The Economist: Klobuchar? We could see it from our angle

[question everything]

(snip)

Poll after poll suggests an overriding concern about defeating President Donald Trump. And voters are willing to select whichever candidate they think likeliest to do that. While this has given rise to an arcane debate on the left about whether “electability” is even a thing (left-wingers, who win few elections, say it is not), Democratic voters might consider that one of their primary candidates already has a history of pegging back Trump’s electoral gains.

That is U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — whom the Economist recently joined aboard her new “Amy for America” bus in eastern Iowa. Brisk, diminutive, with a line in self-deprecating humor — and another in comfortable cardigans and shoes — the 59-year-old Klobuchar offered herself to the small crowds of Midwesterners awaiting her as one of their own. The title of her autobiography — “The Senator Next Door” — “might have been written for Iowa!” she joshes in Cedar Rapids.

She can see Iowa from her front porch in Minneapolis, she says in Sigourney, a flyspeck of coffee and antique shops amid vast acres of corn. She can see Canada from it, too, she adds, in a pop at Sarah Palin, between listing her center-left policies. Klobuchar is for making Medicare more available but not free for all. She is for expanding access to public college, but not free four-year degrees. She is for banning assault weapons but not forcibly buying back the millions in private hands.

Midwesterners like their politics unthreatening, realistic and with a touch of humor to smooth over disagreements, she believes. The facts back her up. Some of the Democrats’ biggest gains in last year’s midterms were made in the Midwest by pragmatic candidates who argued, as Klobuchar does, that “to be progressive you have to make progress.” She also has a record of outperforming her party in Minnesota by wooing independents and moderate Republicans. Last year she won re-election by 24 points in a state Hillary Clinton won by two.

(snip)

So why is she not doing better in the polls? She points to the early stage of the race, the congested field and greater name-recognition for the front-runners. A pithier response would be: Joe Biden. The former vice president has dominated the primary’s moderate lane despite his familiar shortcomings as a campaigner and more recent doubts about his mental acuity. Having decided he would be likeliest to beat Trump, his supporters have been forgiving. Yet Biden’s seat-blocking candidacy has made it hard for lesser-known though perhaps more compelling moderates to get attention. It persuaded U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio not to enter the race, has put paid to Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana and pushed U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris further left than she otherwise might have gone.

(snip)

In straightforward Midwestern style, she also seems to know who she is — unlike Buttigieg, Harris or even Warren, all of whom can seem torn between leftist idealism and reality. “I’m a dose of sanity,” Klobuchar says. “If you’re tired of the noise and the nonsense, tired of the extremes, you’ve got a home with me.” Anxious Democrats might yet consider that to be good enough.

http://www.startribune.com/klobuchar-we-could-see-it-from-our-angle/563877732/

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I agree. She and Harris seem to have the clearest heads for how to do the job, but...

Kamala is falling and Amy hasn't gotten far enough up to fall.

Makes me wonder just what we are doing.

[empedocles]

2. ''The Senator Next Door'

[MarcA]

3. The neoliberal pro-oligarchic Economist is desperate

to stop any progressive movements to reform $$$. They and those
like them are not for moderation or centrist views, other than how it can
be used to defeat liberal/progressive efforts and entrench the power of the few.
Their record speaks for itself.

[oldsoftie]

4. Man, you had to stretch a long way to get to that conclusion.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. "Neoliberal pro-oligarchic"? Seriously?

Why not throw in "running dog lackey of capitalist imperialism" or "bourgeois traitor to the proletariat"? Better yet, why not explain, without using tired '60s-era lefty jargon, why you think the author of the article is wrong?

[MarcA]

7. Because unlike your flippant remarks, it's true.

I addressed not only the article but the organization behind it. Google is your friend.
"60s era lefty jargon" was it? Look where we are today.

[Native]

6. She's certainly carved out a workable & potentially winnable niche.

From a marketing standpoint, she seems to be making some smart moves.

[lostnfound]

8. Amy was my 1st choice and Warren my 2nd. Now Warren is my 1st choice and Amy my 2nd.

They both have integrity, intelligence, experience, and courage.

I would do cartwheels to see either one in the White House.

Progressive or moderate left matters so little, in comparison to character, integrity, courage, ability to beat Trump. And I’d really like to finally have a woman president.

Who else is with me?

[Progressive dog]

9. Amy is my second choice.

She is smart, progressive, and realistic. I am sick of the populist salesmen who try to buy votes.