HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Garrett78 » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AM
Number of posts: 10,721

Journal Archives

Nominating a woman or person of color vs. nominating "the best person."

"The global scholarship leaves no doubt: Women in political office make it a priority to advance rights, equality and opportunity for women and girls, in a way and to a degree that men in power overwhelmingly do not."

There are similar findings when it comes to electing persons of color.

And success encourages more women and persons of color to pursue public office in a society that discourages women and persons of color from pursuing public office. Electing women and persons of color represent cracks in the facade. Our electorate is increasingly diverse, and the incoming class of Democratic Congresspersons reflects that reality. Those who will take office, and even those who fell short (like Abrams and Gillum) are an inspiration to those who are historically the most oppressed.

The US is built on a foundation of white supremacy and patriarchy. Absent racism and sexism, the Republican Party of today would cease to be viable as a national institution. Progress is always met by a backlash. Slowly but surely, however, the foundation is weakened. Until, one day, it collapses.

Let's not fall victim to color-blind racism, the rhetoric used to oppose affirmative action and the penchant for denying the reality that electing women matters--or that the US "isn't ready for a woman president."

I do not wish to make this about any one candidate (this thread is about much more than a single individual), but I support Kamala Harris for president for numerous reasons, including those mentioned above. And, from a purely electoral standpoint, she puts North Carolina, Florida and Georgia in play. I hope (and am hopeful) that our electorate will come to realize that Harris is "the best person" in this moment, in this period in our history.

Abrams and Gillum

I just feel like reminding everyone that Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum are extremely impressive and should have a future in national politics. Both were victimized by intense voter suppression and blatant racism, including robocalls. Yet both came damn close to overcoming those obstacles in states that are typically quite red in midterm elections.

I hope that both Abrams and Gillum, if they don't run for statewide office again, consider running for the US House or US Senate or get offered cabinet posts in the next Democratic administration. Or maybe even get considered for VP.

Iowa and New Hampshire

I'm glad that there seems to be a move away from caucuses. But I think other changes are called for, such as not having Iowa and New Hampshire kick things off. Those states don't reflect our electorate.

The point has been made that both parties need to follow more or less the same schedule, so that neither party is alienating certain states by having or not having those states be early voting states. I'm not convinced that should be a huge concern. But both parties can follow more or less the same rotating schedule without having IA and NH always leading the way. Some traditions need to die.

The Age of Presidential Candidates

The age of the last 5 Democratic presidents, upon taking office, were 47, 46, 52, 55 and 43.

Only 3 of the 45 presidents (Harrison, Reagan and Trump) have been over 65 when taking office. One died shortly after taking office. Another developed alzheimer's in office. And Trump, who holds the record at 70 years and 220 days, is nuttier than squirrel shit.

Sanders would be 79. Biden would be 78. Kerry would be 76. Warren would be approaching 72. Holder would be 70. Inslee would be just shy of 70. Hickenlooper would be approaching 70. Brown would be 68.

The vast majority of presidents have been 60 or younger when taking office.

Harris would be 56. Garcetti would be on the verge of turning 50. Klobuchar would be 60. Booker would be 51. O'Rourke would be 48. Gillibrand would be 53. Kennedy, like Swalwell, would be 40. Buttigieg would be 39. Murphy would be 47. Landrieu would be 60. Schiff would be 60. O'Malley would be 58. Bullock would be 54. Delaney would be 57. Julián Castro would be 46.

The in-betweens: Kaine (nearly 63), Merkley (64), Patrick (64), McAuliffe (nearly 64), Tester (64), Cooper (63)

It's a fact of life that with age comes mental and physical deterioration. There's no fountain of youth, even if some remain remarkably healthy well into their 70s and beyond. This is less of a concern with members of Congress than it is with the presidency.

And history suggests there's a preference for young-ish presidents.

Plus, our electorate is very diverse. And we are in the Me Too and Black Lives Matter era. Movements that are long overdue and must continue. This shouldn't be ignored when nominating our next president.

The Republican Party's Imminent Demise?

I read a lot of posts indicating that the Republican Party is at death's door. While that idea appeals to all of us, I'm afraid it's merely wishful thinking. Or premature, at least. Republicans continue to have a great deal of power throughout this country, and a tyranny of the minority system favors the GOP. With continued urbanization (i.e., concentration of liberals), an increasingly large percentage of the US population lives in an increasingly small percentage of states. The principle of "one person, one vote" is lacking. The US Senate is the embodiment of that lack. Even in 2020, taking control of the Senate will be a tall order. I'm hopeful we'll win the White House, and a 50-50 Senate would essentially give us a majority. But the fact of the matter is there are more than 20 states that remain deep red and where winning a Senate seat is not in the offing. This is also why the days of a presidential candidate winning 400+ electoral votes are long gone. Obama's 365 in 2008 is, for now, the best we can realistically hope for. I'm pretty bullish on us getting in that ballpark in 2020. With, say, a Harris-O'Rourke ticket, I see us winning back MI, PA and WI, while possibly picking up NC, FL, AZ and GA (3 states that Obama won in 2008 that I'm not so optimistic about are IN, IA and OH, though I wouldn't count out the latter).

Curtailing gerrymandering and voter suppression would certainly help our chances of maintaining a majority in the US House, though the aforementioned concentration of liberals presents some challenges in terms of drawing fair district boundaries. And I can see us getting to a point where it won't be possible for a Republican presidential candidate to reach 270 electoral votes without that party making some significant changes. But I think it's a stretch to say that's imminent, and not being able to win the presidency wouldn't necessarily spell the end of the Republican Party.

The forecasted demise seems to be predicated upon the notion that Trump has taken over the Republican Party and will bring it crashing down. But Trump is part of a continuum. He's a symptom. The rise of Trump didn't happen in a vacuum (anti-Trump Republicans may like to think otherwise, possibly to assuage their guilt over knowing they helped create today's Republican Party base). Trump's the almost inevitable result of 50 years of increasingly cruel and unhinged rhetoric and policy. As Obama said back during the 2016 campaign, the GOP has "been feeding their base all kinds of crazy for years." Decades, in fact. There was the white backlash to the Civil Rights Movement, the realignment of the party membership and Nixon's Southern Strategy in the 1960s. There was the Powell Memo and birth of the Moral Majority in the 1970s. There was Reagan's dog whistling in the 1980s (let's remember his 1980 campaign chose to kick things off with a speech on "states' rights" less than 10 miles from where 3 civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi. The dog whistle has become a bullhorn in the tiny hands of Donald Trump, but it's wrong to suggest there is a demarcation between the pre-Trump Republican Party and what we're experiencing today. Again, Trump is part of a continuum and the anti-Trump Republicans were complicit in making him possible.

Trump bragged openly about sexual assault, kidnapped children, can't form a coherent sentence - making George W. Bush seem articulate by comparison - and he's plagued by scandals (to put it mildly), yet he's been able to maintain a 40% approval rating. 40% is not good by any means, but his rating has been far steadier than any of his predecessors in spite of being the definition of atrocious. We shouldn't dismiss the possibility that a much more intelligent, politically-savvy and charismatic demagogue will come along. At this time, it's not at all clear that such a person wouldn't garner enough support to put Republicans back in the driver's seat. We better be ready, rather than convinced the Republican Party is dead man walking.

In the immediate term (2020) and in the long run, the smart money's on the Democratic Party outlasting the Republican Party (especially if we find a way to drastically boost turnout). Rather, I should say that the smart money's on demographic shifts and social evolution favoring Democratic Party principles and forcing the Republican Party to change or be replaced. But there may be an extended intermediate period during which the Republican Party is able to hold onto power throughout much of the US. We must continue to educate, inspire, boost turnout and be vigilant.

Then again, maybe climate change will make all of this moot.

Newsflash, "working class" is not synonymous with "white."

Far too many people don't seem to get (or want to get) that Democrats do better than Republicans among the working class. The problem is nobody ever uses the phrase "Black working class" or "Latino working class." It's as if "working class" - like "real Americans" - is synonymous with white. Well, guess what, it isn't. Although it may be unintentional on the part of some, it's downright racist to suggest that it is. And it feeds into this notion that we must nominate a white man for president in 2020. That's bullshit and it needs to stop.

Electing more women and persons of color matters.

I see people being dismissive of the objection to Democrats nominating a white man for president in 2020. Well, guess what, research shows that electing those who are more likely (there are always exceptions, of course) to view the world through an equity lens has positive consequences.

The global scholarship leaves no doubt: Women in political office make it a priority to advance rights, equality and opportunity for women and girls, in a way and to a degree that men in power overwhelmingly do not.

A large body of research has been devoted to answering a fundamental question: Do women substantively represent women more effectively than men do? In hundreds of studies examining large data sets of roll call votes, bill sponsorship, laws enacted and other measures the answer is clear. "Across time, office, and political parties," political scientist Beth Reingold writes in a comprehensive review, "women, more often than men, take the lead on women's issues, no matter how such issues are defined."

Such findings don't mean that all female officeholders seek to advance women's rights, or that women govern only from the standpoint of gender. But the research does speak strongly to the fact that women and men in power have different priorities.

And then there's the danger that if women aren't at the table, they might be on the menu. In late 2009, the all-male Senate Democratic leadership team met privately to decide what would be included in the final Affordable Care Act. They eliminated a women's healthcare amendment that had passed overwhelmingly in committee, and that included coverage for such things as contraceptives and mammograms. The amendment's sponsor, Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), had to demand its reinstatement just as the caucus was about to vote on the final bill.


That's not the only reason I want Kamala Harris to be the next POTUS, but it is a factor.

On the tactic of projection, the Gish Gallop and nutty beliefs.

Here at DU, we often discuss the Republican tactic known as "projection." Republicans accuse Democrats of misdeeds that they themselves commit, or they claim success for things Democrats have done. Sadly, this tactic is effective. When Democrats accuse Republicans of that which they've been accused of, Democrats can appear defensive and the Republican goal of obfuscation is met. Simply confusing the public is a victory for Republicans.

But I don't recall hearing Democratic members of Congress talk about this in their various TV appearances, and I think that needs to change. Most don't follow politics as closely as we all do. Not everyone understands that Republicans are intentionally taking advantage of ignorance. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but perhaps we can somewhat pull the rug out from under Republicans by getting it into the public consciousness that Republicans are essentially taking reality and flipping it on its head. Just a thought.

I think the same goes for what's known as Gish Gallop, something the likes of Kellyanne Conway have perfected. I know there's only a limited amount of time and so much to discuss. And I understand that discussing issues of the day is most important. But I think it's also quite important to raise awareness about these tactics, for Democrats to say, "Look, this is what Republicans are doing. They're using the Goebbels playbook. Don't be fooled by it."

Lastly, I'd like Democrats to speak bluntly about the dangerous absurdity of so many people believing the kind of nonsense mentioned in this article: https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/10-incredibly-fake-facts-trump-supporters-think-true/. We aren't going to win over those who are nuttier than squirrel shit, but perhaps we can prevent more people from joining their ranks by making it embarrassing to be so gullible and misinformed.

Just a few thoughts on a Sunday night.

The misreading, intentional or otherwise, of the election results is infuriating.

Instead of being because there are dangerous, Nazi-sympathizing lunatics in charge, we're told the reason we took back the House is because people want more bipartisan compromise with said lunatics. Never mind that we lost Senate races pretty badly in MO, IN, TN and ND with candidates who indicated they would compromise with the lunatics. Never mind the right wing funding behind the anti-Pelosi nonsense.

It's essentially the white working class/economic anxiety bullshit all over again.

Huge turnout helped flip seats in Southern California, Arizona and elsewhere, so now some are saying it was the "50-state strategy" at work, as if there aren't still a bunch of states that are unreachable precisely due to racism and sexism. The idea being that a "populist" message that shuns "identity politics" can win anywhere. Yes, we have a Senator in Alabama and once again we have a governor in Kansas, but it took unbelievably atrocious opponents to make that happen. Meanwhile, Corey Stewart got over 40% in a blue state. Corey fucking Stewart, y'all.

Here's how I view what one might reasonably consider the 10 battleground states heading into 2020:

MI/16: likely Dem
PA/20: likely Dem
WI/10: likely Dem
FL/29: toss-up
NC/15: toss-up
AZ/11: lean Rep
OH/18: lean Rep
GA/16: lean Rep
TX/38: solid Rep
IA/6: solid Rep

I'm feeling optimistic, so I could see us winning 100+ electoral votes from that group, which would give our nominee 330+ electoral votes (assuming we hold onto all of the states Clinton won). 360 or so electoral votes is as close to a "landslide" as we're likely to see at this time. Obama won 365 in 2008. The days of someone winning well over 400 are long gone.

I think if we nominate Kamala Harris, we are going to see record Democratic turnout (70+ million votes for Harris and her running mate, be it O'Rourke or Klobuchar or Landrieu or whoever). But there are still 20+ states that we simply can't win.

There were many factors at play in MI, PA and WI in 2016, but I'm fairly confident that they'll be back in our column on 11/3/2020. I don't think we should give up on Ohio, but I suspect Iowa is going the way of Missouri. I personally wouldn't call Texas a battleground state yet, but it's headed that way. Florida is absolutely still in play, especially in presidential elections. Same goes for North Carolina. We can compete in Arizona and Georgia, as well.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »