Rogers Lake - Northern Arizona
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are generally two sides to every coin. (See 1 and 1a below.)
Drawn from Hanson's book I have urged all read. (See 1b below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lerner advises do not hand brass keys to military so if you agree it is Bibi's to lose tomorrow. (See 2 below.)
Bibi, Gantz, & 5 Scenarios for the Israeli Election Bernard Avishai, The New Yorker
Would the new Democrat Party nominate Obama? (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Today desperate Democrats will try and get the Senior Law Official of The Nation to break the law regarding redacting Grand Jury testimony.
The insanity of such optics may not be apparent to "Boobus Americanus" but the continued dumping on Trump is beginning to wear thin. As for Democrats - all I can say is bless their soul.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is motivating Pete Buttigieg's unsolicited attacks on Pence?
I maintain candidates for office, at the federal level, should be subject to a Rorschach Exam. Perhaps Mayor Pete has deep seated, unresolved homosexual issues and resentments that need exploring. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Trump is Popping in the Polls
Watch most cable or network news shows and the message is clear -- President Donald Trump is unpopular, especially compared to the dozens of fresh faces attempting to challenge him for the White House in 2020. Some of the faces are not so fresh as three of the leading contenders -- Biden, Sanders, and Warren are septuagenarians.
Despite the exonerating Mueller report, Trump is still on the ropes, about to be impeached, a Russian agent, and so on. Trump is also a Nazi, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, and sexist pig. Nobody likes him. At least that’s what CNN says.
If this was truly the case, Trump should be polling in the low 30s at best, with most of the country giving him and his administration a thumbs down on performance and results. Yet reality is far different. In the media bubble, where journalists all live in the same neighborhoods, kids attend the same schools, all go to the same parties and belong to the same tennis and fitness clubs, there are no MAGA hats to be seen.
Outside the bubble, the picture is far different, even if the smart set at MSNBC and the New York Times choose not to see it. What do opinion polls say?
Rasmussen has the well-deserved reputation as the most accurate pollster, based on being the closest of all major polling organization in predicting the results of the 2016 presidential election.
In their daily presidential tracking poll, as of Friday April 5, President Trump had a 51 percent total approval number. Most of this calendar year, despite the constant drumbeat of Russian collusion, his approval number has been in the mid to high 40s, ranging from a low of 43 percent to a high of 52 percent since January 1.
For comparison, President Obama, exactly eight years ago on April 5, 2011, was at 47 percent approval, with numbers ranging from the mid to high 40s, occasionally hitting 50 percent, much the same as President Trump.
At first glance, one might say both presidents were equally popular at the same points of their respective presidencies. And both went on to be reelected for a second term. Fair enough -- but there is more.
What shapes public opinion in significant part? The media. What has the media’s role been in influencing opinion during the Obama versus Trump presidencies?
Media coverage of President Trump has been almost exclusively negative. NewsBusters reported 90 percent negative coverage of Trump during 2018, matching similarly negative coverage in 2017. But without effect, as they note.
At the midpoint of Donald Trump’s first term, the establishment media’s obvious hostility shows no signs of relenting, but polls show this negative coverage has had no discernible impact on the public’s attitudes toward the President.
According to Pew Research, another polling firm, news stories about Trump were only 5 percent positive in 2017, compared to 42 percent positive for President Obama in 2009. And yet in public opinion polls such as Rasmussen, the two presidents poll similarly, with Trump having a slight edge.
It’s not just Trump. George W. Bush had 22 percent positive media coverage with Bill Clinton at 27 percent positive. It’s more than clear that Obama was the media’s favorite with Trump being their redheaded stepchild.
Imagine Trump’s approval ratings if he had media coverage similar to that of his predecessor? I realize that could not happen, as most of the mainstream media and the Democratic Party are one and the same. But if Trump had 42 percent positive coverage as did Obama, his approval number would likely be at 60 percent or higher.
Do the recent midterm elections provide any clues as to Trump’s prospects of reelection in 2020? The Washington Post surprisingly acknowledged, “If the midterms were a referendum, Trump won.” CNN had a similar take on the midterms, “President Donald Trump's poll numbers are bad, but here's why he could win in 2020.”
CNN did something most out of character, they cited a Fox News Poll. Normally they are quite critical of Fox, partially out of ratings envy and partially because they believe Fox, Trump, and Russia are the triumvirate of illegal collusion. But said poll from a month after the midterms found that only 39 percent of voters think Trump will be reelected.
That’s not at all surprising if you get your news from CNN, MSNBC, or any of the other major networks, or if you read the New York Times or Washington Post, and hear a constant drumbeat of Trump negativity, including predictions of his imminent indictment and impeachment for being a Russian agent and a traitor.
As some point, readers and listeners begin believing that Trump’s days are numbered. It’s the Stockholm syndrome for those of us held hostage by the mainstream media.
Even Trump himself admitted before the 2016 election, “That like many in the country and worldwide, he ‘sort of’ thought he was going to lose.” Why not? Trump is a news junkie and he heard the same claptrap from the media that the rest of us hear every day. Sure, he had his own internal polling, but when every news show on TV and every newspaper predicts Hillary Clinton winning in a landslide, even candidate Trump believed it to some degree.
In fleeting moments of honesty, some news organizations admit the obvious. From the Atlantic, “Why Trump is the favorite in 2020.” Or from another far-left news outlet the Daily Beast, “Trump should have a 70 percent chance of winning in 2020.”
His recent Rasmussen numbers are optimistic, but don’t expect Trump to be complacent, and neither should his supporters. His campaign organization now has a winning election under its belt and will be even more formidable in 2020 compared to 2016. The Democratic field of challengers are hacks who don’t hold a candle to Trump in terms of charisma and connection to the voters. Their ideas are as stale as month-old Russian borscht, resurrected from the grand ideas of the old Soviet Politburo, with some Democrat candidates as old as the last general secretaries of the Soviet Union.
Much can happen between now and November 2020, but if Trump pushes onward with his agenda, he will be tough to beat. The nail in the Democratic coffin is Trump building the wall, stopping illegal immigration, declassifying the FISA warrants, and punishing those who seditiously lied to Congress, the courts, and the American people.
This election is his to lose and despite the incessant whinging from Democrats and the media, his poll numbers and momentum favor a big win in 2020.
Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.
1a) WHY TRUMP'S APPROVAL RATINGS BARELY BUDGE | OPINION
By Frank Donatelli
The two most discussed political stories of 2019 are, first, the longest federal government shutdown ever and second, the release of the “Top Line” findings of the long-awaited Mueller report. The first saw strong daily criticism of the Trump Administration from all quarters, over the president’s promise to “own” the shutdown. The second provided a substantial morale boost to the president and his supporters for the finding of “no collusion” from Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
But there was one common denominator to both stories: The president’s approval rating barely budged.
According to the political site “Real Clear Politics” which averages all of the publically available presidential polls, the president’s approval rating as of early April stands at 43.7 percent with 52.8 disapproval. All polls included were completed after Attorney General William Barr released his summary letter. President Trump and his allies have claimed vindication in speeches and media appearances across the country. Yet for all polls averaged by RCP for the first two weeks of March, ten days prior to Barr’s announcement, presidential approval stood at 42.8 percent, less than a 1 percent change even after the president’s best media week in memory. Additional surveys through Wednesday (April 3) show the president holding steady at slightly over 42 percent.
The shutdown of the federal government lasted over a month, from December 22, 2018 until January 25 of this year. As noted, the president took incoming fire from all quarters as large majorities of Americans opposed the shutdown. Yet the average of 28 surveys taken during that time revealed presidential approval of 41.6 percent.
So the spread between the worst presidential news cycle and the very best ten days after the Barr announcement was 2.1 percent. Maybe the public isn’t paying attention. That would be troubling and unlikely, given the undeniable importance to the country of both stories. But maybe there’s something else involved. Maybe most Americans have already made up their minds about the president. The election outcome is unresolved, but these poll results offer important clues as to how each party will conduct their campaign efforts in the coming 20 months.
For the Republicans, their candidate is seeking reelection and reelections are always first about the incumbent. If the public likes the body of work, they will win. Most incumbents do win reelection, as have recent presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama. Losing incumbents were not selling what the public wanted. Jimmy Carter was a victim of oil embargos and hostages. George H. W. Bush was running at the end of a 12-year Republican cycle and voters were looking for change.
Trump’s approval numbers are not good. However, as the surveys indicate, he has a rock-solid base that will stick with him regardless of events and circumstances, and he begins the race with the largest group of supporters of anyone. He’s already indicated his intent to double down on tried and true issues to boost support from groups that strongly favor him, such as older white voters, gun owners, evangelicals, and Republicans. His campaign will seek to expand the electorate vertically, not horizontally. Look for a continued heavy emphasis on the threats from mass immigration and unbridled free trade. He is also counting on a strong economy and his conservative judicial selections as “promises fulfilled.” The campaign’s policy wonks will be dwarfed in number by micro targeters, bloggers, and social influencers.
Democrats face a strategic choice: Will they go for an expanded electorate horizontally, by appealing to moderate centrist voters or will they go vertically, and double down on the progressive activists that dominate the leadership of the party? All candidates will be making their “electability” case, but will have different tactical objectives and target voter groups depending on their strategic outlook.
Former VP Joe Biden leads early national surveys of Democrats and defeats the president in key battleground states. However, this may be the product of higher voter ID. His ideological opposite, Bernie Sanders, also does well in these states, though not as well as Biden. In a good development for Democrats, even the lesser-known candidates run well against the president.
Democrats have a bigger voter pool (50 percent plus of voters who disapprove of the president’s job performance) but bringing all such voters under one umbrella will be a challenge. No candidate is perfect and the reelect team will find weaknesses in whichever Democrat emerges. A race against a nameless Democrat will not be the same as one against a real candidate with strengths and weaknesses. Democrats need only look to the scars from the primary campaign in 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders that never fully healed. That opening allowed Trump to win a large number of voters who disapproved of him but disliked Clinton even more.
It says here that high propensity voting centrists should be easier to win than lower intensity progressives. The Democratic candidates’ early focus on extra constitutional proposals such as court packing (rejected even by Franklin Roosevelt Democrats) and the abolition of the electoral college, and out of the policy mainstream measures like reparations and abolishing private health insurance, will make it more difficult for Democrats to ultimately win moderate voters looking for a change of direction, but not a constitutional rewrite. Past successful national Democrats (Carter, Clinton, Obama) have combined soaring rhetoric for reconciliation and a better future with enough specific policy proposals aimed squarely at making life better for the crucial middle class who feel squeezed by economic circumstance. Such voters might also be looking for a candidate that offers more cooperation rather than confrontation.
A majority of Americans will be open to looking at the out party’s candidate and promises. Democrats will argue for a change in direction. Republicans will contend the Democrats’ change is too radical. Voters will be hearing it all—for the next twenty months.
Frank Donatelli, a senior advisor at McGuireWoods Consulting in Washington, served in the Reagan White House as an assistant to the President for political and intergovernmental affairs. He was deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee during the 2008 presidential campaign of John McCain.
So the spread between the worst presidential news cycle and the very best ten days after the Barr announcement was 2.1 percent. Maybe the public isn’t paying attention. That would be troubling and unlikely, given the undeniable importance to the country of both stories. But maybe there’s something else involved. Maybe most Americans have already made up their minds about the president. The election outcome is unresolved, but these poll results offer important clues as to how each party will conduct their campaign efforts in the coming 20 months.
For the Republicans, their candidate is seeking reelection and reelections are always first about the incumbent. If the public likes the body of work, they will win. Most incumbents do win reelection, as have recent presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama. Losing incumbents were not selling what the public wanted. Jimmy Carter was a victim of oil embargos and hostages. George H. W. Bush was running at the end of a 12-year Republican cycle and voters were looking for change.
Trump’s approval numbers are not good. However, as the surveys indicate, he has a rock-solid base that will stick with him regardless of events and circumstances, and he begins the race with the largest group of supporters of anyone. He’s already indicated his intent to double down on tried and true issues to boost support from groups that strongly favor him, such as older white voters, gun owners, evangelicals, and Republicans. His campaign will seek to expand the electorate vertically, not horizontally. Look for a continued heavy emphasis on the threats from mass immigration and unbridled free trade. He is also counting on a strong economy and his conservative judicial selections as “promises fulfilled.” The campaign’s policy wonks will be dwarfed in number by micro targeters, bloggers, and social influencers.
Democrats face a strategic choice: Will they go for an expanded electorate horizontally, by appealing to moderate centrist voters or will they go vertically, and double down on the progressive activists that dominate the leadership of the party? All candidates will be making their “electability” case, but will have different tactical objectives and target voter groups depending on their strategic outlook.
Former VP Joe Biden leads early national surveys of Democrats and defeats the president in key battleground states. However, this may be the product of higher voter ID. His ideological opposite, Bernie Sanders, also does well in these states, though not as well as Biden. In a good development for Democrats, even the lesser-known candidates run well against the president.
Democrats have a bigger voter pool (50 percent plus of voters who disapprove of the president’s job performance) but bringing all such voters under one umbrella will be a challenge. No candidate is perfect and the reelect team will find weaknesses in whichever Democrat emerges. A race against a nameless Democrat will not be the same as one against a real candidate with strengths and weaknesses. Democrats need only look to the scars from the primary campaign in 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders that never fully healed. That opening allowed Trump to win a large number of voters who disapproved of him but disliked Clinton even more.
It says here that high propensity voting centrists should be easier to win than lower intensity progressives. The Democratic candidates’ early focus on extra constitutional proposals such as court packing (rejected even by Franklin Roosevelt Democrats) and the abolition of the electoral college, and out of the policy mainstream measures like reparations and abolishing private health insurance, will make it more difficult for Democrats to ultimately win moderate voters looking for a change of direction, but not a constitutional rewrite. Past successful national Democrats (Carter, Clinton, Obama) have combined soaring rhetoric for reconciliation and a better future with enough specific policy proposals aimed squarely at making life better for the crucial middle class who feel squeezed by economic circumstance. Such voters might also be looking for a candidate that offers more cooperation rather than confrontation.
A majority of Americans will be open to looking at the out party’s candidate and promises. Democrats will argue for a change in direction. Republicans will contend the Democrats’ change is too radical. Voters will be hearing it all—for the next twenty months.
Frank Donatelli, a senior advisor at McGuireWoods Consulting in Washington, served in the Reagan White House as an assistant to the President for political and intergovernmental affairs. He was deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee during the 2008 presidential campaign of John McCain.
1b) The Case for Trump and a Look at 2020
The Case for Trump by the political and military scholar Victor Davis Hanson is a book dedicated to the "Deplorables." It is a fact-based analysis of why Donald Trump was able to win the presidency in 2016. Beyond that, Hanson sat down with American Thinker and discussed the presidential election in 2020.
Donald Trump ran against both political parties and the East Coast establishment in the 2016 presidential election. He was the first man ever elected to the nation's highest office without prior experience in government, politics, or the military. In a nutshell, Trump appealed to a forgotten but sizable portion of the population: the working and middle classes most negatively impacted by decades of globalism. Through direct quotes from various individuals on both sides, Hanson makes a powerful case that the elite of both parties hold immense disdain for these middle Americans.
Hanson told American Thinker, "He was not supposed to win. With the victory, he interrupted sixteen years of a planned progressive agenda. This election was a referendum on prior credibility. His victory meant all those who were consulted in the past would be isolated because Trump was not necessarily going to listen to those in the World Bank, the Brookings Institution, Hoover Institution where I work, and the Council on Foreign Affairs, nor was he going to call past presidents for advice. This was an affront to the entire political establishment."
Before Trump, Republicans and conservatives usually did not take the initiative, nor did they go on the offense. "Trump did just the opposite. His aggression was very popular among the frustrated Republican voters. They did not want a John McCain or a Mitt Romney whose often passive attitude they saw as a cancer. McCain had ignored attacking Reverend Wright and his outrageous comments, while Romney never really objected to what 'moderator' Candy Crowley did in the second debate. Conservative voters were ready for someone who fights back. They might not like all Trump's wild comments and tweeting, but they thought Trump's combative attitude was worth it."
Hanson went on to explain that many voters saw Trump as authentic. Regardless of what audience he was speaking to, he always wore a suit and a tie. "He never adopted a southern accent when speaking to voters in that region as Hillary Clinton did, or changed his tone when speaking to the inner city as Barack Obama had, or wore jeans and a flannel shirt at state fairs as Joe Biden did. Even though he is a multibillionaire, people found Trump more authentic and empathetic. For example, after Hillary Clinton said she wanted to shut down the coal industry, he went into West Virginia and said he loved the 'big and beautiful coal.' He also gives straight answers, not the 50-50 type, such as 'on the one hand, in theory, maybe we will take a look at that, that is a good question to explore.'"
Fast-forwarding to 2020, Hanson believes that Trump's track record is pretty good. He is creating economic opportunity through growth, redressing longstanding trade inequities, reducing costly and poorly conceived overseas entanglements, cutting red tape that restricts business activity, and restricting illegal immigration that threatens wage growth.
Regarding Beto O'Rourke, Hanson believes that his strange background will come back to haunt him in the Democratic primaries. "The image he did not want to convey is that he is from a very wealthy white family. He had used privilege and influence as a young man to get ahead, mostly getting off from serious punishment after a DUI and apparently not charged to the fullest extent for burglarizing a warehouse. He wrote grotesque stories about killing children, ate dirt, and played a trick on his wife by supposedly putting feces in her bowl. There seems something sick, mean, weird, and sinister about all of these. Regarding his policies, he has a hard-left agenda now. He never says anything concrete about an issue, almost like he is mindlessly vague. I think the more people know about O'Rourke, the less they will like him."
His prediction is that Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris will get the Democratic nomination. "Trump will be running against one of these candidates. The issues they are running on are pretty radical, and they do not have the support of 51% of the electorate. Trump can say, 'You may find my tweets crass or crude, but I am the only thing between you and socialism.' The Democratic candidates are in an echo chamber competing to be the one furthest left."
Hanson makes a good point, considering even anti-Trumper and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg recently said this: "Joe Biden went out and was essentially apologizing for being male, over 50, and white," and "Beto, or whatever his name is, he virtually apologized for being born affluent and white." He also bashed the Democratic policies: "We need a healthy economy, and we shouldn't be embarrassed by our capitalist system. If you want to look at the record of a system that is non-capitalistic, just take a look at what was perhaps the wealthiest country in Latin America, and today, people are starving to death. It's called Venezuela." He went on to say, "I'm a little bit tired of listening to agendas that are pie-in-the-sky that are never going to pass into law, never going to afford. I think it's just disingenuous to promote those things as if they are serious issues. You've got to do something that's practical."
Will Trump win in 2020? Hanson thinks he has a very good chance. "The Democrats are against the extra oil produced since 2016, the Keystone Pipeline, and the traditional judges appointed. They will run on issues such as a 90% tax rate, outlawing combustible engines, wanting reparations, radical abortion, abolishing ICE, and abolishing the Electoral college. In addition, a lot of Latinos where I live, in Central California, do not like the Catholic-bashing by liberals and the effects of thousands of illegal immigrants suddenly in their schools. Also, the monotonous white-bashing is not popular among the working-class white electorate. Most of those caricatured are of the working class that do not have white privilege. For example, a truck-driver working twelve hours a day has very little in common with a Malibu homeowner."
He predicts that Trump will draw from the traditional Democratic base that includes 40% of the Hispanic vote and 40% of the Jewish vote. "About half of the base of the Democratic Party is anti-Semitic and at least half of the party likely also does not like Israel. Progressives talk recklessly about Israel as evil even though there are 100 other nations in the world, and dozens that are disasters. The Left only bashes Israel because it is a Jewish state and so they are basically saying, 'I don't like Jews.'"
In reading the book, people understand why Trump won, and Hanson also explains the reason he thinks Trump will win again: "the Democrats, who have alienated the middle classes," would need to get "95% of the black vote, 75% of the Asian vote, 75% of the Hispanic vote, and 70% of the Jewish vote. I do not think that will happen." As they say, from his words to G-d's ears.
The author writes for American Thinker. She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Pre-election Observation: Say No To The Generals - Civilians Superior On
Critical DecisionsBy Dr. Aaron Lerner
There is nothing more frustrating for senior brass than to sit there and
listen to some civilian challenge their recommendations - or even worse
propose an alternative. And it is understandable.
Behind the scenes the IDF is carrying out incredible operations that the
brass is confident would humble the civilians to silence if only the shroud
of secrecy could be lifted.
Unfortunately, the IDF brass fails to appreciate that the ability to
successfully plan and execute special operations doesn't give them a
monopoly on smarts when it comes to the bigger picture.
A reminder:
The greatest achievement of the Second Lebanon War - Operation Specific
Gravity - was thanks to the insistence of civilian DM Amir Peretz who
overruled all the brass who thought he was an idiot for ordering that the
IAF destroy the Fajr Rockets threatening Tel Aviv before they could be
repositioned by Hezbollah. The brass wanted to start by pounding Lebanese
infrastructure.
Hear Peretz describe the decision in his own words:https://youtu.be/SM_LMb10qsQ
And it is worth listening to it as he describes the pressure he faced from
the brass.Just a few of the many other instances that the brass was incredibly wrong:
- Civilian Begin vs. the brass on developing and deploying Israeli spy
satellites.
- Civilian Begin vs. the brass on the need to destroy (and the ability to
destroy) the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.
- Civilian Yuval Steinitz vs. the brass on the need to destroy the Syrian
nuclear reactor in 2007.
And of course - we would not be on the Golan today if the civilian
leadership had bowed to the continuous vocal lobbying by the brass for the
Jewish State to trade the Golan for gizmos and a piece of paper.
To be clear: our nation owes its great respect and appreciation to the the
leadership of the IDF, past and present - including the generals heading
Blue and White - for the many bold and heroic operations that they lead.
Appreciate.Yes.Hand them the keys?Absolutely not!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)Barack Obama is stuck in the past. He represents the old Democratic party
The former president says he’s worried about ‘purity’ tests in the Democratic party. What he’s really worried about is his surrogates losing control of the party
Barack Obama is worried about the Democratic party. This weekend, he told a crowd at an Obama Foundation event in Berlin that the party is becoming a “circular firing squad” targeting those “straying from purity” on certain issues.
Leading figures around the party have indeed moved to the left since he left office two years ago. Thanks in no small part to the Bernie Sanders campaign and the rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Medicare for All, free public higher education, a $15 minimum wage, and action on climate change have become mainstream positions.
The self-described “political mainstream” hasn’t caught up to this new reality, however. Obama’s former vice-president, Joe Biden, hasn’t announced his presidential candidacy yet, and is getting attacked not just for his behavior toward women but for a decades-long record that includes support for military interventions, mass incarceration, immigrant deportations, and more. The subtext of Obama’s remarks is this undermining of Biden.
Are things getting meaner? Maybe, the internet is a pretty terrible place. But few campaign seasons were more vitriolic than the 2008 Democratic primaries. Hillary Clinton called Obama “elitist and out of touch”, who couldn’t reach “hard-working Americans, white Americans”. For his part, Obama campaign’s negative ads about Clinton were recirculated by Trump in 2016.
By comparison, Bernie played softball in 2016. But he certainly gave voice to grassroots anger. People are fed up with the status quo, and they’re starting to demand more of their politicians. Incumbents used to moving to an imaginary center are running up against the fact that their “center” is an illusion. When most Americans support Medicare for All and a jobs guarantee, when they want an end to overseas wars, welcome unions, and even are starting to get comfortable with the idea of socialism, is it really “centrist” to stubbornly oppose all these things?
Of course, Obama retorts, “You have to recognize that the way we’ve structured democracy requires you to take into account people who don’t agree with you, and that by definition means you’re not going to get 100% of what you want.” But the real problem the Democrats faced in 2016 wasn’t that they were too strident in putting forward a purist progressive vision. Rather, Clinton ran a campaign mostly about shielding Americans from the nightmare of Trumpism and not presenting dreams for the future. When people say they have been falling behind for the last 30 years and your retort is: “I can fix that, I’m experienced, I’ve been in politics for 30 years,” you might end up losing an election.
This primary, Sanders and Warren are actually giving people a positive, comprehensible agenda to vote for, one that can speak to the justified rage of so many who are not willing to settle for a world destroyed by climate change, another year without basic healthcare, or continued precarious employment feel. For Obama, “We have to be careful in balancing big dreams and bold ideas with also recognizing that typically change happens in steps.” But incrementalism during the Obama years was small steps to nowhere, ones that far from cementing a new progressive majority actually helped open the door to the populist right.
Obama says that “if you skip too many steps you end up having bad outcomes”, but we’re now seeing what happens when you go into a negotiation – like he did with the health insurance companies – with an already compromised position. Bernie says “Medicare for All” and he means it, but even if you only wanted a public option, wouldn’t that be a better position to start from anyway?
Like those who think “Uncle Joe” Biden is our only way to stop Trump, Obama is stuck in the past. The Democratic party has been transformed. Formerly fringe ideas are now winning ones. Obama and the centrist Democrats he backs are something like the old “Rockefeller Republicans” of the 70s and early 80s. They didn’t realize how out of step with the times they were until it was too late.
Like Reagan did in 1980, the stage is set for Bernie Sanders to fundamentally realign the Democratic party, wielding together a coalition that can unite working people across the country behind a social democratic agenda for jobs and justice. Barack Obama isn’t afraid of that kind of Democratic party losing to Trump. He’s afraid of it winning.
No comments:
Post a Comment