'Trump's Going to Get Re-elected, Isn't He?' (New York Times editorial by Thomas L. Friedman)

[Odoreida]

‘Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He?’
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/trump-2020.html

Synopsis: Basically everybody running is too "radical".

What's with the NYT lately?

[stonecutter357]

1. Trump/racist pig is now getting his ass handed to him on a platter.

[walkingman]

2. Radical???What the hell would you call Trump? Moderate?

[The Mouth]

42. A republican

He's only doing the same things they've been talking about for 20 or 30 years.

I don't like the guy, or his policies, but he does represent the way at least a third of the country thinks, which means the issue isn't Trump. It may not be a majority, but anyone who doesn't think his views are representative of a LOT of the country has been living in a fucking bubble with their hands stuck in their ears going 'LALALALA' for a few decades.

So, as much as this might well piss off people, I'd call him a normal, average, run-of-the-mill Republican, representative of what a large percentage of the country thinks, regardless of how upsetting that is to anyone.

[walkingman]

44. Here in rural Texas I am surrounded by these folks. I thought I would enjoy living in the country

and cowboys until I met a few.

[Me.]

3. Self Fulfilling Prophecy?

Really wish some of these know it alls would just shut up instead of doing their best to depress the vote

[NRaleighLiberal]

4. Absolute shit article. All the wealthy are coming out of the woodwork

to make sure the taxcuts stay and their greed can be sustained.

They live in a protected bubbleland want their status quo. We are nothing to them.

[OKNancy]

5. Read the article before commenting on the headline

He makes some good points.

[cwydro]

8. He does indeed.

It’s hard to face facts like this, but he is absolutely right.

[Amishman]

86. Yup, we have a very bad habit of projecting DU's stances onto the broader electorate and party base

If we have too progressive we risk turnout loss among moderates. Trump is so far right that outright defections are unlikely, but a lack of enthusiasm is possible. "I can't stand Trump because of A, B, and C; but I don't like [Blank] because of X, Y, Z - so I'll just binge watch Netflix instead of taking an hour or two to vote". Trump did this in 2016 to great effect using Hillary's personality and past to create X, Y, and Z in people's minds. Trump needs a nasty polarized environment to suppress the moderates who don't like him.

[bluewater]

9. Article is behind a paywall.

[customerserviceguy]

28. Yes, I had to open it

in an incognito window, and speed read it.

But the point was made, Friedman is saying that if the Democratic Party goes for a McGovern type this time around, we will see the same result as 1972.

I think he's got a point.

[comradebillyboy]

75. Harris, Biden and Warren aren't McGovern types at all.

Warren in particular has really improved as a candidate in a national race. Three months ago she looked weak and now she's a contender.

[customerserviceguy]

89. Biden, definitely not

Harris and Warren, well, I consider them to be.

[rockfordfile]

95. No

Harris and Warren are not. Not even close

[customerserviceguy]

96. A big part of McGovern's pitch

was economically based. I even remember a political cartoon of the time comparing him to Robin Hood. My assessment of both Sens. Warren and Harris is that they have economic issues at the forefront of their campaigns, especially Sen. Warren.

Can you tell me why you disagree with me on my idea?

[BlueWI]

79. What does McGovern type even mean?

George McGovern was a great politician who lost to Nixon in a wave election. He doesn't deserve to be mischarscterized as the ultimate bad example.

[customerserviceguy]

90. When I said that

I meant someone who was towards the progressive extreme of the Democratic Party. The GOP did that with a conservative extreme in 1964 with Barry Goldwater.

I was not trying to say that George McGovern was bad. Even though I was seventeen years old during that election, and too young to vote, I really supported him, and talked my folks into voting for him. They were lifelong Democratic voters, but the whole "peacenik" image that was attached to McGovern was tough for them to get over.

I was severely disappointed when the results of the 1972 election came out, which greatly increased my delight when Nixon resigned on the edge of being convicted in the Senate, back when some GOP Senators had a minimum of scruples.

[BlueWI]

91. Sure. So we have a sample size of 1 election

with the progressive end of the party being nominated.

Lots of centrists have lost since then: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Clinton.

I hope that the McGovern example doesn't lead to excessive caution and fear if the top campaigner in a future primary is a left of center candidate.

I do appreciate the context you are sharing, but McGovern tends to be mentioned only as a political error, and as you know, he was so much more. Between Muskie's meltdown, an assassination attempt against Wallace, Eagleton's back story, the Watergate burglary, and Nixon's dirty tricks, Democrats had a lot to overcome that year.

[customerserviceguy]

94. All of that is true

But other than Barack Obama, which of our Democratic progressive candidates since McGovern have been elected? And some would dispute the characterization of Obama as progressive. He didn't run on reparations, or anything that would have been labeled "amnesty", or on dismantling the military.

I've said, my head is with Biden, my heart is with Buttigieg. I feel that Joe Biden has the best chance of fending off attacks over his being too "socialist" or "radical". But, I think with Pete Buttigieg that you have a really good chance of getting a more progressive agenda, without him scaring people off before the general election. He has a way of being able to calm people down sometimes that I don't see with too many others. The reich wingers and other Trumpsters would focus primarily on his orientation, and that simply just doesn't matter so much to voters in the middle.

[BlueWI]

98. When has the more progressive candidate been nominated since 1972?

1984: Jesse Jackson and possibly Gary Hart were more liberal than the nominee
1988: Jackson at minimum
1992: Jerry Brown and arguably Paul Tsongas and Paul Simon over Clinton
1996 and 2000: no real challenger
2004: Kucinich and probably Dean over Kerry
2008: Obama arguably more liberal than Clinton by a nose, mostly because of how he was perceived culturally
2012: no challenger
2016: Sanders

Liberals have generally not won the nomination, but they invariably face an uphill battle against a perception of being unelectible. But when moderates lose, nothing is rethought about this assumption.

So, as a liberal, I can count on the candidates with the boldest and most specific policies not to get the nomination, including Inslee. Ex-vice presidents seem to be popular among Democrats, although the last one to win was LBJ.

[customerserviceguy]

99. The same can be said over at the GOP

Not all of their moderate candidates who win the nomination win the general, either, and they don't do a whole lot of soul searching about it.

[qazplm135]

11. not really

he makes the same points all never trumper conservatives make...if you don't nominate someone that would qualify as a liberal republican they are too radical and Trump might win.

They don't REALLY want a Democrat to win, they just want Trump to lose more, so they argue to try to persuade us that the only way we can win is to nominate the least liberal person possible.

It's a rehash of a 100 articles of the same ilk that came before and will come after.

[Pacifist Patriot]

13. +1

[Demsrule86]

15. No a moderate Democrat can win...so it is probably Trump or a moderate Democrat.

In prior elections, it was an established fact that you can't run too far left in a primary and be able to win a general I have no idea why this year Democrats have abandoned this...as we are certainly not more left as a country....The Times is right...nominate Biden or lose. He is the only moderate with a shot at the nomination.

[qazplm135]

18. oh stop

with that crap again.

By the way, Biden calls himself a progressive so he clearly doesn't think you have to be a "moderate" to win.

And also by the way, Biden can't stop saying stupid things. He's not changing now. It's going to likely be a contested convention, and I highly doubt Biden is going to end up the compromise candidate.

[zackymilly]

23. I agree. There's lots of time left for him to say more stupid things.

[Thekaspervote]

34. Meh

[ucrdem]

74. If that's the genius plan it's not so genius.

More likely the dueling senators cancel each other out and pave the path for Biden who is the only guy who doesn't leave at least half the electorate reaching for the bag under the seat.

[True Dough]

76. Seriously

there are a few DUers who must have racked up a thousand posts repeating the same thing about Biden over the past several weeks.

[qazplm135]

83. it's a sign of desperation and fear

if they were really confident, they wouldn't feel the need.

[ucrdem]

73. That's exactly what it boils down to. Biden or lose.

And I've never thought the NYT was particularly interested in electing a Democratic president. If they are they sure keep a good secret!

[Demsrule86]

19. Have you ever considered, it is probably true?

They want Trump gone...and it seems to me see us blowing our shot with a candidate that is too far left to win..I assume they mean Elizabeth Warren...but who knows.

[qazplm135]

21. I'm sure they want Trump gone

I'm also sure they'd like someone who does the least liberal things possible and keeps things as close to their own conservative values as possible.

I'm pretty sure they don't just mean Elizabeth Warren...they mean anyone that isn't a centrist.

I'm also sure that centrists like you ALWAYS think we have to nominate a centrist or lose.

[Demsrule86]

26. I am actually a pragmatic liberal...I want all the progressive goodies. However, I have worked

elections for years and I know what it takes to win...it is not a matter of liberal policy...with 40 moderates in the house we are limited in any case...it is about getting Trump out and some are so worried about a policy that is unlikely to happen,they could give Trump four more years. We live in a center left country at best and every time a Republican wins the presidency, it is dragged further right...and Trump is the most dangerous of them all...so maybe we win and then we see what is possible in terms of policy.

[marylandblue]

33. Sorry, but unless you are one of the tiny handful of political operatives who

didn't laugh when Trump came down the escalator, you have no idea what it takes to win this election and neither does anybody else.

If you seriously thought Trump had any real chance at all, for all of our sakes, please get off DU and go work for the Biden campaign. Now. It's all hands on deck and Biden needs your expertise much more than we do.

[Demsrule86]

39. No, despite Comey and the rest, I thought Clinton would pull it off...but 2016

was a wake up call. We ignore the blue wall collapse at our peril as we have nothing to replace it with... I do work for the Biden campaign as a volunteer and hope to accept a paid position should he win...campaigns are great fun and I have the time this cycle...but I think I have time to do other things at the moment and I will keep posting as I choose.

I want to defeat Trump. I live in the rust belt and know the voters pretty well here...Biden will win...the others have taken positions that will not help them in a general...you have to consider the areas you need votes from...and if you don't ...than you lose.

[marylandblue]

51. Right, so you are in the same boat as 99% of the Democratic Party,

totally shocked by what our friends, co-workers, relatives, neighbors and acquaintances did in 2016. That includes lots of people smarter than you and me put together. My response to that shock is to rethink everything I thought I knew about politics and take a look at what would cause anybody to vote for a howling orangutan, let alone 46% of the country.

The blue wall didn't crumble because we ignored it. The whole point of the "blue wall" was that it was safe, so we didn't have to worry about it. The problem was that we didn't understand it, and that includes people who live and work there. Because if the people there did understand it, they would have sounded the alarm a year before the election.

What I see here is uncharted territory. I don't know where we are going. I don't believe anybody relying on a pre-2016 map knows either. So I'm not accepting anybody's appeal to personal experience. I'm taking most comparisons to prior elections with a big grain of salt, except where those elections themselves defied expectations.

I was only joking about getting off DU. I do like sparring with you.


Thank you for your work on electing good Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

61. I have argued about trade and issues to do with the blue wall for years...and although I thought

we would pull it off...because Trump sucked in other ways...we knew his message about helping the the rust belt would resonate...people joke that you see politicians during presidential years mostly and after that not at all. But if we manage to win back the blue wall and kick Trump out something needs to be done...we have no path forward in terms of the presidency without these states.

[marylandblue]

63. Glad you mentioned trade. Warren's message on trade is closer to Trump's than Biden is.

Biden may have the blue collar image, but Warren has the blue collar message.

[qazplm135]

38. Sorry

Don't believe you.

[Cha]

57. What don't you believe? Her personal experience?

[BootinUp]

37. But what about my pony? :)

[democratisphere]

6. The serfs, peasants and peons that make up the majority of Americans

will NOT allow drumpf and the rethuglicons to steal or hijack the 2020 election.

[andym]

7. SUMMARY: Democrats should run on "National unity and good jobs"

Here's what he actually says and I agree with these points:

"That doesn’t mean a Democratic candidate should stand for nothing, just keep it simple: Focus on building national unity and good jobs.

I say national unity because many Americans are terrified and troubled by how bitterly divided, and therefore paralyzed, the country has become. There is an opening for a unifier.

And I say good jobs because when the wealth of the top 1 percent equals that of the bottom 90 percent, we do have to redivide the pie. I favor raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to subsidize universal pre-K education and to reduce the burden of student loans. Let’s give kids a head start and college grads a fresh start.

....
[But] The winning message is to double down on redividing the pie in ways that give everyone an opportunity for a slice while also growing the pie sustainably. Democrats should focus on how we create sustainable wealth and good jobs, which is the American public-private partnership model: Government enriches the soil and entrepreneurs grow the companies."

[Demsrule86]

17. I don't disagree with the Times.

[eilen]

81. Same here. Running on jobs, normalcy, and stability is a winner. nt.

[comradebillyboy]

10. Lately?

They have been this way for a long time now.

[IrishEyes]

12. Not if there is breath left in my body.

I will do everything in my power to see that a democrat is elected in 2020. So will millions of people. I won't rest until the last vote is cast on election day.

[Blue_Tires]

14. They're trying to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy

[Demsrule86]

16. You can look at the electoral college map and see where we need votes...in red and/or purple areas

and figure out running left will cause us to lose.

[qazplm135]

20. yeah

we gotta get those white Trump voters huh?

[Demsrule86]

22. You know people of color people actually do live in Ohio and other rust belt states...but it isn't

about 'white people' although kind of a nasty crack that and yes we need to win back the Obama coalition which includes White voters...it is about the electoral college which we lost in 16 as the blue wall crumbled...and like it or not, if it is not rebuilt, we will lose
again. Sure we could take Arizona ,Texas or Georgia-maybe North Carolina...but that is not as likely as rebuilding the blue wall...and not as likely with a super liberal candidate...in order to win the electoral college in MI, WI and PA, (rebuild the blue wall)you need a moderate nominee...and this also gives us a shot at Georgia, Arizona, and Texas and the rest. The electoral college map tells the story. We could win a direct election with any of our fine candidates...but not the electoral college.

[peggysue2]

30. Or a cautionary tale

We cannot grow complacent because despite Trump's horrendous character flaws, his lack of moral compass and the policies reflecting that, he has 40+% of the electorate cheering him on. They're cheering him on because of all those aspects not in spite of them. That's why Trump is throwing his peeps continuous red meat to feed the anger, the grievance, the frenzy.

We cannot afford another squeaker election. 2020 needs to be a massive win, a full repudiation of Trump and Trumpism. The way we do that is offering up a candidate with the widest appeal and reach, particularly in those swing states of PA, MI & WI. That's the key to knocking Trump off his lifts and sending his ass into 'worst president in the world' territory.

We can do this!

[Blue_Tires]

31. If all we cared about was 'appeal and reach'

then we might as well nominate a celebrity of our own, then... God knows there are countless liberal A-listers to choose from.

[peggysue2]

43. We better care about 'appeal and reach'

Because we'll all be tumbling into the abyss if Trump pulls off another win. In addition, we need to select someone with knowledge and experience. No celebrities need apply.

[Blue_Tires]

46. Hillary had both so we'll need more than that

[peggysue2]

50. Hello? This is not 2016

And the more that you speak of?

PENNSYLVANIA, MICHIGAN & WISCONSIN

Bingo!

[Blue_Tires]

84. And what about Ohio+Virginia

Or are we ceding those?

[marylandblue]

52. If knowledge and experience won elections, we never would have had

Reagan, Bush II, Obama or Trump. We probably wouldn't have Bill Clinton. And there are an awful lot of moderate and progressive freshman Congressmembers who never would have made it.

[peggysue2]

55. We're looking at the real damage this Administration has wreaked on . . .

all governmental institutions. The State Department alone will need someone with true knowledge to put the components back together. Trump and his minions have completely hollowed out our diplomatic core. In addition, someone with foreign policy experience and knowledge of how and why our alliances work will have a clear advantage in reestablishing those alliances and relationships. This is no small thing.

Btw, we're not talking about the past or anything remotely similar because the primary danger is sitting right inside the WH. We're looking at the here and now and into the future. It's all at risk because the threat is existential to the country as a whole.

I didn't like Reagan or Bush but I never entertained the thought that either man was a true traitor, a wanna-be Mussolini, enabled by those equally treacherous.

This is a different scenario, a whole different ballgame. Which is why I keep stressing--losing is not an option in 2020 and WINNING IS EVERYTHING.

Because?

Our national survival depends on kicking Trump, Trumpism and runaway nationalism to the curb.

Anything less is suicidal.

[marylandblue]

56. If winning is everything then what happens after winning is nothing.

Frankly, repairing the government and our alliances is fairly straightforward. There will be literally thousands of very experienced people rushing in to help.

Trump's biggest and most challenging damage is that he has undermined trust in our institutions. No matter how experienced, pure, noble, brilliant and all around wonderful the next President is, half the country will not trust him or her, the government, or the media. Repairing trust in an institution is much more difficult than repairing the institution itself.

[peggysue2]

58. What?

If winning is everything then what happens after winning is nothing?

That doesn't even make sense.

I'm speaking about this election, the one immediately before us, 2020, in which our main concern should be to oust a wanna-be authoritarian/king, and then repair the damage he and his minions have done. Of course, reestablishing trust is an important element to the recovery. However, I think we're kidding ourselves if we think this is going to be repaired and recovered easily or even quickly. Which is why a seasoned hand is important, IMO.

We need to fix what's broken first before moving forward. And to do any of that we have to:

WIN.

Because I guarantee you nothing gets done until Trump and Trumpism is erased; things will only get exponentially worse.

For everyone!

[marylandblue]

59. Correct, we need to win, but my point is that you have a disconnect.

You are assuming that swing voters will agree that we need an experienced person to repair the government and therefore vote for that person. But they may not agree with your assessment. In fact, it's quite likely they don't because they didn't agree with you (or me) in 2016.

They voted for a clearly unqualified person to run the government over one of the most experienced candidates ever. Whatever they wanted then, it wasn't experience, so how do you know they want that now? If they don't want the most experienced person now, then shouldn't we give them whatever they do want? We can reasonably assume that any Democrat will hire experienced employees anyway.

[Demsrule86]

64. Trump barely won in three states...and if we rebuild the blue wall , we win...they are not panting

for a progressive like EW...they will not vote for her. We are going after red to purple areas...same kind of areas where 40 moderates gave us the house...now you may not like that, and I don't either, but it is what it is. I always vote for the nominee, and I would vote for EW...of course. But we need more than voters like me and like you...

[marylandblue]

70. I don't mind it at all. I'm perfectly fine with Biden. I just think there is a deeper wave coming.

The center is a moving target. Sometimes it moves a little, and occasionally it moves a lot. Since Reagan, the two parties differed mostly on social issues but on economic issue they were pretty similar. Low taxes, free trade and deregulation are all good. Democrats wanted slightly higher taxes, slightly more regulation, and a little more job protection on trade. Democrats wanted universal health care and Republicans didn't. Most people agreed with Republicans.

But now, most people want higher taxes, don't want free trade, believe in climate change, hate their bank, want universal healthcare, and don't care who you marry. So the "center" has shifted left to somewhere within the Democratic Party. It might be closer to Biden than Warren, or maybe the other way around. Elections help define the new center, and whoever is closest to it wins the election.

It's not set in stone. IMO, it's hard to say how these redefining elections will turn out. All I'm sure about is we won't end up anywhere near what most people thought in 2015.

[peggysue2]

66. marylandblue, you and I simply aren't going to agree on this one

So, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I've already stated my position and what I believe is the most critical element of 2020:

WINNING, period.

I like a lot of these candidates all of whom offer strong Democratic positions but my choice at the moment is Joe Biden because of his experience, knowledge and what I perceive as our best bet to win the states that HRC did not--PA, MI & WI. That loss was less than 80,000 votes and cost her the electoral college. We cannot afford a repeat thereby allowing an ignorant, racist thug to steer the government into the ditch, dragging all of us with him.

Tonight's Trump rally is a case in point as he led the chant to his adoring crowd against Ihan Omar: Send Her Back, Send Her Back, they screamed.

This is beyond vile, racist and unAmerican. It's incredibly dangerous.

We. Must. Win. And put an end to these disgusting performances of hatred & bigotry be it directed against Omar, immigrants caged on our southern border or fellow citizens harassed, threatened, sometimes killed by police because of the color of their skin.

It has to end or it will end all of us.

That's all I've got to say.

[stopbush]

24. Friedman and the media hacks are more afraid of tRump than are the Rs.

The media enabled and aided tRump’s “election” to a far greater degree than did the R political machine. They gave him billion in free advertising, took up every anti-Hillary meme and drove it into the ground, took every tRump fault as a chance to engage in whataboutism.

Why? Fear and ratings.

[elleng]

25. CONCLUSION, if interested:*Ask Gina Raimondo, Rhode Island's governor, and my kind of Democrat.

She was just elected in 2018 for a second term. In both her elections she had to win a primary against a more-left Democrat. When Raimondo took office in 2015, Rhode Island had unemployment near 7 percent, and over 20 percent in some of the building trades.

“When I ran in 2014, there was a temptation to appeal to particular constituencies — gun safety, choice, all things that I believe in,” Raimondo recalled. “I resisted that temptation because I felt the single greatest issue was economic insecurity and people who were afraid they were never going to get a job. So I said there are not three or four issues, there’s one issue: jobs.” Unemployment in Rhode Island today is about 3.6 percent.

Raimondo has faced a constant refrain from critics on her left that she is too close to business. “I created an incentive program for companies to get a tax subsidy if they created jobs that pay above our state’s median income or jobs in advanced industries,” she noted. “I have cut small-business taxes two years in a row since 2015. I am not ashamed of any of that.” Because, she continued, “I listen to people every day, and you hear what they are worried about. People say to me, ‘Governor, I just got a real job.’ And I’d ask them, ‘What is a real job?’ And they’d say, ‘It’s a job where I can support my family with real benefits.’ So I named our state job-training program ‘Real Jobs Rhode Island.’” It will be impossible to “sustain a vibrant democracy with this level of inequality.”

The right answer is to reinvigorate the key elements of a healthy public-private partnership, said Raimondo: higher taxes on wealthier people, more investments in affordable housing, infrastructure and universal pre-K, and empowering the private sector to create more real jobs — “so that no one who is working full time at any job should have to collect Medicaid and need food stamps to make ends meet.”

Concluded Raimondo: “I am no apologist for a brand of capitalism that leads to unsustainable inequality. But I do believe a more responsible capitalism is necessary for growth. We need to redivide the pie and grow the pie. I am a ‘pro-growth Democrat.’ I am for growing the pie as long as everyone has a shot at getting their slice.” That’s a simple message that can connect with enough Democrats — as well as independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women — to win the White House.'

[andym]

27. Combine this excerpt with the one I quoted above and in a separate OP

and you have a winning recipe that embraces the heart of what Democrats should stand for economically.

[elleng]

29. Yes, thanks, saw that;

wanted to inform folks complaining on this thread without being informed; I have a NYT 'subscription.

[Demsrule86]

40. I agree with that.

[Gothmog]

32. Most POTUS are re-elected for second term unless the economy is bad

If the Democrats nominate a far left candidate, the trump will be re-elected. I strongly believe that if sanders is the nominee, trump will win 45+ states in the electoral college

[onetexan]

35. Bush Sr was a 1-term'er

so yes, the Idiot can be rid of with a moderate Dem candidate.

[Gothmog]

36. Remember Clinton's campaign theme-"It's the Economy Stupid"

There was an economic slowdown in 1992 that gave Clinton the opening to take out bush Sr.

[onetexan]

45. That saying was actually coined by James Carville

But yes Clinton did use it. I thought it was Bush sr's 'read my lips no new taxes' messup.

[Gothmog]

69. Carvell worked for Clinton

[onetexan]

85. Yes im cognizant of that. It was while he was Clinton's

Campaigne manager that he coined the expression - a darn good one at that.

[marylandblue]

53. Stop exagerrating. There is no way Sanders loses 45+ states. Too many people have already decided

they would vote for Attila the Hun over Trump.

[Demsrule86]

65. Sure but they don't live in the states we need...we end up winning the popular vote and losing the

electoral college...three states...Trump wins, he get four more years.

[Gothmog]

68. Yes sanders could easily lose 45+ states

It would be easy for trump to make the election solely about socialism if sanders was the nominee

Link to tweet

[Politicub]

41. There has been one debate with many months to go. Friedman is a voice of the moderates.

And as such, he feels like he knows what everyone else needs or wants. He is so good at articulating his opinion that he has a column in the New York Times and several best selling books under his belt.

But he's not an oracle. He isn't some kind of medium channeling the spirit of the electorate and delivering us a message from the great beyond. That's Williamson's role.

Friedman is just an opinion columnist.

If we were to take marching orders from columnists, we would be trying to head in every direction at once without getting anywhere.

The primaries are an opportunity for people to try and convince people across the country that they are the best nominee for the party. I place more trust in our base than a lot of people on DU seem to. I think we should let the process play out, and that includes a rigorous debate about where we want to take the country and the party.

This next election will be different from anything we have experienced. The standard bearer for our party has a hard task ahead of them. Columnists like Friedman are living in the past. We need a candidate that can inspire people to dream of a better tomorrow.

[Demsrule86]

47. The voters in states that helped Trump win by a small margin...MI, WI and PA are not

liberal voters...and if you don't reach those voters,we lose again.

[marylandblue]

54. How do you know what those voters think?

We lost those states by about 0.5%. It's less than the Jill Stein vote. For comparison purposes only, about 10% of people believe Elvis is still alive, and 3% aren't sure. About 1% of people are schizhophrenic. About 0.7% of people were drunk when they voted. It's just impossible to say what small percentages of people are thinking at any given moment.

[Demsrule86]

60. I live in the rust belt and have lived in all three states ....at one time or the other...these

are not liberals but working people- moderate...union that sort of thing...from your name...you hail from Maryland...I lived there at one time too...and I can tell you that the voters in your state are not like the moderate working types in the rust belt...Warren will not win these states. Biden is the only one who can win a nomination who will win a general...I would vote for any nominee of course in a general.

[marylandblue]

62. I've lived and worked in a lot of other places, come from a blue collar family,

held blue collar jobs, and was once active in a union. Nowadays I deal with people from all across the country. Don't assume that just because my name is "marylandblue" that I live in a bubble. My assessment of who blue collar people will or won't vote for is different from yours.

Need I point out that Sanders beat Clinton in Michigan and crushed her in Wisconsin? That says something about who Democrats in those states think is really electable.

[Demsrule86]

67. Clinton was blamed for NAFTA....and Sanders wouldn't win today...This is not 2016 and Trump is an

incumbent. Also, people voted for Sanders in WVA as well but would never vote for him in a general...Clinton was demonized by the right and it worked...the only lesson we take from 16 is that we have no path to the presidency unless we rebuild the blue wall. And we shouldn't have lost it.

[True Dough]

78. Sometimes you'll encounter someone who

will always attempt to one-up you and never concede an inch. This would be one of those times.

[eilen]

82. A lot of union members voted for Trump.

I know, it does not make sense but I hear about from my husband who gets incredibly frustrated with them. (He is in the IBEW). The union does not endorse him but I think these guys vote for him because they feel threatened by unchecked immigration.

[Politicub]

88. My uncle voted for Trump, and he was a union member for his entire career.

He died earlier this year and lived in California his whole life.

I don't know what snapped in him, but he became a dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporter. At his funeral, there were two maga hats on either side of the guest book. It was pretty sickening and surprised me. Even though he was a Trumper, I had no idea of the depth.

[Politicub]

87. You are a focus group of one. Just because you live somewhere doesn't mean

that you understand the electorate unless you're a pollster or something.

The trouble with believing that you have a unique understanding of everyone around you is like you isn't some form of truth. I wouldn't be able to tell you how the majority of my neighborhood votes. It's probably a mix, but I don't know what motivates people to vote or not. I live in a blue city in a red state and an African American woman -- Stacey Abrams -- came within striking distance of winning the gubernatorial election. That surprised everyone.

There will be more surprises come 2020. The primaries are already starting to show some interesting shifts.

[True Dough]

77. I respect Tom Friedman

about 90% of the time. In this instance, your post is spot on. We shouldn't forsake what is an essential debate and democratic exercise due to the fear mongers.

[cwydro]

48. Frank Bruni said much the same in his column too.

I do think that “show of hands” gimmick was ridiculous, and all or some of the candidates hould have shut that down.

[Thekaspervote]

49. His books get anywhere from 3.5-4 stars. Once really a fan, He lost me over "the world is flat."

I’m not alone in saying that this book is about socialism and globalism. (Candidates too extreme?) Other comments were over simplification of the 21st century world, contradicts himself when it suits, draws heavily from personal biased anecdotes, loves to hear himself talk.

I could go on, but I question who is he to say the Dems are not centrist enough....

Think it sells papers and he gets to tout his importance on the issue of the election from the lofty editorial pages of the NYT

[comradebillyboy]

71. Democrats don't have too many friends at the NY Times.

And Tom isn't one of them.

[melman]

72. Another media millionaire telling us change can wait

No thanks.

[MFM008]

80. Im tired of listening

To the gloom and doom bullshit about our
People when were against a racist
Probably pedophile
10 thousand+ lying, grifting, con, thief
Mental case RAPIST.
Why doesnt he do a damn column on
Todays Caligula?

[book_worm]

92. I guess it's bad to be progressive because you'll lose but being a Fascist racist

is OK.

[NNadir]

93. Freidman is, and always has been, an ass.

[Everyman Jackal]

97. The Democrats will nominate a person who cannot win.

Trump will be reelected because not enough Democrats will vote and the Democrats have a 65-70% chance of losing the House. This is my opinion not based on any facts but I have been interested in politics since 1955 and the second time Eisenhower beat Stevenson. I was for Stevenson. I have been a Democrat since 1955 and I will die a Democrat.