Is now the appropriate time to test it, when we're trying to remove this person currently in the off

[William769]

PB: It's got to be. If not now, when? We need to put forward something that is completely different, the opposite of what we've got right now, and we can't be afraid of what we are, who we are, or what we believe in.

Politics, at it's best, is being who you are in the cause of what you believe, and every time we've tried to do something else, we've regretted it. Every time we've psyched ourselves out by trying to focus on electability rather than what we thought was right for the country, we wound up getting neither.

Let's have a conversation about where America needs to go, not just in this election, but in the next era. That I think is largely going to be decided based on this election. And let's put forward real human beings, and challenge voters and challenge our neighbors to judge us based on what we have to offer them, not based on some complex of prejudices that, not only we, but also they would be better off without.

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2019/4/22/we-sat-down-pete-buttigieg-talk-about-gay-stuff

[slumcamper]

1. An interesting position.

Indeed, idealism in the cause of one's belief makes for much greater commitment. Idealism has also served us well, generally, although we must not ignore the historical fact that progress has been achieved often only by great struggle and sacrifice over extended periods of time. The incremental model of change may not be palatable to many who do not know or care about history, and are more impatient and insistent by virtue of having known only this era of instant gratification. That is not a criticism, but rather an observation with certain implications for our social, economic, and political time. In a sense, we must harness this energy while also maintaining the bridge with past reality which still colors our present.

It is also the case that idealism is subject to reason and pragmatism. Those dynamics must be largely in balance for any to prevail
( Seamus Heaney's "hope and history rhyme" ) . Importantly, for that balance to become manifest in the realm of electoral politics, an individual must emerge who can unite--not divide. Conservative idealism seems to have found that person and largely coalesced. Liberal idealism is searching.

[As an aside, electoral politics is tantamount to a recurrent or episodic variety of what anthropologist Anthony Wallace posited at "Revitalization Movements." Arguably, the revitalization construct applies more squarely to this election than any others before.]

I especially embrace the idea of a conversation. That has been sorely missing in the age of social media, instant messaging, and impulse. Dialogue is fractured. Our current "leadership" recognizes this and is leveraging it to sow confusion, distraction, anger, and divisiveness. There is research to suggest that conservative brains are energized by this.

The Democratic debates have not served us well. Instead of a conversation about ideas, the debate format is inherently contentious and combative. The DNC should consider adopting a "town hall" format where functioning adults can actually have a reasonable discourse with some clarity rather than feeling the impulse to form a circular firing squad.

[thesquanderer]

2. I'd also say that the best time to try what may be a difficult sell is when the alternative is awful

and Trump is indeed that awful alternative.