My bold.
As far as the presidency goes, yeah, the only real issue is electability (discussed in another thread), but if the Democrats don’t keep the House and take the Senate, it doesn’t matter who the president is or what their proposed policies are. In such a climate of “vicious and total partisan obstruction,” the next Democratic president will NOT be allowed to seat a Supreme Court nominee or get anything else done.
I think the author of this op-ed is complaining about stuff that’s basically unavoidable in any competitive primary. If you have an election that looks winnable, you’re going to get a ton of candidates, which means the primary is going to be contentious. That, in turn, means the candidates have to bicker over something, and it might as well be policy. Arguing over who is more “electable” isn’t any better, and is probably worse, since it makes it way more likely that candidates will say something that a proportion of the electorate perceives as sexist or ageist, which will then come back to haunt them in the general.
Besides, the whole point of the primary process is figuring out which candidates are electable, in practice. The candidates don’t have to spend all their time talking about electability for winnowing-based-on-electability to be going on.
There are 22 Republican Senate seats up for reelection. Only need 3 and the Presidency to control the Senate (WaPo) A super majority would be very nice. If every Dem up for election kept their seat, and every Rep lost theirs, that would give a super majority to the Dems. I think my math is right.
In a sane country, that’s what would happen. But, well, look around.
Regardless, the Republicans need to go down, and down hard. It’s the only way IMHO, that they will take notice and realize that their path to whateverthefucktheyaretryingtodo is wrong.
If you don’t want a competitive process just have the party decide on the candidate in a smoke filled room without a primary.
If you are going to have a primary it’s going to be between a bunch of people with enormous egos (and possible psychopaths) who know they are the only one who can run the country correctly. The democrats all agree that Trump sucks. They have to show how great they are by arguing about whatever they picked that makes them different even if it’s something they can never implement. Telling them to stop is like telling the sun to stop rising.
I agree with the first six words, pretty much.
It’s like watching a Little League team trying to play in the World Series. It’s embarrassing. They are not reaching the voters that don’t watch debates and don’t turn their TV’s to CNN. Which is most of them. People like my friends and family, who half watch the six-thirty news, maybe sometimes .I know everyone looks up when they hear the orange horror braying, but not so much for the other stuff.
I know Democrats who don’t know who Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar ARE. My 24 year old niece doesn’t and she voting next week. She did say that she’d try to find time to look up the candidates before she voted. Maybe.
In general, I disagree with the premise. I think policy arguments are good and I think it’s good to clear the trash before the general. But, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it…
Right, so how do actually envision the right way for the candidates to be campaigning? What is your alternative to arguing policy. Just all hold hands and ask the voters to choose the prettiest one?
“Just all hold hands and ask the voters to choose the prettiest one?” That was a lame attempt at… what? Whatever it was, it failed.
I don’t claim to have an alternative. I just hope they all keep in mind that no matter how much they disagree on these different issues now, first, ONE of them needs to get elected (and I really don’t care who), and second, the Dems need to keep the House and take the Senate. Otherwise, they’re just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
I know “That’s the way it’s always been” isn’t a good argument. However I think this a combination of short memories and magnification of the issue due to multiple 24 hour channels talking about it. Even if you throw out the Trump primaries as an aberration many primary fights for the winning side were downright nasty. Does no one remember Bush vs Reagan? The term voodoo economics is still used decades later. They kissed and made up and occupied the White House for 12 years. What is important is who the party votes in as the nominee and how they handle the head to head match up. Minor primary squabbles will be forgotten after the convention.
I’ve long found it annoying that presidential campaigns never seem to be about how well someone would do as president. It’s an executive position, and executive experience should be king. Certainly the executive sets a lot of policy for how things are done, but it’s the board of directors, or congress, who decides what should be done.
A board of directors, when interviewing candidates for CEO, would quickly become annoyed if a candidate wouldn’t stop talking about board duties – say, mergers and acquisitions. But that’s exactly what happens during every presidential run.
A good president would be able to effectively run Medicare for All, but they’d also be able to effectively run Medicare for Some and Medicare for None. Obviously they can have an opinion about which they’d rather run, but at the end of the day it’s not really up to them (veto power notwithstanding). So I’d rather they debate on their experience running massive programs, rather than bickering about which massive program they think is best. Medicare for All run like a complete disaster isn’t likely to be any better than what we have now.
That’s why I’m already disillusioned with the field. There’s nobody left with any meaningful executive experience, except Bloomberg <shudder>, so we’re left guessing how Bernie or Mayor Pete might actually be effective, or ineffective, should one of them actually win.
I’m not sure if that’s exactly what OP and the WaPo op ed are complaining about, but that’s my gripe. Of course, having lived through enough presidential election cycles, I understand I’m just screaming into the wind on this, but there it is.
This is how primaries go – candidates argue over policy and everything else. This is entirely normal as far as primaries go, and saying “stop fighting” isn’t going to do anything.
Note this comment from the article quoted in the OP:
Not saying they should stop arguing-- I know it’s “normal” and comes with the territory. But THE priority is winning the general election, and between Republican dirty tricks at the polls and the electoral college, it’s going to be hard enough without getting bogged down over “the price of unicorn at the local market and how they’d cook it.” (From a passage in the article that I didn’t quote.)
When was the last non-contentious non-incumbent primary? I can’t even remember one, and I’ve been a fan of politics since '96. I can believe that contentiousness doesn’t help, I just think it’s unavoidable.
That would be wonderful. But a Democratic presidency achieves the most important goal, getting rid of Trump. Getting good stuff done would be nice, but I’ll settle (if I have to) for an end of terrible stuff being done by a terrible president. Maybe Moscow Mitch will still be in charge of the Senate, but wouldn’t it be nice is he had to deal with President Pete and Speaker Nancy to get anything done? That’s such an improvement over where we are now that I wouldn’t call it “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.”
This.
Our country is somewhat unique (and not in a good way), in that we focus our elections on policy, rather than simply trying to elect someone who will be a good leader, good mediator, good representative of our country, etc. “Policy” is way down the list of what I want in a leader.
True.
Also true.
I seldom post here, but I read the Straight Dope every day. I cannot stand to look at Trump or listen to what comes out of his mouth. My husband voted for Trump and doesn’t regret it. He admits that Trump shouldn’t tweet so much and that he might vote for Pete if he were to get the nomination (but not Bernie or Elizabeth). We have had more arguments over Trump than everything else put together in our 40 years of marriage.
I live in rural Iowa and participated in the much-maligned (rightfully so) caucuses. In my precinct only 11 people showed up to vote. Former Mayor Pete was the winner with four votes, Biden second with three votes. I caucused for Pete but will vote blue no matter what. I feel so alone in rural Iowa. There are few people here that don’t like (even love) Trump. I don’t think I will ever understand it, no matter how many articles I read on why/how he was elected.
The reason I have come out of lurker mode is that I agree with the sentiment here, echoed by everyone at my caucus, that the only thing that matters for now is defeating Trump. If we can accomplish that, then we worry about policies.
You’re not alone. I’m in rural Iowa, too. I also proudly canvassed and caucused for Pete. I’ve met four different Trump voters who have said they’d be willing to support Pete, but not Bernie.
Exit polls are showing that the supporters of every single Democratic candidate believe that the #1 priority is aligning with a candidate that can beat Donald Trump… except Bernie supporters. Bernie supporters believe that the #1 priority is aligning with a candidate that agrees with them on policy issues. That attitude will hurt the party and our country for years to come.
I felt so good about going to the caucus, only to wake up the next morning and read about the debacle.
I still feel good about supporting Pete; I just don’t know if he has enough support nationwide to get the job done.
And, alarmingly, I have read* that these people, or at least some of them, say that if Bernie is not nominated they will not vote in the general election at all! :smack:
I don’t think the Bernie-or-Bust crowd are “defeat Trump at all costs” folks. I think this is two separate groups. I’m a Bernie supporter and also a “defeat Trump at all costs” person, as are many other Bernie supporters who agree with me that Bernie has the best chance to win (not that I’m certain – this is just how I lean right now).