Democrats should NOT emulate Trump

The BBQ Pit
1

Nor should they use his atrociousness as rationalization for “hey, we can get away with being a little weak on X, Y, or Z, since Trump’s much worse on all counts.”

I’m constantly seeing and hearing arguments like the following, which drive me around the bend:

“We shouldn’t worry about Biden’s ‘handsiness’, since the current president is a pussy grabber.”

“Experience doesn’t matter any more, now that Trump has been elected.”

“Nominating someone over 75 is no problem, after all Trump is nearly that old himself.”

“Sure, Bernie only released one year of taxes, but Trump hasn’t released any.”

What? :smack:

First of all, just for moral and institutional reasons, we should be trying to undo the damage Trump has done to our societal norms. NOT shrugging and saying “okay, he lowered the bar, that’s cool…we’ll just stoop almost as low ourselves”. Fuck that! We should make a point of restoring honor and dignity to the presidency, and should treat his stint in the Oval Office as a (hopefully) one-term aberration. In fact, we should insist on a renewed and invigorated commitment to reestablishing norms of decency and competency.

Secondly, even if you don’t care about any of that, this makes no sense in terms of campaign strategery. Trump has not exactly cracked the political code, not beyond the GOP primary. He lost the popular vote by three million to someone who was nearly as unpopular as he was. He has the lowest approval ratings of any president in modern history up to the same point in his first term. The percentages who “strongly disapprove” of him and say they would not consider voting for him are unprecedented in political history. Despite low unemployment and gas prices, he got a huge repudiation at the ballot box last November.

So we should be looking to nominate someone who is relatively young but has experience in Congress or as governor. A mayor could be okay, but only if it’s one of the nation’s largest cities (Julian Castro actually checks this box, BTW, as San Antonio is the nation’s seventh-largest city, with virtually the same population as #5 Philadelphia). Someone who is well-informed, even-tempered, not “handsy” with women (you might begin to guess I am not a fan of the Biden candidacy).

So we not only shouldn’t stoop to his level, we shouldn’t kid ourselves that since he set the bar a millimeter off the ground, we’re fine if we stay an inch or two higher since it’s “not as bad as Trump”. This makes exactly as much sense as a school shooter arguing that he’s “not SO bad” because after all, he didn’t kill as many people as that guy in Vegas with the bump stock, and unlike the Newtown shooter he only killed teenagers, not kindergarteners. No. Just stop it. Keep our standards high! Higher than ever, in fact.

2

Isn’t that the bet in itself this upcoming election? Choose a candidate who speaks well, doesn’t interrupt with BS, has political experience and put that person up against a fraud? It sounds great to me, at least it did last year.

If not, choose a candidate, have them say “Trump fucked dogs and Ivanka slurped up the cum. And we’ve got evidence. We’ll release that when we’re ready. Just wait for the truth and an end to fake news!”

I’m not sure which tactic would work right now. Let’s say Trump could be arrested and charged with over 500 charges right now on fraud. And any of the possible Dem candidates could be allegedly charged with brushing someone’s butt at a press conference sixteen years ago

Proving Trump et al family is an entire fraud is the only thing to make him look bad to SOME people. Most will say it’s fake news anyway.

3

Right, but those aren’t the people we should be targeting: that’s another kind of IMO irrelevant point I see a lot of people making. That hardcore base is the same people who were spending the Obama administration hating on Michelle Obama, calling her a “tranny” or whatever; meanwhile, she was enjoying high approval ratings among the solid majority of the public not composed of conspiratorial right wingers.

Who we need to have for a coalition is simple: start with everyone who already disliked Trump, including some who may not have bothered to vote because they thought Hillary had it in the bag, or some Russian propagandists made them feel there was no point in voting. Add Obama-Trump voters in the Rust Belt who appear, based on the results in the House last fall, to have already returned to voting Democratic. Plus some well-educated suburban white married people who always used to vote Republican, continued to do so in 2016 out of habit and figuring Trump would chill out once he was actually in office, and are now appalled by what he has done to the presidency.

So it’s really not that hard, and there’s a good chance any of the Democrats running would win the general election. But we can’t be sure about that, and one way to really up our odds is to do what I’m talking about and make sure we put forth a candidate who is easy to swallow and promises the ol’ return to normalcy.

4

I agree. Trumps’s in-your-face shitheadery notwithstanding, I feel in that the whole “not Trump” angle is political cover for the democratic party establishment to move ( or keep ) the overton window to the right in service of their corporate donors. Indeed, most of their most pointed invective seems aimed at the progressive wing of their party. Not because of their pat “we need the center to win” or somesuch boilerplate, but because it threatens their gravy train.

5

We clearly don’t agree, then. When it comes to these disputes between the DNC or mainstream Democrats on the one hand, and the left wing that accuses them of being “corporate” lackeys, I firmly take the side of the DNC and reject that kind of invective.

6

Quick question SlackerInc:

Is it possible that you posted this thought at a Facebook page for a particular group? I just wanted to make sure it was you, and not someone “borrowing” your post. I would not be surprised if there is overlap between SDMB folks and this other group, but just checking…

7

Your concern is noted.

8

I think late seventies is too old to start a Presidential term, period. People approaching 80 should be enjoying a comfortable retirement or second career or part-time business or whatever, but they should be leaving positions of major power and authority for succeeding generations to handle. There is something wrong with a political system that can’t manage to direct its senior leaders into retirement even after they’ve passed the average life expectancy for their society.

9

I agree in principle, but we’ve reached an age where Trump lowered the bar, did all the things he wasn’t supposed to do, ignored long-standing presidential traditions, and dared disturb the previously undisturbed waters - and got away with it. As long as he’s heading the party of the majority, he will continue to get away with it.

Taking the high road in response to his immaturity hasn’t worked. Cain refused to sink to his level, but his influence was nowhere near as far-reaching as Trump’s. Acts of class and dignity don’t make the headlines. The American voter is too visceral. Drama sells.

10

Then there’s a problem with your OP. Several of the things you have a problem with are from the mainstream. It is the mainstream that is willing to forego principles. It is the mainstream that is trying to get people to ignore Biden’s bad touch problem and his age.

Granted, you do list some things against the progressives, as they are the ones pushing for lack of experience as a good thing. And the age thing is something both sides have said doesn’t really matter.

You can’t make an OP like you did and then make another post saying that the problems are only with the side you aren’t on.

I mean, your OP is right. We have to make a clear difference between what we offer and what Trump offers. But this partisanship within the Democratic party is itself also a problem, and another way we should not be like Trump’s Republicans.

11

I honestly think the Democrats should go all in this time…and all out. This is the election where they could really get someone who isn’t just another DNC pick, someone new and fresh and unorthodox. This might be their only chance for something or someone like that in fact, as the blow back from Trump is going to be (IMHO and all) huge…much more huger than Trumps hands in fact. There is a battle going on right now between the DNC establishment and the Progressives. No idea how that will pan out, but if the Progressives ever want to get one of their own elected, this is their shot. I don’t think they should hold back or try for the safe move or safe candidate.

YMMV of course. Just my thoughts as someone who will almost certainly vote Democrat but who isn’t a Democrat, FWIW.

12

There should be an age limit on the Presidency. The people who decided what the restrictions should be lived 250 years ago when 35 was considered middle-aged and 60 was considered elderly. If they’d known there’d come a time when 78 year olds were running for President they’d probably have put some kind of limit in place.

13

The problem is what do you get when you win with such a candidate. You get 2 years in which you control the house and maybe the senate, you might be able to start undoing some of the damage Trump has caused, but any radical progressive legislation isn’t going to make it past the Blue dogs who are the only reason you are in the majority in the first place. Then the midterms come around, and with it a wave of reactionary indignation, which knocks out all the blue dogs, who were either have been primaried away for not supporting the president’s agenda or lose in the general because they supported it. We then have two to six years of partisan gridlock in which the country declines further due to general neglect, a Trump 2.0 figure emerges and wins in 2024 or 2028, and proceeds to reverse everything his predecessor tried to fix and we start the whole cycle over again.

The only chance we’ve got as a country is someone who is willing to take baby steps, working towards the low hanging fruit of getting the government back on track and preventing future damage, rather than trying to radically change society which will just make the pendulum swing more wildly without actually achieving anything.

14

If not a progressive candidate now, then when? 10 years from now? Incremental change until then? Fuck that, go all in.

15

^^^^^^^^^Y^^^ That. All of that. ^^^

16

Incrementalism does not disqualify change from being truly progressive. Just make sure it’s in the right direction, and the fact that it was incremental will likely make it more likely to persist, like a ratchet.

Incrementalism does have inherent flaws, yes.* But radicalism’s flaws (including – or especially – the potential for provoking backlash) are arguably more perilous.

If incrementalism can lead to the disbandment of the Republican Party, THEN maybe we can afford to do away with the Democratic Party and roll the dice on an “all-in.”

*(For instance, when a policy change requires a quantum leap or a paradigm shift, incrementalism can be ill-suited to accomplishing it.)

17

A few years ago, I’d probably have agreed with this point of view. Now, I’m convinced that societies around the globe face rapid and radical change regardless of political under or over-reach, and that the current rightward madness in various nations around the globe (US, UK, Brazil, Israel just to name a few obvious examples) are reactionary political responses to resource inequities and limitations.

With climate change accelerating, resource issues are going to continue forcing radical change, and unless the more or less rational political actors and parties become deliberately, intentionally reactionary we’ll be seeing more autocratic and authoritarian power structures in political ascendance.

Now is the time for a radically progressive Democratic Party, aggressively pushing ideas like a Green New Deal and Medicare for all and structural changes to our electoral system and all the things we keep convincing ourselves are too much too fast. A wave of changes is happening on this planet whether we want it or not, and we can either deal with it based on reason and fact or let it carry us into chaos. But, to stretch this dumb analogy to its breaking point, baby steps aren’t what’s needed if you’re trying to survive a tsunami.

18

This is all good in theory but how about democracy for a change?

I suppose people assume there’s some hidden cache of progressive voters waiting for their unicorn ultra-progressive candidate to appear. I’ve yet to see any firm evidence this large, untapped pool of voters actually exists. Yes, there are some but from the peanut gallery, they appear to be a small but vocal minority of Democratic voters and even smaller minority of voters in general.

I’d love to be proven wrong on that but it seems the median Democratic voter is center-left and there are long tails in the distribution. A radically progressive Democratic party is only possible by ignoring the desires of the majority of the party. If so, I’m out. I’ve had enough of discussions dominated by the loudest, brashest voices.

19

Unless the economy is in shambles by then, the Election of November 2020 will NOT be a gimme. The Ds should focus on maximizing the probability of victory. Once in power they’ll be in position to reverse some of the gerrymandering and other GOP cheating, Scotus packing, etc. Only then, with a return to democracy likely to be long-lasting, should the Ds push a highly progressive agenda.

I agree. Obama was a great President, but didn’t he follow, rather than lead, Congress and country on social issues? Front-runners like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Julián Castro are all rather progressive. Surely these are all, if anything, too progressive. (I’d prefer to nominate a moderate but Biden is too old, and Beto too young.)

20

About 80% of registered voters support the idea of a Green New Deal. Nearly 60% support expanded or universal Medicare (this fluctuates a bit depending on how various plans are explained and whether a higher tax burden is emphasized). Most of the “radical” progressive agenda items involving economics, gun safety and AGW amelioration actually have broad support. Dems should stop being shy about those ideas.