Discussion: Avishai: It's Not Too Early For The Next Democratic Ticket

Sigh… I agree with much of this, and disagree with some. And I basically worship both Brown and Warren. But geez, we’re talking presidential politics now? When most Dems and progressive activists seem finally, finally to be internalizing the reality that we need desperately to focus more on the federal, state and local elections that take place in non-presidential years? Sigh…

Of course we need a national message; but there are examples other than Israel’s that can be equally instructive. In Italy, for example, the opposition finally realized that the way to beat Berlusconi wasn’t through his character and personal behavior, but simply on his policies. We’ll have plenty to work with there; we do already. (The fact that he’s so unpopular starting out will give an opening on the ethical morass as well, but IMO only as it directly relates to governing.)

A more direct example – one that’s been in front of our noses for decades but inexplicably ignored by most Dems and progressives – is that of modern “movement conservatism,” the folks who now run the Republican party. After Goldwater lost, they didn’t immediately start looking for their next presidential candidate; they realized they needed a way to turn a critical mass of Americans against what was then basically a national consensus about government post-FDR. So they started building up, on the one hand, the network of “think tanks” tasked with crafting serious-sounding “analyses” designed to sell their unpopular vision and agenda, and on the other, an army of grassroots supporters, through churches and other conservative-leaning organizations, whom they proceeded to mobilize for action against “liberals,” with the media at the top of the liberal list. They used mailing lists not only to exhort their followers to write angry letters and make angry calls to representatives and newsrooms, but to vote in every election for every office, and even to run for office at every level of government, starting with school boards.

By the time conservatives got behind Reagan, it wasn’t because he was the leader showing them the way out of the wilderness; it was because he was the guy they chose to put at the top of an already solid political edifice. They’ve never stopped using that playbook; and I’ve never understood why the left hasn’t followed their example. Especially when we don’t even have to invent bs cover for our policies, since they already command majority support.

But now, finally, Dems seem to be taking the lesson: both major candidates for DNC chair emphasize the importance of year-round involvement in every district in the country, and activists everywhere are learning from the tea partiers (thanks in great part to the Dem ex-staffers behind the “Indivisible” instruction manual) and focusing their efforts locally, including most prominently on their reps’ and senators’ local offices. Hallelujah, finally.

So now you want to yank the conversation back to the presidential level, on which Dems have for so long focused obsessively as the party has been hollowed out at every level below the presidency? Please. Just. Stop.

[Eek, a little long…]

6 Likes

It’s a nice though, Bernard. Anyone who voted for Sanders should be happy to support Warren. But I am hearing that… Caroline Kennedy has declared herself worthy?

2 Likes

That’s the kind of purity pony bullshit that keeps Democrats out of office. I’m not saying he should run for President, but one vote on a single issue, and you decree him disqualified?

13 Likes

Yes it is!!

Some interesting thoughts here, but not going to happen. It was Will Rogers, an Oklahoman, who noted more than 80 years ago, “I belong to no organized political part. I am a Democrat.” Still true. And that’s actually a strength of the Democratic Party; indeed, the leadership that Avishai criticizes is one of the problems Democrats have–too much of it.

On a less cosmic level, Elizabeth Warren is wonderful, but she’s identified with Massachusetts, not Oklahoma. And I don’t know that Sherrod Brown travels that well.

Yes, Democrats need to answer Trump, but they need to work out what that is. Not even the smartest of us know what that is right now. And there’s something to be said for letting Der Donald get knocked around by events for a while before voters have to compare him with a particular opponent.

6 Likes

You’re right, it was one reason But the other reasons she lost were weighted towards her and not towards him.

Private email server
Benghazi
DWS emails
Bill Clinton’s philandering
Russian hacks into the DNC
Beltway Establishment

Whether some or all of these were BS, unfair, or overblown, they all had an effect on her numbers and Bernie wasn’t in a position to be tarnished by any of them. So yes, had he won the primary, he quite possibly would’ve done better to the miniscule degree that it would have required to win the general election. The one exception would’ve been the last one, but Bernie has always been seen as something of an outsider in that regard.

it was a stupid vote on his part. It shouldn’t be disqualifying in a vacuum, nor should some of the tough-law-and-order stuff that tarnished some of his cred. Other parts of his career have been critically important and definitely on the right side of history. The question will be what he does with the next few years.

Purity tests will not help us win, though we also need to not just brush things like this vote off. Shooting ourselves in the foot is one of our greatest talents.

1 Like

The proposed reasons why rustbelt voters rejected Hillary Clinton don’t ring true to me.

Wall Street (New York real estate billionaire with oodles of wall streeters behind him)
the entertainment industry (star of a reality show for years)
an Iraq war supported “on a bipartisan basis” (and where my kids go and your kids don’t), (Trump not going to Vietnam, Trump’s kids not going to Iraq, and Trump sure isn’t Michael Moore)
journalists and political consultants who seem condescendingly manipulative (Read any National Enquirer headlines; or is manipulative okay, it’s just the condescending that is not?)
the corrupting influence of big money in politics (Yeah, big money bad, vote for Trump. ???)

Though I don’t buy the diagnosis, I think the cure is a good choice.

1 Like

I saw a story earlier that Warren is not that popular (at the moment) in Massachusetts As much as I like her, I do not believe she will make a great President.

A new WBUR poll in Massachusetts finds that only 44% of voters think Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) “deserves reelection” while 46% think voters ought to “give someone else a chance.”

“Warren’s numbers contrast sharply with those of Gov. Charlie Baker ®. His favorability rating is 59% — 8 points better than Warren. But what’s more striking is that only 29% of poll respondents think someone else should get a chance at the governor’s office.”

Said pollster Steve Koczela: “No one’s going to look at a 44 percent reelect number and think that that’s a good number. No one’s going to look at it being close to even between ‘reelect’ and ‘give someone else a chance’ and think that that’s reassuring.”

5 Likes

I don’t understand why this opinion piece is in the news section.

1 Like

Dang it, ya beat me to it.

Thanks.

think nothing of it

I don’t see how locking up the nomination 2 years out is productive. An open primary with several good candidates would have produced a better result then what we got last time around. There are many issues a future candidate can use in the next 3 years to prepare for 2020. There’s no need to announce one’s candidacy to fight against ACA repeal. protect Medicare, the EPA, etc etc. Or to carve out a sane position on pick your foreign policy crisis to come.

The Democrat that builds a movement to defeat any of these threats will be a potent force in 2020. Talking about 2020 now is pure distraction.

2 Likes

he might have won (and i think it’s more than “might”) if the primary hadn’t been thoroughly corrupt. that’s the fucking point.

Maybe it’s too early. But an active presidential campaign might excite more people to show up for the midterms, and victory there is vital to neutralizing the poison in our national system.

So what do you think the forces were that caused the “never Hillary” faction to be as strong as it was? Wasn’t it forces within Sanders campaign and then right wingers capitalizing on his attack? Do you see that there is something untoward about Sanders alienating a big chunk of people within the dem coalition who would have been expected to support clinton and then claiming he had to be nominated since he is the only one to bring them back? The reality is that most clinton supporters probably would have supported Sanders (including me) because they were more concerned about real world outcomes than were the voters that Sanders alienated. Although there was the possibility of a Bloomberg run, and there is no way to know what russia would have done to Sanders (and I’m sure Assange wouldn’t have played along since he didn’t hate Sanders). Of course there is a possibility the FBI had stuff on Sanders that those new york agents would have leaked…Do you see how incredibly hard it is to make any kind of prediction about what would have happened?

3 Likes

Except that it wasn’t.

1 Like

I sure hope Democrats get over their obsession with anti-TPP nitwits before the next election. With Sanders and Warren paving the way, Trump lessened the US today by backing out of that trade deal. Now China will step in and fill the void.

2 Likes

One thing that puzzles me. Many in the Sanders’ wing who were quite concerned because it seemed that dems (especially superdelegates) had already annointed their candidate before the primaries are now seeking to annoint candidates before the primaries. Seems hypocritical to me. And premature. We’ve got time to let leaders emerge here. We’ve got time to see who voters within the party/coalition respond to. Let’s take it.

3 Likes

No, that claim was conjectural and not supported by facts. People fairly considering his vote would not reach this conclusion. I definitely suspected that the sh*tstorm over the vote, which singled out Booker, was intended to try to hobble him as a competitor for the dem nomination. I hate the idea that people within the party are working on eliminating competitors for leadership rather than working together to address really large challenges.

The “received wisdom” about what happened is not actually what happened.

1 Like