Obama understood how to work with Congress, even one that did everything it could to refuse to work with him; he won just enough of them over to pass the Affordable Care Act, the most important new social legislation since the Johnson Administration, fully 45 years earlier. That’s a long time.
It’s pure Trumpism to pretend that a president can shove policies down the throat of the opposition party or disregard the views of duly elected members of our national legislature from an opposing point of view.
Criticizing the most popular Democrat on the planet and in our country as if he is THE EXAMPLE of what not to do isn’t just bad politics, it implies a hostility to compromise and a kind of policy puritanism that is a little scary at this particular moment, since we cannot afford to lose this time.
I’m still undecided, but these debates are pushing me in an unexpected direction. I’m sure of one thing. If the opposition splits, our country will become unrecognizable very quickly, much more quickly than we can imagine.
For those at immediate risk, and for those next on the charlatan’s list of the politically expendable, this nominating process must not be a debating society seeking policy perfection.
No. Already, for people like trans people, immigrants with no documentation, and people of color, this is an existential emergency. And with what is at stake for these groups as well as LGBTQIA+ people and the poor, the utter failure to communicate an appealing message to the entire country we just witnessed the other night was just not acceptable.
This is not just another election (if it is even run properly this time). This is an election where some of us are in actual danger.
Such people do not have the luxury of nominating candidates who will be effortlessly painted as frightening by Trump. This year, candidates not familiar to the American people, or who disrespect Obama, are far too risky to nominate.
Obama is the most popular Democrat in existence, and the only Democrat to win over 50% of American voters twice in a row since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We abandon Obama’s legacy at our peril, but in doing so, we will especially imperil the vulnerable.
This is a good reminder that the Democratic party is supposed to be about protecting the vulnerable, first and foremost. And in order to protect the vulnerable, it is our responsibility to win.
Who on that stage is abandoning Obama’s legacy? That’s another Republican talking point now picked up by CNN and the New York Times. We should not be repeating it. Suggesting that the next Democratic President move forward is not implying that the last President was bad.
The progressives and the moderates both want to move forward from the legacy that was built by President Obama. The moderates want to move more slowly, but even John Delaney is to then Sen. Obama’s left on the public option. Times have changed and the challenges are new, and they require different and new ideas to meet them.
Even Barack Obama said Medicare for All is a better proposal than the ACA and the best step in the evolution of public health care. We recognize ACA was all we were going to get with Lieberman as the 60th vote. Now it’s a different story.
Who is doing this? Where are the quotes saying that anyone is proposing this? I think a lot of progressives are recognizing that we are dealing with a bad faith GOP that will cheat and lie its way to power. They are the ones incapable of compromise, not anyone on that stage. Your issue is with Susan Collins, not with Elizabeth Warren. There are zero Republicans in Congress willing to vote for a Democratic proposal . It is reality based to say so. It is fantastical to deny that reality, even if we pine for the good old days of centrists in both parties meeting in the middle. They are long gone.
Wake up Terry, as Pete Buttigieg said, any Democrat will be painted as socialist and out of touch and frightening by Trump. As Elizabeth Warren said, if we are too scared to fight for our values what’s the point of even running for President and holding an election?
Again who are you talking about? Most Democratic primary voters are aware of who the candidates are. Most general election voters will be able to contrast our nominee with the dumpster figure of Donald Trump.
Who is too risky to nominate and who is bashing Barack Obama? Who pray tell is the risk free option?
I am tired of these implicit attacks against Sanders and Warren. If you think they are too risky to win then let’s have that debate. I honestly don’t think the Delaneys and Bennets of the world will inspire the kind of the turnout we need to beat Donald Trump. Joe Biden looks tired and old on that stage and if he can’t handle the second tier competition now he won’t be able to handle Donald Trump in November 2020.
I’m persuadable. I have strong electability doubts regarding Elizabeth Warren. I know a lot of friends and family who are Democrats who dislike her. Yet they all feel Biden is too tired now, and they are open to alternatives.
Who do you suggest? That’s a far more interesting and constructive conversation to be had.
Who do you think can’t win on that stage Fred?
Heh, that’s an easy one, James.
The following candidates can’t win (in alphabetical order):
– Michael Bennet
– Bill de Blasio
– Steve Bullock
– Pete Buttigieg
– Julián Castro
– John Delany
– Tulsi Gabbard
– Kirsten Gillibrand
– Kamala Harris
– Jay Inslee
– John Hickenlooper
– Amy Klobuchar
– Beto O’Rourke
– Tim Ryan
– Marianne Williamson
– Andrew Yang
None of these has a prayer of winning the primary, never mind the general.
Each may or may not have interesting things to say. Each may or may not provide a useful foil for the eventual nominee. Each may or may not keep important issues in the discussion. My own opinion is that it would be better for Democrats and better for America if all sixteen dropped out, so that we all spend our collective energy vetting actual viable candidates.
None of these sixteen will win.
Buttigieg has the most money right now, no way he should be on that list. Also your anti-Harris bias is showing again, she has already qualified for the third debate and is fourth or fifth in most polls. I think being reality based recognizes they are not like the others on the list.
Otherwise I am in 100% agreement. Those folks should drop out. I think a debate with 3-5 candidates will be more substantive and less likely to descend into theatrics and name calling.
I don’t understand why we should be pressuring anybody out of the race before the vast majority are paying attention or a single vote has been cast.
@Kamala Harris:
Kamala Harris displayed negativity again this week. I absolutely do oppose her (although in my view my opinion is based on her conduct in the debates, not “bias”).
I’ll happily wager a dinner with each you (Christopher and James) if that she will not win the 2020 nomination — never mind the general.
So far as I know, this is the first friendly wager of the 2020 campaign here at BMG.
I’m game.
She’s not either my top choice (Biden) or top bet (Warren) for who wins the nomination, but she certainly has one of the better chances, particularly with her own California so early. If she were to be our nominee I absolutely think she can beat Trump as she is doing one of the better jobs among our candidates prosecuting the case against him. Personally I think she would make a great AG in the next Dem administration.
Wholeheartedly agree on both points Christopher.
Warren is really your top bet? Interested to hear why. I feel like we’re inverted there.
As I watch this race unfold I see Biden running at best a so-so campaign. At both debates it felt to me like he was only half there and he seems to have much less presence on the campaign trail overall (fewer appearances than I would expect in NH, for example). I don’t think he has done a town hall on cable and in some ways it seems to me he peaked with his announcement video.
Warren, OTOH really does seem to “have a plan for that” on a whole host of things and exudes energy and spirit. She strikes me as being more where the modern Democratic voters are on the spectrum while coming across as more grounded than Bernie Sanders. Her poll numbers are also moving in the right direction. It has been and continues to be my prediction that the NH primary will sort out who of Sanders and Warren gets to continue forward. For now I’ll keep my preference with Biden based on experience, but I don’t have my heart absolutely set on his having a chance to be President as I was with Hillary Clinton. I think Warren may have the best chance of bringing the wings of the party together as well.
Good answer. I do worry about her general election prospects, although if this weekend wasn’t an indicator to middle of the road voters that this emergency might require them to hold their nose for a change, I don’t know what will do it.
I also get where Terry is coming from about disunity, I just think Biden is not the boldest or ablest president on that stage and there is still plenty of time to consider alternatives to him. I want to be crystal clear I will work my tail off for any Democrat to defeat this President.
@ great AG:
I agree that Ms. Harris is an excellent choice for AG in a Democratic administration.
I wouldn’t take that wager for any candidate. I think you have to favor the field over any single candidate right now. But I agree you are way too dismissive of Harris. Her base is less likely to migrate than anyone else’s.
I would move at least Buttigieg, Castro, and Harris to the can win column.
“Vote for Blue, No Matter Who.”
But the winnowing process for next month’s debate has already begun. So far, only 8 qualify.
The next debate qualifying 8 thus far : Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Harris, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Sanders, Warren.
My question for Terry is who among those 8 does he have concerns about and let’s talk about why.
Two terms of Obama and two terms of Clinton left fertile ground for a White Nationalist to run as a populist. Years of stagnant wages, closing of factories, widening of wealth disparity, a social depression that led to the opioid crisis….and suddenly states like Michigan are in play.
Sure, Russians and Misogyny, and Racists, and Bigots…..but no one play determines the end of a football game, not even a rigged call by the refs.
The inability of these past presidents to lift the working class and strike fear into the ownership class made Trump even possible in the first place. It allowed him entry into the game.
While Clinton and Obama had legacies to be proud ignoring their faults will only prove to supply more fertile ground for the next Trump, who knows, Bush had a Jr. win….Trump has Trump Jr.
It is unwise to mention them by name, but it is also unwise to tell the American people that we’re not going to make any changes, for fear of embarrassing the legacy of past Democratic Presidents.
To see how this is done, just watch Elizabeth Warren,
This is a wise point John.
Yep. Trump is prospering the same reason that Brexit happened, that the sovereigntists are doing well in Catalonia, and that Belgium and Spain have failed for months to form a post-election government. The middle class no longer trusts the status quo, and is flailing about electorally for anything that promises to change it enough.
If this fails, people start considering the bullet over the ballot.
Sadly we are already seeing that in America.