Change Versus Experience

[Progressive2020]

Some have pointed out that Joe Biden has the experience needed to be President, and point out his electability. Others have noted that people who vote in Presidential elections tend to want Change versus Experience.

The electorate tends to want something/someone that is new and different over what is tried and true. People want change, and change is what motivates people to vote. This is what Obama got elected on: Hope and Change.

I like Joe Biden, but he is the epitome of an establishment candidate. I don't think that he is new in a way that will excite people beyond dedicated Democrats. He will get the vote of the Democratic base, but can he expand upon that and excite others? I don't know.

Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren, are all iconoclastic. Mayor Pete has outside of Washington creds. Bernie has been in Washington for a very long time, but he is the opposite of an establishment candidate. His whole career has been swimming against the tide. There is a reason that Sanders excites so many Millennials. He is progressive, exciting, and different from insider politicians. Warren is wonkish but comes off as an outsider progressive.

So: voters tend to vote for new and different over old and experienced. Joe Biden has certainly paid his dues, but I do not think he will really energize the electorate beyond the Democratic establishment. Your opinion may vary. I am open to discussion.

[LakeArenal]

1. Well so far DU and just about every poll says differently.

I guess I’ll stick with Joe and his experience as well.

[marylandblue]

5. Most of the candidates running are outsiders of one sort or another.

Their total vote exceeds Biden's.

[Thekaspervote]

51. That means nothing. As candidates drop out logically those number will chNge

[marylandblue]

93. But right now they are not going for Biden. He's still under 50 per cent, so

his lead is not insurmountable or even all that large. He's going to need to make a positive case for himself.

[treestar]

86. Outsiders ?

Most are senators. Bernie has been one for ages.

[marylandblue]

92. First of all, I said "most." Second, Sanders was always on his, out of step with others

and still is. Buttigieg is a Mayor from flyover country. Two years ago O'Rourke was an unknown Congressman running an upstart senate campaign. Warren, is a far leftist who wants to take on Wall Street and Joe Biden. Harris is a black woman who has been in Washington for all of two years. Three other Senators who served more than one term and a former cabinet Secretary are all polling 1-2%.

[Progressive2020]

6. That Is Part Of My Point

Joe Biden leads heavily amongst dedicated Democrats. We here in DU are inside the bubble. Of course someone like Joe is popular here. The question is whether this extends outside of Democratic strongholds.

My point was based on another persons observation that establishment candidates tend to lose Presidential elections, whereas new and change focused candidates tend to win. Look at Obama versus Hillary- change beat out experience.

This is somewhat counter-intuitive. You would expect experience to win over newness, but if you look back at history, the newer change agents tend to win over those who are more established and experienced.

[BannonsLiver]

82. He's leading outside the bubble too

[treestar]

102. This is not a normal situation though

what tends to happen is not happening. The incumbent tends to be favored but this is the most disapproved of president in modern history. He's wrecking everything up. The "Establishment" is reassuring to average people in this chaos.

[Butterflylady]

107. Yes 2016 the election

Went to someone " newer " and we're all seeing how that's working out! Be careful of what you're wishing for.

[Demsrule86]

2. No Bernie in the primary...general yes. Given the new polls, you are in the minority.

[Gothmog]

3. To me, electability is what matters and so the choice is between Woke or Win

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Kurt V.]

8. electability means zero. its unknowable and dynamic. its a losing stance.

[Gothmog]

10. We can not afford four more years of trump

trump can easily win in 2020 if we nominate a weak candidate We have to defeat trump. There is a very good chance that trump will win if we pick a weak or unsafe choice. There are posters who believe that we can nominate the most liberal/socialist nominee as possible and that candidate will easily win because everyone hates trump. It is their position that this is a historic opportunity to nominate someone would otherwise not be electable.

From Larry Sabato https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-economy-got-nixon-reagan-and-bush-reelected-it-could-do-it-for-trump-too/2019/04/23/b8920d34-65e6-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html?utm_term=.a35b315730d2

Ultimately, Trump may turn out to be at the mercy of conventional factors. In 2016, academic predictive models based on fundamentals such as the state of the economy suggested that Trump, or any other Republican candidate, was in position to win the election or come very close. This time, such models (once they become operative next year) could make Trump the early favorite despite his poor approval ratings.

Credit the powers of incumbency and a strong economy, the state of which may matter more to Trump’s odds than nearly anything else. Incumbency and the economy, among other matters, ended up being more than enough for Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Despite Trump’s unprecedented outlandishness, that same combination might work for him, too.

Most POTUS are re-elected if the economy is good. Here is a scary study that shows this

Link to tweet

There are good reasons to doubt this study

Link to tweet

I do not believe that trump is assured of winning. If we want to win, Democrats need to nominate a strong nominee who is NOT too far out of the mainstream

[musicman65]

11. Agreed

[Kurt V.]

12. the formula is pretty simple. get behind your chosen candidate bc they excite you. Not bc of

their ability to get elected. next thing you know a lot of ppl are excited by that candidate. win.

[marylandblue]

20. The issue is the definition of "weak."

Biden supporters act as if it is obvious who is a weak candidate, but it is not obvious at all.

[Apple Fritter]

70. OOOOH, I like this.

It's not obvious! Honestly because I am going into different realms of the internet that necessarily don't have anything to do with politics and I find different appeals for candidates by masses while also completely scuffing at other candidates. There always seems to be someone in the news and they are the new up-in-coming reveal-good or bad. It's like every 3 days now.Warren, then Biden, then Bernie, ohp back to Bernie, then Beto....it's maddening.

[BlueStater]

47. So you don't care about his policies or anything.

Just your perception of his supposed ability to defeat that fat disgusting prick?

That's not remotely inspiring and it's not going to motivate people to vote. If you think Biden can just coast by on Trump hatred alone, you're completely wrong. It didn't work for John Kerry when he ran against another godawful president and it won't work for Biden.

[Cha]

49. I can't speak for him, but, of course,

I care about Biden's policies, his message of Unity, and that he took America's Heart and Soul straight to trump.

[BlueStater]

53. Let me know when he offers something other than how much better he is than Trump.

Because arguing that he's better than the human being equivalent of rat droppings is not doing much for me.

[Cha]

54. No.. I'm not saying anything

more to you.. all you have are insults.

[BlueStater]

71. I constantly ask his supporters whether he stands for anything other than being better than Trump

and I get nothing. You'll just have to be mad, I guess. I can't help it if you think me wanting substance in my presidential candidates is insulting.

Where's the Beef? to quote Walter Mondale quoting an old Wendy's commercial.

[TCJ70]

87. I had a whole thread asking what his appeal is and got one policy related response...

...many about positive personality traits, and the rest of the responses were negative blasting me for even asking the question.

[namahage]

91. Adopt the playbook of Walter Mondale.

That sure worked REAL well.

What next? "I'm going to raise your taxes."?

[BlueStater]

108. So you're arguing that a lack of substance is a good thing, apparently.

Wow, this board.

Also, I doubt Gary Hart would have fared any better in '84 than Mondale did.

[treestar]

105. better than Dotard is all you need at this point

There are a lot who wished they got out and voted for Hillary in spite of their lack of "inspiration" at this point. Someone must have learned a lesson from this disastrous experience.

[Gothmog]

73. I live in the real world

We need to win. Biden is very acceptable on his policies to me. I will support the nominee of the party. I am happy to support Joe Biden.

[BlueStater]

74. How condescending.

I live in the real world too and I don't buy the bullshit narrative that only Biden can win.

[Gothmog]

79. If the economy remains strong, trump can win in 2020 if we nominate a weak candidate

We have to defeat trump. There is a very good chance that trump will win if we pick a weak or unsafe choice. There are posters who believe that we can nominate the most liberal/socialist nominee as possible and that candidate will easily win because everyone hates trump. It is their position that this is a historic opportunity to nominate someone would otherwise not be electable.

From Larry Sabato https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-economy-got-nixon-reagan-and-bush-reelected-it-could-do-it-for-trump-too/2019/04/23/b8920d34-65e6-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html?utm_term=.a35b315730d2

Ultimately, Trump may turn out to be at the mercy of conventional factors. In 2016, academic predictive models based on fundamentals such as the state of the economy suggested that Trump, or any other Republican candidate, was in position to win the election or come very close. This time, such models (once they become operative next year) could make Trump the early favorite despite his poor approval ratings.

Credit the powers of incumbency and a strong economy, the state of which may matter more to Trump’s odds than nearly anything else. Incumbency and the economy, among other matters, ended up being more than enough for Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Despite Trump’s unprecedented outlandishness, that same combination might work for him, too.

Most POTUS are re-elected if the economy is good. Here is a scary study that shows this

Link to tweet

There are good reasons to doubt this study

Link to tweet

I do not believe that trump is assured of winning. If we want to win, Democrats need to nominate a strong nominee who is NOT too far out of the mainstream

[Progressive2020]

88. Strong Democrats

Logically, would the Democratic Nominee not be strong? I doubt a weak candidate will survive the Primary Process. How do you define "weak"? The strongest candidate will prove himself or herself in the Primary Process.

[treestar]

103. He could just about coast by

People are sick of the chaos. But it's not like he stands for nothing. You label someone "Establishment" and think no one will be inspired, but it is possible to be inspired by the concept of getting rid of the Destroyer and replacing him with someone who knows it well and can put it back together. This time we cannot afford these issues. We can lose our republic - there are still enough deplorables out there. And Dotard will distract from the issues every time. He's going to debate our candidate about policies? And the media is going to try to get him to?

[Cha]

32. I say Woke and WIN.. I do

Not exclude "woke" from Win regarding VP Biden.

Thanks, Goth

[JI7]

4. all Democrats will be about the same

[Kurt V.]

7. the candidate that generates the most enthusiasm, excitement, change call it what you want,

will win. biden doesn't strike me as that person. but I'm in hold mode until the debates

[Honeycombe8]

9. Depends on who you're running against.

If things have gone badly under your opponent, and he's establishment, hope and change is appealing. But if things have gone badly under your opponent, and he's "change," the public may want to go back to normality. Something comfortable, someone they know who is decent and trustworthy (for a politician).

I DO know that we shouldn't gear the candidate to appeal to the group whose numbers turn out the least for the election.

Obama had broad appeal. All ages, all races, both genders, voted for him. He was strongest among some groups. But as I recall, we all turned out for Obama, no matter our age.

If we find a candidate that appeals to the different age groups, that's a strong recommendation. It's the 40-55 age group that is the most reliable voting group, and it's a large group. So we want to be sure to include that group.

But I'm no political expert. As you can see by my logo, I'm still "undecided." I like several of the candidates. I think Biden is probably strongest against Trump, but I want to see how the debates go. Maybe someone unexpected will shine.

[marylandblue]

24. Obama excited people, he was charismatic. He gave good speeches.

Bill Clinton and Reagan were also charismatic. Bush II wasn't very charismatic, but he had non-charismatic opponents.

So charisma may be the most important factor.

Bear in mind that Trump has the dark charisma of a demagogue, and that as he the election approaches he will pull out all demagogic tricks.

[WeekiWater]

13. People think way to deeply into this.

There has to be an acceptable standard but people tend to vote on image. Once the primary is over it then becomes a massive GOTV effort. But if the image isn’t there then the votes necessary won’t materialize. If Gore could have given speeches like Obama there wouldn’t have been a W. If Kerry could have dumbed it down for the masses there would have been no W second term. If Clinton’s image hadn’t been damaged by trillions of dollars in negative spending there would be no Trump.

Image is everything. The image of Biden being the responsible and elder statesman is currently carrying the day for him.

[ancianita]

15. You're not wrong.

[marylandblue]

25. Clinton had image problems that were not just based on negative spending.

She had poor relations with the press and did not have the exciting personality of Obama or Bill. Also, they both responded better to negative information about them.

At the moment, Biden is not projecting the image of an elder statesman. He is projecting a combative image, someone who will go toe to toe with Trump. This may excite the base, but others may be neutral or put off.

[WeekiWater]

30. The money spent worked on Clinton.

Your reference about her relationship with the media is proof of that.

And I disagree with you about Biden. But that is one aspect of image I referenced in my earlier post.

[marylandblue]

34. Relationships with the press are something you cultivate behind the scenes.

Obama used to talk up the press off camera. Trump did the same. Also, Trump gave information in exchange for favorable coverage.

For a long time during the campaign, Clinton refused to give a press conference and also wasn't cultivated those off camera relationships. This made bad coverage worse.

I don't expect Biden to have trouble relating to the press. He seems to relate to most people pretty well.

[ancianita]

14. If people think this country's government needs stabilizing and reconstituting, Joe's their guy.

Let's see a Gallup poll on whether they think government is a mess or not.

I'm betting the majority of the poll sample do.

This isn't about your binary.

It's about experience that restores the democratic institutional scaffold upon which change can be solidly made.

Joe Biden is the only person with enough knowledge of how to do that.

All the change candidates will have much power and gain much more federal level governing range in a Biden administration.

The others can run again for change when his work to restore of domestic and international functionality is finished -- in one term -- my prediction.

[Progressive2020]

23. You May Be Right

I would like to see a Poll like that. Joe might be a good mix of experience AND change. He has been a Washington insider for decades (experience) but is closely associated with Obama (change). So maybe Joe can have it both ways: stabilizing the government after the Trump clusterfuck might well be the change that people are looking for. So, yes, maybe Joe.

[ancianita]

26. I absolutely believe we'll have it both ways. Joe's old, but he's never been backward

looking.

Thanks for your well stated consideration.

[marylandblue]

29. Sure they may see government as a mess.

But that doesn't mean they think we need an experienced hand to restore democratic institution. They may have different ideas of what the mess and what a fix looks like.

[ancianita]

31. Connect "fix" with change. Consider that I think change must not be for the sake of change.

That change must be well considered, constructive and well done.

Mostly well done. Or it doesn't last.

Thoughts?

[Thekaspervote]

56. Agree! Having worked in the medical profession all my life good solid change always came from

Those willing to work within the system. There’s theory and there’s practice. Your theory may be quite doable, but when you throw in the human element sometimes despite your best efforts it just doesn’t work. Slow and steady. Barack Obama always said this country and the inner workings were like a huge ocean going vessel it just doesn’t turn on a dime

[ancianita]

66. I agree with you and Obama.

[NYMinute]

16. Biden is offering truckloads of change

from the chaos of Trump.

That is the change people want. They want a steady and experienced hand to effect that change.

The polls show that.

[marylandblue]

27. Did the polls ask what people are looking for?

If they did, what was the list of options they were provided?

[ancianita]

33. There aren't any yet. And I think you know that. Gallup hasn't done a poll on the state of govt.

[marylandblue]

35. That's kind of my point. But I stated it as a question since I wasn't sure.

But if there aren't any polls asking the right questions it's hard to say what people are looking for. Even if they ask, sometimes people don't know what they want until they see it.

[ancianita]

36. Maybe polling about govt. will come later. But for now, we just have to tap into the ones we see.

If our decisions reflect priorities we think are best for the country at large, we're all heading along the best electoral road. But we do have to watch what others are saying.

I'm still interested in more of your thoughts on how change is preferable to experience.

[marylandblue]

43. There is a book called, "The Politics that Presidents Make."

It argues that there is a pattern in American in which certain Presidents are transformative. They reform politics in a new way and set the guiding assumptions for the next generation or two. They usually come about when the guiding assumption lose their force and no longer work for changing curcumstances.

Transformative Presidents have been Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan. We are still living under Reagan's conservative assumptions, but the assumptions are worn out. Tax cuts don't work, people want healthcare, wages have stagnated, and climate change is here.

So it's time for a new transformative President. Except for Jefferson, none of them were part of the Washington establishment. All of them had ideas that were significant departures from what had gone before.

Obama tried to be a transformative President, but the Reagan regime was still too strong. Trump is trying to keep Reaganism alive by taking it in a dark new direction. He might actually succeed by ending the Republic, hence transformative, but not in a good way.

To counter the danger of Trump, we need to recognize that he is the end stage of Reaganism, and look for what we want to be next. Looking backward for experience isn't going to work. Biden's experience is all under the old way of doing things, under old assumptions, but we need someone who makes new assumptions to create new politics. Running on the old assumptions won't work, Reaganism and it's Democratic accommodations are bankrupt and we all know it. People may still choose the darkness of Trumpism because we can't go back to the way it was.

I like Buttigieg because he is explicitly talking in these terms, which I think is why his most unlikely candidacy took off the way it did. But many of the other candidates bring new ideas too, so one of them could also be the leader for the new era.

[ancianita]

68. Interesting. Those transformative presidents began as candidates who tapped into change. I get it.

The thing is, we're not preserving or conserving anything by transforming. Trump isn't the end of Reaganism. He's transforming Reagan's conservatism into Koch libertarianism. Thus the transforming of two branches of government into arms of corporations, to serve the end of globalists.

Either rule of law prevails or rule of global markets prevail. They're not opposite, but a voter has to preserve the human rights of humans, and we know which one that is. When 2.5 of our 3 branches are "captured," as Sheldon Whitehouse says in his book of the same name, we can't afford a change person who, even if s/he did beat Trump, wouldn't stand a chance against those forces in our government as it is now -- on the ropes. Obama knows this.

The transformation you envision, as I have with Inslee, comes after government is restored. Obama knows that, too.

All things being equal (which they're not, we know), an ideal election would bring in a president with the vision and know-how to drain Washington's current cesspool. I really don't have confidence that all the great ideas of the top runners will be that know-how president. They're high on vision, low on know-how when compared to Biden.

But they'll get their chance. He's not one to waste brains, talent and skill. And one of them is sure to "evolve" him into going along with legalizing marijuana. He's actually been ahead of other candidates on their pet visions, so as president, he can run a very progressive legislative agenda, which will definitely be transformative.

Transformation goes both ways -- toward a better world for humans, or toward the capitalist vampire squid.

We got time to sort this out.

One thing I'm glad of is how DU gets ahead of the public's learning curve on what's important. IF they want to learn. Trumpers just wanna be right only by the metric of winning by beating down everyone else.

[marylandblue]

77. Part of the theory is at the end of era, the last president is a "disjunctive" President

who tries to adapt the dying regime by changing it. Usually it's a President from the same party as the founder, and turns out to be one-termer followed by a transformative President from the other party.

In Trump's case, he is preserving Reagan's libertarianism -- low taxes and deregulation, but adding in anti-free trade and anti-immigration policies. There is a struggle here. The Kochs want free trade and free immigration, it gives them cheap labor. But the base doesn't want those things, because they are anti-globalist.

Disjunctive Presidents often preside over chaotic times, as we are now. Carter was the last disjunctive President. The economy was bad, he had major foreign policy failures.


Transformation is not always for the better, and not always easy either. Jackson preserved the slavery system and held back economic development. Lincoln's election led to the Civil War, although we don't really blame him for that, because he had no easy options.

On the other hand, transformative Presidents win decisive victories. They break the logjams that stymied the previous administrations. As Lincoln resolved the issue of slavery that nobody could resolve before. FDR won a huge landslide, bringing large majorities in Congress with him, and broke the power of the conservative consensus that blocked progress in the 1920s.

In today's case, a decisive victory would mean we take back the Senate too. I think that's a key assumption. If we have the Senate, the President has a lot of ability to get things done. If we don't, no President could get anything through, we'll shuffle along a few more years, then probably somebody worse than Trump will take over and end us for good.

So I want a President with long, wide coattails. It's happened before, often right at the moment when the other party seems to hold all the cards.

[ancianita]

80. I appreciate this historical analysis. Most voters don't understand or think this, but feel it.

Their impulses may be corrupted by propaganda such that they forget founding assumptions of this country and we end up, as you say, with a Republican majority wrecking ball politics through the Senate.

Taking the Senate can't be an assumption that we can trust voters to make.

Our "disjunction" they call "change." It's not constructive, and so far, Big Money doesn't want any change but what they dictate.

Thus, an impotent Legislative, corporatized Executive and Judicial branches.

Not a Democratic Republic of majority rule, not quite a military dictatorship, not quite a corporate campus, but pliable enough to become one.

Thanks for your effort to show our historical momentum and direction.

Taking back ownership of the democratic road won't be easy. We do have roadmaps. We need political will.

[NYMinute]

42. That is not how polls work

They ask "do you want pizza, spaghetti, chicken or steak" … they don't ask "do you like spicy, greasy or meaty"

In one question they asked, a vast majority said they want someone who can beat Trump. That is Biden. The progressives will be pulverized by Trump and the republicans with the socialist label and we'll lose 40 states.

[marylandblue]

44. Polls can ask whatever they want to ask, but ask the wrong question and you'll get a uselessanswer.

"Someone who can beat Trump," is one of those technically correct but totally useless answers, like when your computer says, "The program has encountered an unexpected error."

If Trump is our unexpected error, it doesn't follow that Biden is the solution to that error.

Maybe we should ask, "What you like the next President to do?" That might point to a different President or a different type of campaign. But they never ask that question.

[Thekaspervote]

59. I think the question is being asked, but indirectly

[Thekaspervote]

58. oh yes!! So true

[Cha]

39. Yes, that is exactly what

Biden is saying, and he's talking about more than that, too.

And, Importantly.. Biden is expressing Unity.. he's not trying to divide us.

[Thekaspervote]

57. +1000

[treestar]

104. That's it exactly

This is not 2016 or any other prior similar election year. "Change" is what people got with Dotard and so "change" is not going to sound so great now. Stability and normalcy will be the appeal.

[NYMinute]

17. By the way, your post saying Biden is "establishment candidate"

smacks of divisive bludgeoning like Hillary faced. One of the reasons Sanders is no favored.

[Progressive2020]

21. I Disagree

I think that you are reading things into my OP that are not there. I do think there is a real division in the Democratic Party between Progressives and more Centrist candidates. I call the Centrists "Establishment Democrats", but maybe there is a better term.

I am not trying to be divisive, just recognizing reality. One question is whether we want or need a Progressive Candidate versus a more Centrist or Establishment Candidate. I think these are real and legitimate distinctions and questions. I do not think that it is divisive to point them out. We need to discuss these things.

[Progressive2020]

37. I Would Also Point Out

I would also point out that while I consider myself a Progressive and want a Progressive Candidate, I would vote for a more Centrist Democrat if one were nominated. Also, I would work to see that Candidate elected. I am not one of these Progressives who want to burn the house down if their Candidate does not win in a primary.

In fact, I bring up the divide between Progressives and Centrists on purpose. I think that this is a real division in the Democratic Party. It does not need to be a weakness, but could in fact become a strength.

Instead of Progressives and Moderates being at each other's throats, we should maybe take a lesson from Parlimentary style democracies such as those multi-party goverments in Europe. We should form a coalition. Center Left and Left parties form governing coalitions all the time when no single party prevails in a majority.

I would propose that Progressives and Centrists in the Democratic Party form a coaliton rather than be at each other's throats. A united Democratic Party would be the end of the Trump Regime. And the begining of a government that works for the people and not just the monied corporate interests.

[marylandblue]

45. American political parties are always coalitions.

If we are quarreling, the question becomes, "Who can create a viable coalition?" I would suggest that it would be someone who creates the best compromise between moderate and progressive ideas.

[Progressive2020]

46. Makes Sense

I am still waiting to see who that is. I do need to hear more from Mayor Pete, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren. Not that they haven't said enough, I just need to study them more. I feel that I already know who Biden and Sanders are. I am looking forward to debates and primary season before I make a final decision.

[Thekaspervote]

61. FYI: you might have said that to begin with. Your post does initially seem divisive

[Progressive2020]

62. So

Someone who might disagree with you in some way is "divisive"? I am not going to write a comprehensive thesis every time I post. I will write as much as I am able to and be as clear as I possibly can. What makes that divisive?

[mtnsnake]

84. It doesn't seem divisive at all. It's thought provoking, not divisive.

[Cha]

75. "Established" Dems are the ones

who got all that's progressive about America for the last 60 years.

So, when BS call them "establishment" I see it as a badge of honor. I know he's using it as a pejorative, though.

Link to tweet

[Thekaspervote]

60. Thank you!!

[Progressive2020]

18. Thanks For The Responses

I am being a bit of a Devil's Advocate here for the sake of discussion. I am Undecided on the Primary, but I would vote for Joe over Trump in a heartbeat. My question is just whether everyone else will also.

[dalton99a]

19. Saving our country from certain destruction is exciting

At the end of the day I don't care who does it or how

[Progressive2020]

22. Saving The Country

I agree that we need to save the country, but who does it and how matters. What kinds of candidates tend to be elected? and how can we win? are legit questions. We can't just leave it to chance.

[ancianita]

38. Sometimes saving the country might come first, because the way our branches are at war...

voting contests that pick men over the preservation of government or laws will mean we have no country that we knew anymore. And who we pick will be irrelevant, since the fix will be in.

That's why the Kochs and libertarians want no government, and conservatives want a plantation, and globalists want a corporate campus to set up shot in, like Deripaska in McConnell's Kentucky.

[NYMinute]

48. You're subtly trying to push Bernie

but Bernie is never going to save the country. He won't win the primary.

He should drop out before he divides us further.

[Progressive2020]

55. No

You're the one bringing that up. I have not made a final decision, and I am looking at several of the candidates. So, please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

[Thekaspervote]

63. Yup!!

[BannonsLiver]

83. We have a bingo!

“I like Joe Biden...”

All evidence to the contrary.

[Nuggets]

109. Yup. Nt

[marylandblue]

28. If we pick the wrong candidate, we are headed for destruction anyway, even if win.

[Cha]

41. It's the ultimate excitment, dalton!

Biden's message of Unity, and taking America's Heart and Soul straight to trump is wildly exciting!

[Cha]

40. BS is too Divisive..

Link to tweet

I love Biden's message of Unity, as well as taking his message of America's heart and soul straight to trump.

[NYMinute]

50. +1000

Bernie is divisive and the only way he can get ahead is by smearing other Democrats either overtly or with innuendo.

The "establishment Democrat" is a phrase used to divide and everyone who is not Bernie is an "establishment Democrat."

Bernie's devotees keep pushing this meme as though they consider the party as divided which it is not. EVERY candidate running is a progressive.

[Cha]

52. Yes, we all know that BS' use

of "establishment Dems" is meant to divide.

If he thought about it for a minute.. he might realize that "established" Dems are the ones who've made everything progressive about America for the last 60 years.

And, Yes.. every candidate running wants "progress".

[Thekaspervote]

64. Oh thank you!!

[Cha]

65. You're

, Thekaspervote!

[Indygram]

67. "Establishment" means "organization"

An Establishment Democrats is, well, an actual Democrat. The organization is the Democratic Party. The party belongs to Democrats. That man seriously needs to stop with the stupid "Establishment Dem" trope.

[Progressive2020]

69. So

So would you say that AOC is an "Establishment Dem"? She is an anti-establishment, progressive Dem who is willing to work with whoever she can to advance her policies and causes. She is clearly not a Moderate, a Centrist, or Establishment Dem. She is a Progressive Dem.

And, she is a "real Dem''. She ran a winning primary against a ten term incumbent Dem, Joe Crowley. That is a Progressive Dem beating an Establishment Dem. If you do not like "Establishment Dem", use the terms "Moderate" or "Centrist".

Do you deny that AOC is a "real Dem"? She won a primary and a general election as a Democrat. Is she not a real Democrat? Is there some test you must pass to be a Democrat other than running and winning as a Democrat?

Part of my point in posting on this Thread is to point our that there is a real diversity in the Democratic Party, running from Progressive to Moderate to Centrist. There is nothing wrong with that diversity, but we must learn to work together if we are to defeat the Republicans.

If you think there is no distinction to be made between Progressives and Moderates, I think that you are wrong. If you think that there is no place for Progressives in the Democratic Party, again, I think that you are wrong. I am not saying this to be divisive; I am saying this because it is simply true that there is ideological diversity in the Party, and this is not a bad thing.

I am willing to have reasonable discussions about this issue. I am trying to be clear in my posts. I think we have more to gain together than we do separately, and I am not trying to be divisive. In fact, I am arguing for the opposite of divisiveness, which is inclusiveness.

[Cha]

76. Yeah.. and BS uses it as pejorative to his

followers, and it's Not.. Just a means to divide.

Look at all the so-called "Establishment Dems" who have helped shape our Country.. like John Lewis, President Obama, Ted Kennedy, JFK..

[Progressive2020]

72. Pragmatic Politics

I would point out that I am seriously considering Joe Biden as a candidate. Joe is an experienced, dedicated, and proven Democrat. I would also say he is a mainstream and pragmatic politician.

I am ideologically progressive, but politically pragmatic. I do not think that Joe and I share the exact same ideology, or the exact same views. I will say that I am considering supporting him because I think that he can get the job done.

I think he would be an inclusive President who could bring various factions of the Democratic Party and the entire U.S. together. As a Progressive, I think Joe and his Administration would probably promote a lot of policies that I would support and agree with.

So, Joe and I might not have the same exact governing philosophy, but that is OK, because I know that he will represent ALL the people. I have not made a final decision on whom I am going to support, but I am giving serious consideration to Joe Biden.

[sandensea]

78. All true - but the nomination's still Joe Biden's to lose

Would he be my first choice? No.

But since he's declared, his poll numbers have left the rest of the pack behind.

Strictly speaking that could change, sure - but not unless something really dramatic happens to put a damper on his numbers.

So as it stands now, Biden's the frontrunner, and I'd almost say presumptive nominee. That's where we are, and will be in the foreseeable future.

We'll see where this goes, of course. There's a still a year + to go.

[themaguffin]

81. I want an establishment candidate. We are in CHAOS right now. FUCKING CHAOS.

[treestar]

85. This time they want experience

Dotard has messed everything up. We need to get back to normal.

[Nuggets]

89. Really? The establishment garbage again?

Since when are experience and change mutually exclusive?
Experience helps us achieve changes more quickly rather than set us back while newbies climb the learning curve as they learn from those with experience instead of repeating the same mistakes.

And Sanders is the very definition of an establishment candidate if there ever was one.

[Progressive2020]

90. Experience And Change

They are not mutually exclusive. I brought up the distinction to start a discussion, not as black and white dogma. Shades of grey are perfectly acceptable in reasonable discussions. The original point was that someone who has been a political insider for decades (such as Biden) might not be seen as a fresh, new agent of change (as Obama was, for example).

Also- How can you describe Sanders as an establishment candidate? The (established) Democratic Party seems not to like him, and he is an iconoclastic progressive, a self described democratic socialist. Is there a socialist establishment that I have never heard of?

The fact that you call Sanders an establishment candidate is so clearly off base that I am skeptical of anything else that you might say. That said, I am still open to discussion.

[Nuggets]

94. Since when is dislike of a person

Proof they are not establishment?


Sanders us unlikeable because he uses people.
He is unlikable because he offers a version of what the Democratic Party was already supporting and pretends he’s superior.
He hasn’t gotten anything accomplished with any of his campaign proposals in the decades he’s been in Congress. Why not?


I just love the way Sanders supporters make him a Democrat when convenient then jump to ‘ outsider’ ‘anti establishment’ labels whenever it suits the argument at the time.
Just the same way Sanders jumps in and out of the Democratic Party when he needs credit, while attempting to evade any responsibility for any failures.


I always love the ‘your so off base’ without any back up along with the “ your open for discussion”

No, obviously you’re not.

[leftofcool]

98. Grammar policing is rude

Simply state your case without being rude. If that is not possible for you, then don't respond to posts

[Progressive2020]

96. Establishment

Part of my original point was that the real Establishment of the Democratic Party, the people who are Super Delegates, have mostly been opposed to Sanders. These people are the Establishment of the Democratic Party, and they do not seem to like Bernie Sanders too much.

Sanders is an iconoclastic Senator, and to call him "Establishment" in any way defies logic. He is a leader of the Progressive Movement, originally an Independent who caucused with the Democrats, now running for the Presidency as a Democrat.

Please give me any coherent argument as to how Bernie is part of any sort of Establishment?

[betsuni]

101. Ah. "Establishment" means super delegates! The ones eating all the canapes.

Finally, a definition of what "establishment" means.

A longtime member of the Senate calling another politician "establishment": If you are part of the system you are working inside of that system. Activists work outside of it.

[leftofcool]

99. I agree with you

[comradebillyboy]

97. Change vs experience? They aren't mutually exclusive.

[Drunken Irishman]

100. Obama isn't the president he turned out to be without Biden...

And some if it was exactly tied to his inexperience. Obama knew the basic ropes of the senate but Biden had cultivated relationships over the 30-plus years he was there and those relationships helped smooth over areas of Obama's presidency that literally jeopardized his policy.

This is a big reason I am supporting Biden because I absolutely think he'll get things done. He has the legislative experience and know-how to actually push an agenda that, while probably a bit too pragmatic for many on the left, has a legitimate chance of passing the House and the Senate (if the Democrats can somehow win it back).

Is he exciting in that regard? No. But Biden saw over 40 laws he sponsored enacted. Someone like Bernie Sanders, whose length in congress is approaching the level it was for Biden when he became Obama's Vice Presidential candidate in 2008, has only seven of those similar laws. That's glaring to me because the idea of change only works if you can implement it.

This brings me back to my point - Obama was about change but Biden was able to help deliver that change. If Obama had gone with a less experienced candidate, someone like, say, Sebelius or Kaine, who were governors at the time and floated as VP candidates before he selected Biden, I am not so sure he has near the legislative success.

[honest.abe]

106. Experience can bring about change.

Biden, with his decades of experience in a paralyzed congress and then 8 years watching the GOP block everything President Obama tried to do, he knows what doesn't work. He will focus on things that can get done and in that sense bring about real changes instead of wasting time on pie-in-the-sky dead-on-arrival ideas that some other candidates might focus on.

[Gothmog]

110. Washington Post-Opinion: If the economy keeps its momentum, 2020 will be Trump's to lose

2020 will be a very close election if the economy is strong. Democrats have to pick a very strong nominee

Link to tweet

One wonders whether, at some point, the economic boom will be so huge that it will drive opinions on its own. Once Democrats settle on a nominee, voters will have to make a choice: Do they stick with the guy they’ve got, warts and all, who has contributed to such good times? Or are they willing to take the risk that the next president, even if he or she is a better person, will screw things up with a new agenda?

One election model from Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, suggests the economy will be the winning factor. His “time for change” model has a solid track record in predicting the outcome and direction of presidential races, and data he published last month show that, so long as the economy continues to grow at a 2 percent clip, Trump should be a favorite for reelection even if his job approval rating is as poor as it is now.

Indeed, it’s even better than that for Trump. The model calculates an average gain of 2.5 electoral votes for every one-point Trump shaves off of his net job disapproval. According to the model, even if gross domestic product growth slumps to 1 percent, Trump could win the minimum 270 electoral votes he needs for reelection by lowering his net job disapproval rating to 7 percent. Right now, that number is around 10 percent.

Media attention is focused on the Mueller report and other congressional investigations. But if the economy keeps its momentum, even that or Trump’s failure to trumpet his success might not prevent him from winning a second term.

[Gothmog]

111. Most Believe Socialism Is Not American

Here is some polling that supports the concept that socialism is not in favor with American voters https://politicalwire.com/2019/05/06/most-believe-socialism-is-not-american/

A new Monmouth poll finds 57% of Americans say that socialism is not compatible with American values, while just 29% say it is compatible.

Key finding: 42% have a negative opinion of socialism in general, with another 45% having a neutral opinion and just 10% holding a positive view of socialism.

Meanwhile, 39% of Americans have a positive opinion of capitalism in general, while 40% have a neutral opinion and another 17% hold a negative view of capitalism.

[Gothmog]

112. Washington Post-Opinion: Voters aren't playing along with the media narrative

Link to tweet

The mainstream media narratives persist: The Democratic Party has been taken over by the far left. There’s a war between the status quo Democrats who just want to get rid of President Trump and the radicals who want fundamental change. Leftists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) control the terms of the debate. Democrats want ideological agreement more than electability.

The problem with all of these “takes” is that there is little or no evidence that they correspond with reality. To the dismay of the pundits and the cable TV news execs who pine for high-decibel shouting matches between two evenly matched sides (Good ratings!), at this stage in the race there is extraordinary consensus around a moderate Democrat well-situated to beat Trump.

The latest Hill-HarrisX poll shows former vice president Joe Biden opening up a 32-point lead over Sanders, whose claim to the party’s heart is evaporating before our eyes. The latest Morning Consult poll shows Biden expanding his share to 40 percent (up 4 points from the previous week) and Sanders tumbling to 19 percent (down from 27 percent in February). In other words, available evidence suggests that at present the predicted story lines aren’t emerging....

However, the gap is striking between the race that the mainstream media has been covering and the actual race to date. Rather than assuming that Sanders rules the roost and that African American voters are going to be the most progressive and most open to left-leaning newcomers, reporters should spend less time on Twitter and more time with regular voters. They would be surprised to find that they have been extrapolating from a small segment of super-progressive, mostly white Democrats. Their “take” is therefore not a very accurate representation of the party as a whole or of the current state of the race.

[Gothmog]

113. Gallop-Less Than Half in U.S. Would Vote for a Socialist for President

This polling would make it very difficult to win with a socialist candidate on the ballot https://news.gallup.com/poll/254120/less-half-vote-socialist-president.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Less than half of Americans (47%) say they would vote for a qualified presidential candidate who is a socialist -- the same percentage Gallup found in 2015. A socialist candidate is the only one among a dozen hypothetical candidates about whom a minority of Americans say they are willing to give their vote....

In spite of the expanded tolerance for diversity, candidates labeling themselves as socialists may struggle to gain traction in a presidential race, as Americans have not become more open to such a candidate. Even as political figures advocating socialist ideas have gained popularity in Democratic circles in recent years, less than half of Americans remain willing to give an avowed socialist candidate their vote. This creates a challenge for the Democratic Party, as it seeks to avoid alienating the Democratic socialists within its rank and file, while still aiming to win a national election.