As far as the next election goes, while I’m far from confident, I really don’t understand the basic Chicken Little Tone of Martin’s above post. The president’s approval rating rarely gets to 45% and most of the time is stuck in the low 40s. Front runner Joe Biden leads Trump in almost all polls and I believe the last poll had him up by around 8 points. And the president himself was just impeached with the latest poll showing the public supports it by a 52-47 margin. And with all that being the current state of things Martin has pretty much declared that the next election is lost based upon a debate in November almost a full year before the next election?
Nothing is certain, I am certainly not confident, but to take in where we are right now and come to the conclusion that the next election is lost for the Democrats is a pretty strange take on things.
“Rather than focusing on the people and communities that are still losing in the current economy, they’re getting diverted into toxic social policy discussions that will kill them in the exact Rust Belt communities where they need to improve on their 2016 performance.”
I think most of what you say is true but in the above quote Martin puts his finger on the problem. I take it to mean, as others have written, that we still have not recovered from the last recession. Many people and communities were hurt by it and the pain is still there. Trump takes the credit for improving employment but low wages and income inequality are a hangover from years ago. We need to recognize the problem of loss and income inequality. Part of that is what fuels Warrens campaign for awhile anyway.
Man you have been very pessimistic lately. Nothing wrong with a healthy dose of pessimism. But a lot of what frustrates you, I think, seems to be Liberals and Democrats debating things that make them Liberals and Democrats. Liberals actually do have things that we believe in. Debating them has value. Standing on them has value. It’s up to us to make the case for those values.
Don’t let trump surrender fatigue eat you up. Him winning is not guaranteed. His loss is not guaranteed either. But I think it’s important to be clear on where a candidate stands. When it gets down to a debate between trump and the Dem, our unwavering clarity will help. And most of all, plain-speak will help. That’s one of his most powerful tools I think.
When it comes to political talk, I stick to the KISS principle – keep it simple, stupid. Policy can be boiled down to basic talking points that can be stated repeatedly, and at a level any 9 year old can understand. That’a a good part of how 45 gets tossed into the dust bin of history.